ML20154S057

Discusses Review of Washington Final Regs Wa 246-249-090

ML20154S057
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/29/1998
From:	Salomon S NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
Shared Package
ML20154S044	List: ML20154S040 ML20154S057
References
NUDOCS 9810270287
Download: ML20154S057 (4)

Text

.

~

e{ BACKGROUND':I'NFORMATION FOR OSP FILES y . . ,

\

DATE: September 29,1998 [

p .,

iNOTE TO: FILE ;g ,

~

FROM: ' Stephen N. Salomon, OSP

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF WASHINGTON FINAL REGS -

1. WA 246-249-090 l- (4). Information requirements L (c) Disposal container and waste information l (iv) " stabilization". added l; -(e)~ (ii)(B) ditto (ii) (D) ditto Stabilization is added to wording cempared to Part 20, Appendix G., l.C.9 and E.2(c) and (d).

Mike Elsin, Washington Division of Radiation Protection, said that the distinction is in the license.

L  : Washington had it in the old rule, it applies to all the generators in the States that dispose at Hanford (See attachment). : Approved stabilization agents are, e.g., US ECOLOGY, Aztec, Bitumen.1 All Class B and C LLW must be stabilized. Class A must be solidified.

L Mark Haisfield, NMSS, said in manifest,' Note 3 requires -S after solidification if stabilization is used; S stands for Stabilization. ' Also, because "if any" is used there appears to be no idifference.

Dick Bangart said that Category B means that if there is no practical difference between NRC

, and A/S licensees.

1 L . . .

Conclusion:

Although the LLW manifest is Category B and WA uses identical language except for " stabilization" is added, there is no practical difference between NRC and A/S licensees.

Therefore the reg is determined to meet the Category B designation.

2. The word, " structures" is omitted from the definition in " land disposal facility." According to he

statement of consideration for Part 61 amendment (attached), States who have already selected a disposal technology and adopted a more narrow regulatory definition of " land disposal facility" to reflect that selected technology, will not be required to amend their regulatory definition. The Washington LLW facility falls within the scope of Part 61. :Therefore the definition meets the

" Category B designation.

4 i

c i

9810270287 981013 PDR STPRO E80WA W

.PDR ]

~u , _ , _ , __ _,

C

. PART 61 e STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION assumed that for EW disposal facihties this commenter's perspectin, by manner in which by wwo dmloped.

- f proposing b changes to authorias the The commenter argued that NRC abould to meetC,thebm.m subpast t wouldobjectives han to be an in use of abowground disposal.NRC la dmlop the technical requirements for integrated i,..fo. esos of all of b promoting an unproven and above-ground dis disposal system com ents (i.e.the questionably safe disposal technology, this rulemaking. posal now, as part of

=g,gg.g=. go:g,= ,

Resome R-po-clost

• of the fedli Each component The structum of part 61is that all ne NRC continues to support its of t' a disposal system would make land disposal fadlities must meet the earlier decision not to issue technical ecue particular contribution to the Ewformance objectives of subpart C. critwia for above-ground disposal with containment or isolation of the waste, Tne subpart C performance objectives this rulemaking. While some States have albeit dependent upon the pasticular are the safety objectives, intended to considered abowground disposal, no design. As an integrated system the Protect the general population from State has actually decided to build such components would workwith each releases of radioactivity, to protse a facility.Dus.NRC may not even other to protect the public health and individuals from inadvatent intrusion, receive an application to license an safety.This assumption applies to any and to protect individuals during abovmund indlity.nenfore,NRC EW dispoes! facility, whether it is in facility operations.no license believes that it is a more ofBdent une of the ground or eks md. As noted in appucation for any EW land disposal NRC moources to develop technical b Statement of Conalderations for the facility must demonstrate mmphance criteria when bro are actual plans for proposed rule, technical criteria, with tness objectives. If NRC received a en above-ground fadlity rether than analogous to those presently in 10 CFR licours application for an aboveground speculate at this time as to how such a pa't 61 but specific to abonground facility,NRC would perform a safety facility miaht be designed.

disposal,do not exist.Nor is the NRC evaluation as a nocusary part of the Altliougli b decision to defer ,

providing either technical criteria or licensing rocess to determineif the development of the technical criteria for )

guidance for aku -d disposal required rformance objedives would an abowground disposal fedli y will designs in this rulemaking. It is be fulfill NRC's analysis and introduce eome uncertainty into the ,

expected that should NRC recmive an evaluation for such a facihty would be licensing process, b Commiselon does application for above-ground disposal, based on alte specific information and not believe that this deferral will criteria will be developed on a case-by. data obtained during the limasing substantiallyinterfere with the I case basis, process to assese compliance with b development of a license application for in any mee,whether en EW facility Perfor:nana ob}ectives. Additionally,in such a fedlity or the NRC review of le in the ground or above ground. It wll! accordance with 10 CFR 51.60(a), the such a license opplication. As noted have to meet the part 61 performance NRC will papan an EIS for the facility pmvlously, the performance objectives objectives to be licensed for EW as it is requimd to do for any EW of subpart C must still be met. and

[ disposal. and performance assessments will evaluate tne interactions of the efte, dis facility license issued under 10 furthermore, the near-surface disposal part 61. requirements currently in $ 61.50

\'

dwip, etc., to determine if they will luue: Lock of TechnicalRegulisments 5 61.51, and $ 61.52 may be useful to a moultin a esfe fedlity, for AbowGround Dsposal-Mor, Powntial limnes applicant in preparing ComplicatedIlcensing Process a limnee application for an abow lesue:NRCPromotion and Questionably Safe sposa o an Unftoven De two commenters who objected to TecisnoloCY the proposed tulo also ob)ected because issue: Increased Regulatory Uncertainty ne publicheahh and safety it did not contain technient for AbowGround Dsposal implications of the proposed action requirements for ekn -d disposal. ne consulting company a reened were also a major concern to the Part 61 contains detaileftechnical conewn thatif an6 A reement7 tate consulting company.That commenter requirements specifically for near- receivn an applienuon for abow objected to the pro rule on the surface disposal fedlities but no ground disposal and NRC has not grounds that the C could not ensure equivalent technical regulaments for developed technical requirements, b that the public heahh and safety would abowground facilities are present in Agreement State will have to develop its be protected because the Agency had b exi own technical requirements which not evaluated the safety of an above- proposed part ugh61,thenor won any %e rulemaking. could be different from those developsd ground disposal facility over the 500 commentero maintain that itis not by another Agreement State or the yeare during which bre would be a desirable to promulgate a rule extending NRC. ne commenter's view is t the radiological hasard at such a facility. the applicability of Part 61 to abow differences in requimments could raise The commenter also asserted that the ground disposal facilities without issues that would ultimately have to be i NRC had not demonstreted through the appropriate technical guidance. ruolved by NRC or by the counts.

I proposed rule that en overall disposal The musulting company also objected system of such a design could, with to the proposed rule because the 3HPonse

, reasonable assurance,mwt the commenter believes that NRC's NRC recognismo that different States performance objectives of subpart C, as intentions to develop technical and the NRC might utilise different such a facility would be required to do r*quimments after an application is technical criteria appropriate to the before an EW license could be granted. received would increase uncertainty particular daign pro to them.We in addition, the commenter stated that and complicate, rather than simplify. NMC will provide see to the i

above-ground dipposal technology was the limasing process.ne commenter extent practial to facilitate States' not specifically evaluated in the stated that developing the requimments efforts in developing and utilizing

. Environmental 1mpact Statement (EIS) at the same time a license application is criteria. In any case, s.s noted previously for the existing part 61 and noted that under review would thelimnse by the Commision, b performana

- no additional essessment was o5ered as review to undesired d to about the objectives of sub C must still be met.

j part of the proposed rulemaking. From edequacy of the regulations and the Any differences technical approachu

(

i f

81-SC-7 September 29,1995 4

. ~

PART 61 o STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION within the context of the purpose and land" have been deleted to eliminate disposal and above ground disposal, to scope of10 CFR 60.1.This section confualon regarding the kinds of emphastas that near-surface LLW ap lies to a ogic topository that is indlities to which thoes terms ap y, disposal fadlities built partially or on licen the U.S. Department of he word "structuree"has been a ded totally above-grade have protective Energy (DOE)in accordance with the since that term better describes the earthen mvns, while similar fadlities Nuclear Weste Policy Act of1982. types of engineered features likely to be constructed without earthen covers are Moreover, $ 60.1 spectScally states that constructed at an above ground LLW considered to be " aboveground part so "does not a ly to any activity die facill .He Commission dis facilities."

licensed under an r of this be eyes the de8nition is not a is not providin either technical chapter " Therefore, a llow land substantive change but a modiacation to criteria or guidance above ground burial facility licensed under part 61 simp fy the dennition so that it is easier disposal designs with bee would not come within the sco of toun erstand. amendments. It is e ed that, should

$ 60.1, but instead would at wi the At this time, the NRCis not issuin NRC recoin an app cation for above-i, scope ofpart 61.The staff concludes spedSc technical criteria for above. g ground disposal, critwis will be ;l that no chan6e is required to the second 8round disposal fadlities that are develo on a ceae-bpcase basis. l, sentence in the danniuon for" land H. lace the term ' ty control di fadlity"in part 61 to address analogous to the near-surface monts of $$ 61.50(a),61.51 a), disp g

(osal"in $ 61.12(j) th the term j ,'

th developer's comment. an 61.52(a) of su D because of the 11 assurance program, tailored to l Based on the analysis of ublic e al technical cleristics of sposal."%e purpose of this I comments and furthw e review, the n ground die facilldes. Only change is to clari what steps an sta5 has this final rule. As those portions of a tion that applicant for an disposal facility ow, there are some a descri opp generimlly to d license must take in order to assure that editorial differencms between the faci ties" are directly appli le to the the facility will perform as intended,  !

proposed definition for " land disposal liconalng of abov und disposal and also to assure that the necessary l facility" and the definidon to be fad 11 ties. S S y, this means that records and documentation are avellable promulgated in the Anal rule. the overall rformance objectives of for evaluation an rmance subpart C 11epply oabove-ground assessment by NR or an Agreement macussion of the Revisions dis facilities, as}well as the partState 61 at the time oflicense submittal.

L Amend the definluon of" land a stratin and procedural Quality assurance is a broad twm that l disposal facility"in $ 61.2 to clari that requirements, the environmental encompasses quality control and also the term refers to LLW disposal fa lides monitoring requirements, the finandal includes managerial controls and audits, which are on or protrude through the assurance mquirements,the waste E. Revise $ 61.8 to indicate that b earth's surface and do not have an transfer and manifest requirements, and NRC requested and obtained OMB earthen cover, in addition to thou that the powel institutional requimments. approval for b informatlan collection

/ sre in the ground and have an earthen Establishin the applicabllity of the requirements in part 61 Cader the OMB I' covw.The purpose of this chany is to subpart C rmance objectives to guidelines that wwe in effect when the clarify the regulatory applicabluty of above ground disposalis particularly original part 61 was lasued, OMB part 61 to the licensing of "above- important. Any applicant for a license approvalof the part 61information l ground" disposal designs like the for an above. ground disposal ladlity collection requirements was not

" abo ound vault."in particular, and under part 61 will have to demonstrate necessary because the regulation was the op cability of the performance to the NRC that the posed facility cted to affect less than to licensees, o vos of part 61 to these designs. can meet the same se requirements uently the OMB guidelines a definition of" land disposal and does limits that op y to any LLW changed, and part 61 was no longer facillt " offered in the proposed rule disposal facility that has an earthen exempt from the OMB e royal road

• and disposal facility" rneans the cover. no demonstration of compl!anos requirement. According ,NRC land, buildings, and pment which will have to addreas the uni are intended to be us for the disposal of the above-ground design,que thee features obtained the submitted part that OMB clearance 61 for is OMB myiew an of radioacuve wastes on the surface or technical considerations associst with required by b Paperwork Reduedon into b subeurface of the land. For those features, their potential health and Act.The purpose o'this change is to purposes of this Chapter, a ' geologic safety consequences, and recondle them update 5 61.8 oc t;orrectly reflect this reposito ' as defined in part 60 is not with the subpart C performance approvd.

consid a ' land disposal facilit *." ob vos. IV. Revise $ 61.80(1)(1) to identify the For the final rule, b wording o the von though some of the monts correct NRC headquarters recipient of definfuon of" land die sal facility" has in sub art D are on1 ppli e to near- copies of the annual report.

been modified slight) m the surfa disposal,th mmission still language of the pro osed definition in believes they would be useful to a Issue of Compatibility for Agreement order to better clari ht part 61 can be p pectivelicense applicant as States used by NRC to license above- d ance for lanning an above-ground .Under existing NRC licy and LLW disposal facilities.The fi al cility and t the NRC or Agnement guidelines,two of the anges adopted definition of land disposal roads " land States in the development of technical in this rulemakin would be matters of die 1 fedlity means the land, ents for such facilities, compatibilit for NRC A ment bu dings and structures, and ut ent o de further clarification States. The any to the de ition of which are intended to be und r e reg the applicability o 61 to land die osal fedlity in 561.2 is a disposal of radioactive wastes.For thelicensingof abovegroun sposal matter o Division I compatibility, and i purposes of this Cheptw. a " geologic fedlities NRCalsois amendin the the "QC" to "QA" change in l 81.12(j) l repository" as defined in part 60 is not " Disposal Facility" discussion the is a matter of Division Il compatibility. I considered a " land disposal facility."in Concepts Section-41.7. The change to This means that those Agreement States

,. the final definition, b words "on the $ 61.7(a)(1) clarifles the distinction that have assumed NRC's to surface orinto the subsurface of the made by the NRC between near-surface authority for the disposal o W der 61 SC 9 September 29,1995 j

m

. i,

• l ,

~

PART 61 o STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION sodion 274 of the Atomic Energy Act Room 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), that a backAt analysis is not required for (AEA) of 1954, as amended, normally Washington, DC Single copies of the this Analrulebecausethese I would be required to incorporate b environmental asessament and the amendments do not involve any new de8nition of" land disposal Anding of no sign 18 cant impact are provisions which would impose back8ts facility" essentially verbatim directly available from Mark Hals8 eld OfBoo of as deBned in to GR 50.109(a)(1).

into their State regulations for LLW Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S.

dispoest However, States who have 1.let of $ubjects la te GR Part 61 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, already selected a disposal technology Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) Crirninal penalty, Low lowl waste, and adopted a more narrow regulatory 492-3677. Nuclear materials, Reporting and deRaition of" land die facilit "to recordkeeping requirements, Weste moect that selected t ology,wfll not P8Perwork Redoction Act Statement taetment and disposal be requimd to amend their regulatory his anal rule dom not contain a new For the reasons set out in the de8mition to conform to this mvision, or amended information collection preamble and under the authority of the provided the selected technology falls requirement sub}ect to b Paperwork Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, within the scope of 10 CFR part 61 and Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C 3501 b Energy Reorganisation Act of 1974.

the dennition is not inconsistent with et seq.). Existing requirements were as amended and 5 U.S.C 552 and 553, the NRC deBaltion, approved by the Omco of Management the NRCis ado the following De incorporation of the Division Il and Budget, approval number 3150- amendments to 10 part 61, change is also required; however, the 0135.

[g",*h, *

on I by 'F I'8"I*I*'I A"*II'I' Division Il change, b language adopted The Commieston has pro a need not be identical to the NRC regulatory analysis on this al 56 FR 52406 regulations, but the effect cannot be less regulation.b analysis examines the Published 10/6/93 stringent, alternettves considered by b Effective 11/6/93 Besed on the existing guidelines, the Commission and explains the decision changes would have to be incorporated to revise part 61.The analysis is Whistleblower Protection for within 3 years after this Snal rule is avalleble for inspection in the NRC Employees of NRC-Ucensed Activities issued. Publje Document Room,2120 L Stmet NW. (Lower IAvel), Washington, DC. see Part 19 statements of consideration.

Flading ofNo Sign 18 cant Environmentallmpact: AvaHabuuy

%e Commission has determined ta k fi d (30 492-3677, under the National Environmental Policy Act of1969 as amended, and the Regulatory Flexibility Certl8 cation ,56 ub shed 10/22/93 Commission's regulations in subpart A As required by the Regulatory of10 CFR part 51, that this rule is not Flexibility Act of1960,5 U.S.C 605(b), whistleblower Protection for )

a major Federal action signl8cantly the Commieston certifies that this rule Employees of nac.ticensed Activities:

affecting the quality of the human does not have a significant economic correction environment and, therefore, an impact on a substantial number of small environmental impact statement is not entitles. De changes made to part 61 in See Part 19 Statements of Consideration required.Three of the proposed this rule will only affect those entitles ch a " quality control" to that decide to apply for a license to ty assurance" change in $ 61.12(J), build and operate an LLW die,posal e update of the Paperwork Reduction facility. In the Low IAvel Realoective Act Statement in $ 61.6, and the Weste Policy Act of1960 (LIJtWPA) 56 FR 67657 correction of the organizational and b Low IAvel Radioactive Weste Published 12/22/93 inconsistency in 5 61.60(i)(1) are the Policy Amendments Act of1965 '""** * /'d types of actions described in catesorical (LLRWPAA), Congress mandated that Standards for Protection Against exclusion $ 51.22(c)(2). As such tiiey are the individual States or groups of States Radiation; Semoval of Expired Material considered by b Commission to be called compacts should provide the corrective and nonsubstantive in nature LLW disposal capacity for the LLW su Port 20 statements of Consideration and will not have an impact on the generated within each of their borders.

environment.%e remaining changes. Thus the licensees for LLW disposal which clarify the applicabihty of part 61 facilities will either be States or private to b licenslng of above-ground LLW operators which are n at small entitles disposal, also will not have an impact under the size standards established by on the environment in that these the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 60 FR 15649 amendments do not change the required November 6,1991 (56 FR 56671). In Published 3/27/95 level of overell performana for LLW addition,this rule will not have a EMeche 3/1/98 disposal facilities. Furthermore, any signl8 cant economic impact because the tow tevet waste sh,pment uan,fest environmental impact of operating such changes to part 61 are clarifying in information and Reporting a facility will be addressec as a part of nature, and only a small number of the licensing action for that specine licensees are likely to be affected. See Port 20 statements of Consideration facility under to CPR part 51.The environmental assessment and Anding Backfit Analysis of no significant impact on which this  % NRC has determined that the determination is based are evallable for backat rule,10 CF1t 50.109, does not inspection at the NRC Public Document apply to tble final rule, and themfore, September 29,1995 61 SC-10