ML20195F034

Responds to Which Requested NMSS Review & Comment on Various Waste Classification Documents.People Against Radioactive Dumping of Needles,Ca Proposal Contains Listed Major Features

ML20195F034
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/07/1999
From:	Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Mount D External (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20195F038	List: ML20195F034
References
RULE-PR-61-MISC NUDOCS 9906140168
Download: ML20195F034 (4)

Text

E

,4 4. .

ft%ql l

[ k UNITED STATES g j

j. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 i

l

' \ g g l* . June 7, 1999

! .Mr. Dana Mount, Chairman .

l Southwestem Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission 601 North Seventh Street

! MS 396 l

P.O. Box 942732

. Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 l

Dear Mr. Mount:

I am writing in response to your letter of March 1,1999, to me in which you requested our review

' and comment on various waste classification documents. You noted that members of the public have raised waste classification issues at meetings of the Southwestem Compact Commission l

from time to time. Because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has authority and

. jurisdiction over classification of low-level radioactive waste (LLW), you asked that we review the materials enclosed with your letter and respond before the next meeting of the Compact

~ Commission on June 11,1999.

The materials you asked us to review advocate revisions to the current LLW classification system contained in our regulations in 10 CFR Part 61. The principal document is a proposed revision to the State of Califomia's Radiation Protection Act of 1988 prepared by People Against Radioactive Dumping (PARD) of Needles, Califomia. The package also contained two letters

from a private citizen, and excerpts from several publications, all recommending a change to the current system. Our comments are principally on the revisions proposed by PARD to the Califomia law. We have not conducted an exhaustive review of the proposal, but instead have focused on the major concepts and assumptions it contains.

l The PARD proposal contains the following major features: j e it invents a term not used in the radiation protection field, " decay life." " Decay life"is defined as twenty half-lives of a radioactive isotope that decays into a

. stable isotope. Half-life, a term commonly used in the radiation protection field, means the length of time it takes for one half of a radioactive isotope to decay. (

When radioisotopes decay into other radioisotopes (i.e., ' progeny), decay life means the sum of twenty times the half-lives of all of the radioisotopes in the decay chain.

V\

e  : it creates five new classes of radioactive waste, largely based on " decay life."  ;

Three categones have limits on decay life of 180 days, 30 years, and 100 years.

Another class is for potentially recyclable materials, and the last class is based on  ;

, a new definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW)/ materials, which includes  !

not only the existing HLW, but also all of the current LLW thm l"- - -"n '

the four new classes.. gM WI gg i

.. It defines specific types of storage facilities for each class of radioactive waste or  ;

materials. Three of them are " decay-in-storage" facilities, meaning that after a- '

9906140168 990607 i 'fT Sl PDR PR- h ~,_

61 MISC PDR .1

{1 4

s J.

D. Mount 2

• certain period of time, virtually all of the waste will have decayed and can be disposed of as ordinary trash (the proposal states that fully decayed material can be disposed of "according to law.")

. It asserts that unless radioactive materials and wastes are stored in the types of facilities defined in the proposal, there must be a finding of "significant" contamination of the environment. Thus it is a prescriptive regulation that states there is only one way to safely manage waste.

Our LLW classification regulations are contained in 10 CFR Part 61, the regulation that defines our requirements for land disposal of LLW. These requirements have been adopted by the State of Califomia. We classify wastes so that the controls used to prevent radiation exposures to people are commensurate with the hazard of the waste. These controls make up a system for the safe disposal of LLW in 10 CFR Part 61. They include siting criteria, design criteria for the facility and the waste form, and " institutional controls" to ensure that the facility will be monitored by the State or local govemment after it is closed to ensure that it is functioning as planned.

When we promulgated 10 CFR Part 61 in 1983, we published extensive documentation of the bases for its requirements in the draft and final Environmental impact Statements' (EIS). We also examined altemative approaches to those in Part 61 and what they would cost. Our EIS

- contains over 100 pages of analyses and assumptions on waste classification alone, supported by dozens of technical reports. There was no analysis of safety or attematives included with the PARD proposal.

Even without information on the bases for the proposal, we found provisions that conflict with law and good risk management practices. The approach focuses on " decay-life" of LLW, which is neither scientific nor risk-based, and does not comport with accepted intemational views on radiation protection. Risk to human health is a function of radiation dose, and the determination of risk depends on a variety of factors, including the type of radiation, the concentration of radionuclides in the medium in which they are present, the likelihood that barriers containing the radionuclides will be fully effective in containing the radionuclides, and the likelihood of exposure if the radiation is not fully contained. The half-life of a particular radionuclide may also be a factor, but it is not controlling. " Decay-life" is derived from half-life, but is not controlling in determining risk for the same reasons. ,

Under th& PARD proposal, most current LLW would be reclassified as HLW, because its " decay-life" would be in excess of 100 years. If the State were to adopt such a classification system and the attendant storage provisions that go along with it, Califomia would not be fulfilling the provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).

Under that Act, Califomia is responsible for providing for disposal capacity for this LLW. 5 proposed changes to the Califomia Radiation Protection Act provide only for the storage N ine 3

Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement on 10.CFR Part 61

• Licensing Requirements for Land Chaposal of Radioactive Weste, NUREG-0782 and 0945, September 1981 and November 1982, respectively.

p. ,

l j I

t. D. Mount -3 I

L newly classified,HLW, and do not address its disposal. The LLRWPAA also defines LLW based on NRC's classification system, so any new system would be in violation of the law. Finally, the  !

proposed provisions are simply unnecessary for protection of public health and safety and the environment. LLW disposal facilities have been operating safely in this country under the l provisions of 10 CFR Part 61, including the waste classification, since its promulgation in 1983.

l l We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposal.

l

. Sincerely,  ;

l.

' John Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management l

l Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I-i j

l l-1 l i

i i i l )

I i

! l l

i 2

I l

.