ML20203C189
| ML20203C189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/26/1986 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203C187 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3, RTR-NUREG-CR-3774 NUDOCS 8604210040 | |
| Download: ML20203C189 (26) | |
Text
. _ . . _ .
9 '
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 61 STAFF REGULATORY POSITION STATEMENT ON LICENSING OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISPOSAL FOR LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE 4
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Proposed Regulatory Position Statement i
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff intends to answer licensing questions regarding the land disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and improve and simplify the licensing process. This statement provides answers to certain questions that have arisen regarding the applicability of 10 CFR Part 61 to near-surface disposal of waste, using methods that incorporate engineered barriers or structures, and other alternatives to conventional shallow land burial disposal practices. Also, there have been general requests for regulatory guidance on alternative disposal methods. The specific alternative methods of interest to the requesters, however, are undetermined, as is the type and extent of desired guidance. This statement notices a l recently published NRC contractor report which addresses the applicability of 10 CFR Part 61 to a range of reneric disposal concepts and which provides guidance that the staff intends to use for these concepts. To ensure prompt and meaningful regulatory guidance during the development of new disposal capacity for LLW, NRC staff encourages early and continuing interactions P604210040 860226 POW WASTE WM-3 pg
4
[7590-01]
between the NRC and other entities involved in efforts to develop or regulate new LLW disposal sites. Finally, this notice solicits the States and other interested persons to identify any additional alternative disposal methods that they may be considering, so that they can be included in NRC actions to fulfill the requirements of Section 8(a) of P.L.99-240, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
DATES: The comment period expires (60 days following publication date).
2 l
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Director, Division of Waste
{
Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of all comments received by the NRC may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. R. John Starmer, Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of,.
] Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (202) 427-4170.
I SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice provides technical guidance for licensing and regulation of alternative methods for near-surface land disposal l of LLW. The notice des:ribes general design concepts for several alternative disposal methods and discusses related licensing considerations. For the i
I
[7590-01]
purpose of this notice, alternative disposal methods are defined as disposal facility designs or disposal concepts whirk incorporate engineered barriers or structures, or otherwise differ from the pass and present methods of l
near-surface land disposal of LLW by shallow land burial.
With the enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of i 1985 (P.L.99-240), on January 15, 1986, the NRC is required, in consultation with the States and other interested persons, to identify methods for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste other than shallow land. burial, and establish and publish technical guidance regarding licensing of facilities that I use such methods. These actions are to be completed by January 1987. Further, i the Act requires that by January 1988, the NRC, again in consultation with the States and other interested persons, identify and publish all relevant technical information regarding such alternative disposal methods that must be provided to the Commission in order to pursue such methods. For the NRC to meet these statutory requirements in a timely manner, it must immediately hear from the States and other interested parties as to what additional alternatives should be identified, as licensing guidance must be developed and published over very short time frames. Alternatives identified after the comment period will be noted, but licensing guidance for them may not be available within the statutory time frames.
l l
4 .
[7590-01]
STAFF REGULATORY POSITION STATEMENT ON LICENSING OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISPOSAL FOR LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE A. INTRODUCTION i
This statement on alternative methods for land disposal of LLW is provided in response to the question of whether disposal methods employing engineered structures and barriers can be licensed under the existing requirements in 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste". The answer to the question is, "yes". This statement is further prompted by the receipt of general requests for guidance on alternative
! disposal methods. These requests, however, have been indefinite regarding the i
j disposal methods of specific interest, and the extent and type of regulatory l I
guidance desired. The NRC staff has met with a number of different State and Regional Compact officials over the past six nonths to discuss regulatory guidance needed for the development of new disposal sites. Such discussions will continue and we hope they will begin to focus more sharply on specific technical questions as States and Regional Compacts reach decisions on choice of disposal method. A major purpose of this statement is to provide guidance in response to requests received to date and to help ensure that States and Compacts are able to make timely decisions. The specific information contained in this statement is intended to:
i clarify the scope of disposal methods included within the meaning of the term "near-surface disposal";
i
[7590-01]
l !
l define the characteristics of alternative land disposal concepts considered to be within the framework of the existing regulatory l requirements in 10 CFR Part 61; provide general guidance regarding the various components of the disposal i system for alternative near-surface land disposal concepts which may present problems in light of the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61; i
encourage early and continuing interactions between potent.ial license applicants, the LLW disposal service industry, States, other government agencies, and the NRC regarding efforts to develop and regulate new disposal capacity for LLW; encourage design engineers, vendors, and prospective license applicants to submit detailed technical information on proposed disposal methods as far in advance of license application as possible; and encourage focus on the fewest possible approaches to ensure standaroization and resultant ability to use limited NRC resources most l
l effectively.
1 The NRC staff will apply existing licensing criteria, performance objectives, and most of the technical requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 to proposed alternative disposal methods employing engineered structures and barriers. The
4
[7590-01] l
)
i NRC staff believes it will be possible to complete reviews of disposal alternatives with an expectation of fully resolving the licensing questions that may arise in the review process provided that an adequate pre-licensing dialogue is established.
1 B. BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS l t
As a part of its work in developing 10 CFR Part 61 and its supporting l environmental impact statement, NRC conducted a study of alternative low-level l waste disposal methods. This was intended to help ensure that all viable .
disposal methods were considered and that the initial issuance of the regulation and subsequent amendments would be based on the disposal methods i
most likely to be used. The results of stu"es and public comments in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Part 61 led NRC to concentrate 1
its efforts to develop regulations on land disposal methods.
Land disposal methods readily divide into two categories: those that take place near the earth's surface and those that involve deeper disposal.
Near-surface disposal encompasses the full range of technology that can be applied to low-level waste disposal near the earth's surface; that is, shallow l land burial, deeper burial at depths up to 30 meters, and the use of engineered j structures, barriers, and other concepts, some of which may be partially above the surface.
I 1
~
l a
I
[7590-01]
-7 i
Specific requirements for deeper land disposal methods such as mined cavities, either natural or man made, were not considered in the initial rulemaking effort. This technology involves considerations for siting and facility design, operations, and closure which are sufficiently different from those for near-surface disposal, that certain technical requirements in Subpart D of 10 CFR Part 61 do not apply. Such methods were left to be addressed in action on a specific application, subsequent guidance, and rulemaking effort, if
)
rulemaking is warranted. It was also recognized that other disposal methods ;
such as hydrofracture and deep-well injection have been used (e.g., by the Department of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee). These two alternatives were not. l specifically addressed in the initial Part 61 rulemaking effort since they are ;
i 4
suited to a very narrow range of waste types and require specific geologic and '
bydrogeologic conditions. Consequently, they also were left to be addressed at a later time, if necessary. Mined cavity, hydrofracture, or deep-well injection disposal methods could, however, be sited and licensed on a facility-specific basis under existing regulatory provisions in Part 61.
C. POSITION STATEMENT
- 1. Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework established in 10 CFR Part 61 covers all phases of waste disposal from site selection through facility design, licensing, operations, closure, and post-closure stabilization, to the end of the period i
l
[7590-01]
of active institutional control. This framework of regulations establishes the procedures, criteria, terms, and conditions forming the basis upon which the NRC will issue and renew licenses for the land disposal of LLW.
Subparts of the rule c.<ering general provisions and procedural licensing aspects, as well as those subparts covering performance objectives, financial assurances, State aad Tribal participation, and records, reports, tests and )
l inspections apply to all methods of land disposal of LLW, both near-surface and l
at greater depths. The technical requirements in Subpart 0 are.specified only for near-surface disposal methods with reserved sections for other than near-surface. As discussed in Section 5, the NRC staff believes that, except l for the potential need to develop site specific alternative waste form and classification requirements, the technical requirements in Subpart D should l apply to alternative methods of near-surface disposal using engineered barriers or structures. These alternative methods include, for example, disposal by l 1
emplacement in below ground engineered vaults, partially above ground engineered vaults, earth-mounded engineered bunkers, lined shafts or boreholes, 1
caissons or pipes, and concrete-walled trenches. '
I
- 2. Evaluation of ?.lternative Disposal Methods This NRC staff position is guided by the background of knowledge and experience reflected in the rulemaking which culminated in the issuance of 10 CFR Part 61. l Both draft and final environmental impact statements for the rule address
[7590-01]
- ~~
_g-alternative disposal methods. Alternative disposal facility design and operating practices were also among the subjects covered in the background studies and information considered in the rulemaking, including " Evaluation of Alternative Methods for the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes" (NUREG/CR-0680), published in July,1979.1 l l
I I
Copies of NUREG/CR-0680 and NUREG/CR-3774 may be purchased through the i
U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to i i
the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC
)
i 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,
- Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or copying i
for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, j DC 20555.
l 1
1 2
[7590-01]
-~
l Since the publication of Part 61 in December 1982, the staff has continued to evaluate alternative disposal methods. A NRC contractor report prepared by the
! U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, entitled " Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes" (NUREG/CR-3774) was published in five volumes:
i l Volume 1, " Description of Methods and Assessment of Criteria," published April 1984, examined the applicability of 10 CFR Part 61 requirements--siting, design, operations and closure, and monitoring--to five generic design concepts for alternative disposal methods. The five design concepts are below ground vaults, above ground vaults, .
, earth-mounded concrete bunkers, mined cavities, and augered holes.
Volumes 2-5 published October 1985, provide a more detailed assessment of the applicability of existing criteria for near-surface disposal (Subpart D, 10 CFR Part 61) to four of the five alternative disposal l methods covered in Volume 1. The four methods covered in the reports were below ground vaults, above ground vaults, earth-mounded concrete bunkers, and shaft disposal. (Note that mined cavity disposal is being evaluated l but the work is incomplete at the present time.)
i
\
The authors concluded that the siting and site design, operations, closure, and
, monitoring criteria of Subpart D,10 CFR Part 61, should apply to the four 1
alternative disposal methods. The staff agrees with those conclusions, differing with the contractor's report on only a few minor interpretive points l
[7590-01]
~-
l
_ 11 of the regulation. The findings of these reports and clarification of the ways I
the criteria should be interpreted will be incorporated into future regulatory guidance. This guidance will be issued based on consideration of any specific j disposal alternatives that may be received for review, and analysis of i
i particular design features of the generic disposal concepts that have already been studied. Staff expects to issue the guidance as modifications to a standard format and content guide being prepared for shallow land burial applications under Part 61.
l The NRC basis for selecting the conceptual designs for first study by the Army Corps of Engineers was that each method appears to be under practical consideration by other coun: ries, U.S. agencies, or States. One of these concepts, mined cavities, does not appear to be under serious domestic consideration at this time. Further, as noted earlier, mined cavity disposal represents a significant departure from the experience, data and knowledge base i
used in formulating the requirements for Part 61. The NRC staff is currently evaluating the recommendations made by the Corps of Engineers regarding technical requirements for mined cavity disposal prior to publication of a separate volume of NUREG/CR-3774 on that disposal alternative.
While NRC has studied design concepts for alternative disposal methods, NRC cannot complete detailed design work or develbpmental research on new concepts or specific designs for facilities that would have the effect of establishing or developing their commercial potential. These activities are developmental
.__ __ _______-____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___._.___2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _
l
[7590-01]
rather than regulatory in nature and should be supported by the entities responsible for establishing new waste disposal capacity or, on the Federal level, by the Department of Energy. j l
i
- 3. General Guidance 1
Section 9 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 l
requires that, to the extent practicable, NRC complete all activities associated with the review and processing of any license application within 15 months of receipt of the application. The NRC is moving ahead to provide -
information which will help to ensure the timely review of low-level waste j disposal facility license applications. However, the NRC staff will also evaluate innovative di;sposal designs that might later be reflected in a license application. To promote timely regulatory decisions, designers, vendors, and prospective license applicants are encouraged to submit detailed technical information on proposed disposal facility designs in advance of formal license l application. This will permit NRC staff to evaluate fundamental safety and l
- performance aspects and provide pre-licensing guidance. However, such !
i information should only be suomitted when the designs are a part of a specific application being prepared, represent work sponsored by a potential applicant, or are based on some other type of commitment by a potential licensee. Advance review, and where feasible, approval of designs and related technical information can reduce considerably the time needed for license applicatior
, review.
[7590-01]
Designs for alternative disposal r.ethods should reflect both the benefits of significant research and development work, and the experience gained from waste disposal operations in the United States and other countries. It is anticipated that alternative disposal methods may offer an enhanced margin of protection for the public and the environment. If the alternative design is coupled with innovative operations (e.g., automated handling and emplacement) or more conservative waste forms, content, or packaging, it may also offer an enhanced margin of protection for workers. Tradeoffs on worker exposure, operations, and waste form should be factored into designing as indicated in Section 4 which follows. The NRC particularly encourages design innovations .
which increase safety and reliability and which generally are supported by a proven technology or one which can be demonstrated by a satisfactory technology development program.
Early review of facility design can be requested on an individual applicant basis. However, the NRC believes that there are advantages to standardized approaches to waste disposal. Standard disposal design features can benefit public and environmental protection by concentrating the resources of waste management engineers and vendors on particular approaches, and by stimulating standardized programs of construction practice and quality assurance. The use of standardized approaches and design concepts can also facilitate more effective and efficient licensing and inspection processes. To this end, staff plans to give higher priority and focus resources on those approaches which are of greatest interest to States. Therefore, the NRC staff strongly encourages
[7590-01]
industry and the States to pursue standardization in developing alternative waste disposal methods. Procedures for reviewing standard designs could be patterned after the procedures for reviewing standard designs for reactors in Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50.
The public should note that pre-application requests for.NRC review that also request approval by NPC involve fees. There are two ways for NRC to give approval. Both involve fees under 10 CFR Part 170. Requests that are suitable and submitted as Topical Reports involve a $20,000 fee. If the. request is not suitable and not submitted as a Topical Report, Part 170 requires full cost recovery as a Special Project (see 10 CFR 170.31, Item 12). Also see 10 CFR 170.11(b) which allows the Commission to consider exemptions from the fee requirements when consisteu. with law and the public interest.
The NRC intends, commensurate with its statutory responsibilities, to improve and simplify the licensing process and provide staoility and predictability in the regulation of new LLW disposal facilities. To help accomplish this objective, the NRC staff encourages the earliest possible interaction between potential license applicants, the waste disposal service industry, States, other government agencies, and the NRC. This should also serve to provide all' interested parties, including the public, with timely and objective assessments of the public and environmental protection aspects of proposed alternative waste disposal methods.
[7590-01]
- 4. Descriptions of Alternative Disposal Concepts Each of the design concepts described below has either been evaluated as a '
waste disposal alternative to shallow land burial or is currently being used or considered for that purpose in other countries. Descriptions of these design concepts are included here to help define the range of design characteristics considered to be within the framework of the existing regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 61. The concepts are described in more detail in NUREG/CR-3774.
- a. Below ground Vaults: The term below ground vault refers to any enclosed engineered structure built totally below the surface of the earth and used for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. No portion of the structure would protrude above the natural surface grade. A below ground vault could be fabricated from the engineering materials discussed below for above ground vaults. The vault could be built with engineered walls and roof; the floor could be natural soil or rock, treated soil or rock, or engineered materials. The vault, as an integrated structure, also has the characteristic of limited access to its interior space, such as a doorway or portal or hatch opening. Operational access to the vault from the surface may be in the form of an excavated ramp, which is built and then covered over at closure. During operations, however, the vault may have more extensive access, depending on its design. See Volume 2 of NUREG/CR-3774 for a more complete description of variations in conceptual design and operation of below ground vaults.
[7590-01]
b.
Above-ground Vaults: An above ground vault disposal unit is an engineered structure or building with floor, walls, roof, and limited access openings on a foundation near the ground surface. At least some portion of the structure would be above the final post-closure surface grade. The vault is built from engineered structural materials. Fabrication could be of masonry blocks, fabricated metal shapes, reinforced cast-in place or sprayed concrete, pre cast concrete, or plastic or fluid media molded into various solid shells. All of these materials have been used to construct vaults. There are no existing regulatory constraints en material selection or shape of the vault as long as it can be demcnstrated by the .
license applicant that the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61 can be achieved. See Volume 3 of NUREG/CR-3774 for a more complete description of variation in conceptual design and operation of above ground vaults.
- c. Earth-mounded Concrete Bunkers: The design of earth-mounded concrete bunkers may include features of trenches, below ground vaults, and earth mounds.
This disposal method may also rely on mandatory requirements on waste form or site operation, such as specialized packaging and encapsulation. The basic design of an earth-mounded concrete bunker currently used in France segregates wastes according to level of radioactivity. Wastes with higher levels of radioactivity are embedded in concrete below ground. Waste packages with lower levels of radioactivity are emplaced above ground at natural grade in earthen mounds (tumuli).
Thus, an earth mounded concrete bunker may involve both above ground and
[7590-01]
below ground construction, and may include waste encapsulation and backfilling with both concrete and earth. See Volume 4 of NUREG/CR-3774 for a more complete description of variations in conceptual design and operation of earth-mounded concrete bunkers, i l
- d. Shaft Disposal- The term shaft disposal refers to a near-surface disposal l
alternative in which wastes would be disposed of in shafts or boreholes augered, bored, or sunk by conventional construction methods. The shafts 1 could be lined or unlined and be of various sizes. Lining.could be of i
concrete, metal, or other suitable structural material. See Volume 5 of j i
NUREG/CR-3774 for a more complete description of variations in conceptual j 1
design, use, and operations of shaft disposal.
If specific disposal facility designs are brought to the NRC for evaluation, the NRC will provide pre-licensing guidance to help ensure that key issues will I
be identified and resolved prior to licensing and that NRC's regulatory i requirements are incorporated into the applicant's program. However,untti such time as detailed technical information on designs are submitted, the NRC staff believes that regulatory guidance must be sufficiently general to avoid placing unnecessary constraints on the development of new design concepts. The-nature of any new NRC regulatory requirements will be based on-the extent to which an individual proposed disposal design is shown to conform to the existing technical requirements of Part 61 or is compatible with meeting the 1
i
[7590-01]
l 1
performance objectives set out in Part 61 when combined with other components !
of the disposal system.
1 The following general guidance is provided for features and characteristics of i i various alternative disposal concepts which may present problems in l l demonstrating compliance with the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives. ;
t l
Requirements to reassess and potentially modify other components of the '
disposal system are also discussed. This guidance is intended to assist waste disposal engineers, license applicants, and States in identifying a preferred 1 waste disposal design. I
- 5. Design Consider.'tions l l
l Land disposal facilities must be sited, designed, operated, closed, and l
controlled after closure to achieve the performance objectives set forth in Subpart C of Part 61. The combination of performance objectives and technical l
requirements establish a systems approach to waste disposal. The components of l j
the " system" include the site and its characteristics, the facility and disposal unit design, the waste, facility operations and closure, intruder barriers, and institutional controls. Environmental monitoring is used to assess the system's performance. Reliance is not placed on any one component i
of the system. Rather, all interact in achieving the performance objectives. '
Design of the facility and disposal units plays an important role in the i
performance of the waste disposal system.
l l
I
- j
[7590-01]
l
- a. Siting: The disposal site suitability requirements of Section 61.50 are minimum common sense requirements and apply to siting of all r; ear-surface l
alternative disposal methods. The first critical step, as with any l disposal facility, is to select a site where natural conditions favor disposal.
l l Engineered structures and barriers should not be viewed as a planned ;
l substitute for a suitable site. Rather, in conjunction with other )
disposal system components, the engineered features should. offer enhanced confidence in protection for the public and environment.
t
! Thus, States are encouraged to proceed expeditiously with their disposal '
l siting programs while NRC develops supplemental standard format and content guidance for alternative methods.
3 I
- b. Design of Disposal Units: The disposal site design requirements of l l
Section 61.51 are sufficiently flexible to apply to alternative disposal l methods which fall within the four concepts described in Section 4 of this statement. Although little experience concerning waste disposal in l
l engineered structures is available, the technology exists to construct buildings and structures that will last for centuries. There are i
structures in use today that were built hundreds and even thousands of l years ago. However, procedures are not well developed for obtaining assurance that structures will be left alone or will survive intact over 1
i
[7590-01]
the period required to safely isolate emplaced wastes from the human environment after the loss of institutional controls. Designs which actively rely on engineering should be evaluated for deterrence of l intrusion and also the consequences of intrusion and failure of the structure sooner than expected. j Waste retrievability is not required or prohibited by 10 CFR Part 61. If waste retrievability is proposed as a design feature, several important factors should be considered. Retrievability should not compromise or otherwise lessen the ability of the combined features to meet the .
performance objectives of Part 61. The designer should be sure that retrievability measures do not result in increaseo problems in protecting the inadvertent intruder. If the retrievability concept requires action by the custodial agency during the active institutional control period to assure long-term performance (e.g., grouting around packages), funding and institutional commitments for the action should be included.
- c. Waste Classification: The ability to dispose of all Class A, B, and C LLW, as currently specified in Subpart D of Part 61, may have to be reassessed for the specific concept finally developed. Existing concentration limits for Class A, B, and C are based on associated waste form and other components of the system to determine critical pathways.
Certain disposal methods and associated operations may not accommodate all classes of LLW or parts of one or more classes. An alternative waste
[7590-01]
classification system may be proposed by the applicant because of.the types of waste generated within the region served by the proposed facility, the specific design of disposal units, or other factors. The 1
applicant may propose a waste classification system different from that described in Section 61.55, provided the system is compatible with the l
l performance objectives of Part 61 and the concentrations of radionuclides in the system proposed do not exceed the values specified in Section 61.55 for Class C waste. Alternatives to current waste classification i
requirements can be considered under the flexibility in Section 61.58.
However, alternative waste classes have the potential to confuse waste ,
generators. Staff believes that using other options such as more restrictive waste forms or packaging or alternative emplacement methods would minimize waste generator confusion. '
- d. Intruder Barriers: Part 61 requires Class C waste to be disposed of in 1 I
such a manner that the top of the waste is a minimum of five meters below l
the top surface of the cover over the waste or that intruder barriers are included that are designed to protect against an inadvertent intrusion for l l at least 500 years (Section 61.42, Section 61.52). Alternative disposal l f 1 methods coupled with alternative waste classification systems should provide a level of protection for the inadvertent intruder equivalent to l the existing requirements.
I i
l l
e
[7590-01]
- e. Waste Characteristics: The minimum requirements on waste characteristics l
specified in Section 61.56(a) will apply for alternative disposal methods.
l The applicant may use the flexibility on stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b)(1) if waste stability is to be provided by the engineered struccure in which the waste is emplaced. However, proposed designs may i
need more stringent minimum waste forms or packaging to protect workers or design features to accommodate planned operations (e.g., weight or size limits). Supplemental requirements should be reasonable enough so that generators and processors can be relied on to comply with ,the requirements. Alternatives to current waste characteristics requirements can be considered under Section 61.58.
- f. Facility Ooerations and Closure: The requirements for facility operations l and closure in Section 61.52 will be applied to the alternative disposal methods described in this statment. The specific application of the individual requirements may vary with a particular alternative disposal design. Worker exposure and safe operations should obviously be a factor l
l in developing designs. Volumes 2 through 5 of NUREG/CR-3774 contain a more complete explanation and discussion of individual requirements of Section 61.52 and their application than is included in this statement.
- g. Environmental Monitoring: The requirements for monitoring specified in Section 61.53 will apply for alternative disposal methods. The specific parameters to be monitored and the measurements and observations to be
[7590-01]
made may vary significantly between below ground and above ground disposal units and, for above ground units, between earth covered and uncovered units. Accommodating monitoring should be included in design l
considerations. !
I
- h. Institutional Requirements: The land ownership and institutional control requirements of Section 61.59 will apply to alternative disposal methods.
Existing requirements related to active institutional controls may have to be modified by license to accommodate some engineered structure disposal l concepts, such as those built above ground without cover. For example, the wastes may be more readily available for exposure, so additional controls and a more comprehensive program to exclude the public from the i site during the active instututional control period may be necessary.
Part 61 provides that active institutional controls cannot be relied on for more than 100 years. Part 61 does not prohibit longer periods of 1
active controls. However, longer periods should only provide additional l
assurances and should not be necessary to assure long-term performance.
- 6. Summary The NRC staff should be informed as early as possible of new design concepts under development by the industry or under consideration by States and Compacts that do not represent a variation on the four concepts in Volumes 2 through 5 of NUREG/CR-3774. New disposal concepts may involve technical issues that
l i
[7590-01] !
, l l !
l 1 l
should be identified and resolved in order to assure timely regulatory ar.tions f on license applications. NRC resources are limited and their use must be
- planned and focused on real needs. Recent legislation also requires that j licensing guidance on alternatives be prepared and published by January 1987.
Also, if design questions on specific prcposals raise serious problems in meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61, the most cost-effective decision on i the part of the applicant may be to eliminate a particular alternative or design feature from further consideration. Early consultation with the appropriate licensing authority will aid timely decisions.
Prospective applic.aats should understand that they are responsible for all research, data, and technical evaluations necessary to support a specific license application. NRC conducts research only to provide the technical bases for rulemaking and regulatory decisions, to support licensing and inspection l activities, to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of safety features and to increase our understanding of phenomena for which analytical methods are l needed to carry out regulatory responsibilities.
D. QUESTIONS i
l A number of basic issues have been identified by NRC staff in the course of its i
evaluation of alternative disposal methods. The staff requests comments from States and all other interested parties on these questions as well as any other aspect of the position statement.
l l
l
[7590-01]
l
- 1. Are there any alternative disposal methods under serious consideration i that do not represent a variation or combination of the four concepts -
evaluated in Volumes 2 through 5 of NUREG/CR-37747 l l
l
- 2. With the publication and endorsement of NUREG/CR-3774 and plans for i modified guidance on the content of applications for alternative methods, l what additional specific regulatory guidance is needed regarding alternative disposal methods? '
- 3. To concentrate the resources of designers, engineers, and vendors on -
1 particular approaches, and permit a more effective and efficient licensing i
process, should NRC's regulatory program include active solicitation and review of a reference design concept? The staff could review and approve 1 a submitted generic design for most (or a major portion) of a near-surface land disposal facility outside the centext of an application for a ;
site-specific license. (An approved design may be referenced in later l applications.) If so, what aspects of a disposal facility design are l amenable to standardization? ,
l 1
- 4. To promote a more effective and efficient licensing puacess, should NRC's l
l l
regulatory approach include early pre-application review of site suitability ismes relating to the development of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility separately from and prior to the application for a license to construct and operate such a facility? Such early review and
4
[7590-01]
documentation of staff findings could be patterned after the procedures for reactor construction permits in Appendix Q to 10 CFR Part 50. If so, what provisions in Appendix Q should be included or deleted?
Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland, this Mf kday of February,1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Robert E. Browning, Director.
Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards s.
.v .,