ML20205P377
| ML20205P377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/07/1988 |
| From: | Telford J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Shelburne E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318J013 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR31880, FRN-61FR26582, FRN-61FR26852, RULE-PR-150 AC57-1-003, AC57-1-3, AC57-1-43, NUDOCS 8811080104 | |
| Download: ML20205P377 (9) | |
Text
F Ac57-/ i P0&
SEP 7 pg MEMORANDUM FOR: Elizabeth C. Shelburne, Chief Public Document Branch, SECY FROM: John L. Telford, Section Leader Rulemaking Section Regulation Development Branch, ORA, RES
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY ANAL.YSIS F0:? AEASSERTING NRC'S AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES (10 CFR PART 150)
The Part 150 proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 1988 (53 FR 31880). The draf t Regulatory Analysis for this proposed rulemaking is enclosed as reference information to be available in t h NRC Public Document Room. If you have any questions, please contact John Stewart on extension 23618.
John L. Telford, Section Leader -
Rulem.a king Section Regulation Development Branch, ORA, RES
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution: [PDR) subj-circ-chron RDB Reading files Wlahs JTelford JStewart 1
Offe: RDB:D y RDBt RA ;
Name: et:jp JTelford i Date: JSteg/88 9/1 9/q /68 1 g10 104 881021 P 150 53FR31880 PDf;
i l ..
l Regulatory Analysis l
Reasserting NRC Authority for Approving Onsite Low Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States.
A. , Background In 1981, in revoking 10 CFR 20.3C4 (which previously allowed for the disposal ofcertainsmallquantitiesofradionuclideswithoutpriorNRCapproval),the Comission determined that case-by-case regulation of onsite low-level waste disposal was needed because such materials could cause significant radiation exposures if mishandled, improperly buried, or disturbed after disposal (45 FR 14199; March 5,1980). Under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.302, it is the practice of the NRC staff to authorize onsite low-level radioactive waste disposal only if the waste would not pose a pr untial health risk if improperly ..
disposed of or disturbed. Such onsite waste may not require regulation after disposal and the site may be available for unrestricted use. The NRC staff believes that it is necessary to provide a more efficient practice at licensed nuclear reactor sites in order to facilitate and ensure that decomissioning is properly accomplished. For Part 70 facilities, the Comission believes it prudent to clarify and to establish in the regulations that the onsite disposal of non-critical waste quantities of special nuclear material remains a NRC licensing function in order to retain control over the decomissioning process.
- ,. t i i l .
f i
i 1 i
] Currently, the handling and storage of onsite low-level waste at nuclear l i
1 reactors is regulated by tha NRC in all states. However, the current lack of ,
4 i
! NRC jurisdiction for onsite LLW disposal in Agreement States means Agreement !
l i States must provide a regulatory effort at sites where all other activities are i j under NRC regulation. Since handling, storage, and disposal are related (
1 j activities, efficiency and consistency are gained when c,ne regulator oversees ;
j all three o' these activities. In particular, regulation of deconnissioning l establishes a clear need for one agency (the NRC) to regulate all onsite !
- canagement of low-level waste including handling, storage, and disposal in !
j i i order to provide a more centralized and consistent regulatory review of all !
1 l onsite waste management activities.
{
l t i i i ;
j Sole NRC jurisdiction will also allow for uaiform standards of review of proposed
- onsite disposal and uniform records concerning the amounts and locations of
, disposal of radioactive material. Uniform review procedures and recordkeeping of
- f l onsite disposal will provide for greater assurance that the radioactive l l material will not present a health hazard at a later d
- .te after the site is i
decomissioned. i l
l i
\
By memorandum dated November 1, 1985, the Director, Office of State Programs, l i
) requested that NRC policy be clarified concerning NRC jurisdiction in Agreement '
j States for onsite disposal of low-level waste at NRC-licensed reactors and for l Part 70 facilities. By memorandum dated May 12, 1986, Harold R. Denton, I
)
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and John G. Davis, Director, l l l l Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, requested that RES initiate a j i
rule change to 10 CFR 150.15 to clearly state that the NRC has sole approval l
4 , .
I i j authority for disposal of radioactive waste in accordance with 10 CFR 20.30? in l
i the exclusion areas of NRC-licensed reactors and in the restricted areas of j Part 70 facilities. Accordingly, the staff proposes to amend 10 CFR 150.15 to reserve NRC jurisdiction in Agreement States for onsite disposal of low-level
, wastes at all facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 and to remove any f jurisdictional uncertainties regarding decomissioning and disposal of wastes I
at Part 70 licensed facilities.
j -
P Screening Items ,
I i
- 1) Issue to be Addressed s
- i By memorandun dated November 1, 1986, the Director, Office of State :
) !
1 Programs, requested that NRC policy and regulations be clarified j with respect to NRC jurisdiction over waste disposal related to **
j decomissioning. 10 CFR 150.15 is clear regarding the NRC regulatory l
! authority for the handling and storage of nuclear waste at NRC-licensed !
il
' l reactors in both Agreenent and non-Agreement States. However, according to the Cunningham to Denton memorandum of Septerber 13, 1985, the omission
- of low-level waste disposal in 10 CFR 150.15 as a function reserved to the Federal Government implies that iegulatory authority has been relinquished
) to the Agreement States. The Statenent of Considerations cecompanying 1
l Part 150 when it was promulgated, clearly demonstrates that the Atomic Energy Comission considered the question of Agreement State authority 4
a l
l l
l 2
O e over the disposal of reactor low-level waste and decided to relinquish the function, while retaining authority for handling and storage. By memorandum dated May 12, 1986, NRR and NMSS have requested that RES initiate an amendment to 10 CFR 150.15 to clarify. . ."that flRC has the ,
sole approval authority for burial / disposal of radioactive waste. . ." in accordance with 10 CFR 20.302 in the exclusion and restricted areas of NRC-licensed reactors and Part 70 facilities.
- 2) Necessity and urgency for Addressing istue Clarification of NRC's jurisdiction over low-level waste disposal at these two types of NRC-licensed nuclear f6cilities is needed in order to '
better protect the public health and welfare and the environment.
Continueo ARC jurisdiction in this area is considered essential in order r to provir.e a comprehensive and consistent review of all onsite waste .
managemt.nt activities and to avoid the potential of complicating decisiu.6 l and duplica'.ing activities associated with the decommissioning of nuclear [
facilitie', and the release of the closed sites for other uses.
]
i 1
The lack of clear NRC authority in the exclusion area is of particular concern during the decommissioning process. Agreement States have the authority to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste products onsite.
In order for the NRC to retain control over the entire decommissioning process, it is necessary to arend 10 CFR Part 150.15(a) to return jurisdiction over onsite disposal to the NRC.
0 .
P L
l
- 3) Alternatives to Rulemaking ;
An alternative to rulemaking would be to do nothing to cla 'i'y NRC !
j jurisdiction during decommissioning and during onsite disposal in l 1
Agreement States of LLW at NRC-licensed reactors and Part 70 !
i j facilities (for non-Agreement States theit is nu jurisdictional issuoi the NRC l t
- licenses and reggiates all handling, storage, and disposal of LLW).
Agreement States would continue to have authority over the disposal of ;
LLW but the NRC would retain authority for the handling and storage of LLW. l l
I ,
J 4) How the Issue will be Addressed Through Rulemaking I
l 10 CFR 150.15 would be amended to state NRC's jurisdiction over the l i disposal of LLW at all NRC-licensed reactor and Part 70 facilities. ,
j The rulemaking action would clarify NRC authority at NRC-licensed -
l facilities in Agreement States.
l
! I 1
i How the Public. Industry, and NRC will be Affected as a Result of Rulemaking 5) j i ;
a l
j a. Industry j i 4
- Uncertainty as to the jurisdiction of LLW disposal at NRC-licensed I
facilities is a detriment to generstors of radioactive wastes.
Industry cannot plan ahead for efficient and cost-effective onsite 1
disposal if there exists substantial uncertainty about what governmental entity will be responsible for approving disposal, t
1 i
I**
i what method will be required for disposal, and wl.at acceptance
- criteria will be used for disposal. This rule change will clarify -
1 this jurisdictional uncertainty regarding onsite LLW disposal.
l i 4
- b. L Cublic i
In the staff's view this proposed amendment will produce some ,
l positive effects, namely with regard to regulatory efficiency.
Regulation of th > handling, storage, and disposal by one agency ,
) (the NRC) in all States provides for a more comprehensive and
)
l integrated regulatory review of all onsite waste management j activities for all reactor and Part 70 licenseest reduces the ;
! potential for duplication of effort; and provides for uniform i i
a review procedures and recordkeeping, t
]
j However, since these effects are not readily quantified, for the l purposes of this analysis, a more conservative case is also (
l presented. Cost sayings should accrue to the Agreement States since l
] they would no longer have jurisdiction or responsibility over the onsite disposal of radioactive waste by NRC licensees. Alternatively, the NRC would be incurring additional costs because of their e
increased authority. In this case, the Agreement States savings and j
the NRC's increase in costs may be close to off-setting each other.
The result would be no net change in costs to government in general.
W i
- - :Y
i There should be no significant cost change for the licensees as a result of this amendment. Whether the Agreement States or the NRC
] regulate onsite low-level weste disposal, the licensees must comply with compatible regulatory programs.
- c. NRC i
l The NRC would benefit from a reduction in uncertainty about waste jurisdiction and responsibility. At the time of decommissioning, I
j resources would be required to evaluate those disposals that had
! been previously approved by Agreement States to determine the suitability of the site for release for urrestricted use. As a more 1
] well defined waste disposal system would be of benefit to the
) Agreement States, NRC relations with these entities should be J l l improved as NRC would be viewed as resolving a current issue in a
timely manner. !
4 i i
i
- d. Backfit Analysis ;
I !
- Since the proposed rulemaking is only a jurisdictional change and l would not require any additional work by the licensees, a backfit i
analysis is not required.
i I
2 f
4 l
_---- - - _ _ . - . _ _ , - - _ , - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . - - - _ ~. , , ,
i l
- . j i !
. t 0* l f
i
- 6) NRC Resources and Schedule Needed for Rulemaking:
i I
- a. Resources !
i
) !
- t j !
j 1) . Estimated person months of staff time for proposed rule }
I 3 from RES :
j i I from NRR !
1 from GPA l
- 2) For resolving coments and final rule
.. I
! .. i
) 2 from RES - !
0.5 from NRR 1
j 0.5 from NHSS O.5 from OGC I O.5 from GPA l
- b. Schedule l l 1
i
} Proposed Rule to EDO within 240 days of approval of initiation.
1 1 Final Rule within 1 year of publication of the Proposed Rule.
I i
i
)
4
- - - - - , . _ - , , - - . - - . , _ . - _ . - , , . _ , . - _ _ . - _ . - - , . . _ _ _ - - , , . - . - _ . . , , _ _ - - - . _ - . - . - - - - - . - - . -