ML20245B729

Requests Commission Approval for Notice of Final Rulemaking 10CFR61, Land Disposal of Radwaste, to Be Published

ML20245B729
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/17/1989
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
TASK-RIA, TASK-SE SECY-89-120, NUDOCS 8904260241
Download: ML20245B729 (278)

Text

l p+*~"% l RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)

April 17, 1989 SECY-89-120 For: The Commissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr. ,

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

10 CFR 61--LAND DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE Category: This paper involves a policy question of interest to other Federal agencies.

Purpose:

.To obtain Commission approval for a notice of final rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register.

Summary: On May 18, 1988, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 17709) which would require geologic repository disposal of greater-than-Class-C low-level radioactive waste, unless an alternate method of disposal were approved by the Commission. This action was taken in lieu of revision of the definition of high-level radioactive waste. The staff has reviewed the public comments on the proposed amendments to Part 61, and is recommending that the proposed amendments be finalized with no significant change.

Contacts:

R. Boyle, NMSS x20559 C. Prichard, RES x23884 D. Fehringer, NMSS x20426 J.R. Wolf, OGC x21641 i

- /

g9$YN h) N l'

'The' Commissioners 2

Background:

The staff reviewed the desirability of revising the definition of high-level radioactive waste.(HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 in response to a Commission directive. After reviewing public comments on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published on-February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5922), the staff recommended that no revision be undertaken. Instead, Part 61 should be amended to require that greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) low-levelt waste (LLW) be disposed of in a deep geologic repository, unless an alternative disposal method was approved by the Commission (SECY-88-51).

Major reasons for the staff's recommendation were: (a) the lack of any consensus among the public comments for a numerical method {

for classifying HLW, and the general concern among the comments

, over disposal method, rather than classification per se, (b) the technical and legal difficulties involved in any reclassification of that is now considered reprocessing HLW, (c) the lack'of any pres. .tly available or authorized intermediate disposal facilities, and (d) the relatively small amount of non-reprocessing waste materials that might br Sandidates for '

reclassification (GTCC LLW). By requiring geo.ogic repository, or_ approved alternative disposal for GTCC LLW, regulatory uncertainties about disposal of this class of. waste would be reduced. This would address a major concern expressed by the public in its comments, as well as one raised by DOE. In its report t0 Congress on management of GTCC waste, 00E had cited lack of a regulatory framework for disposal of GTCC waste as a key impediment to DOE plans for management of GTCC waste.2 The Commission approved the staff's recommendation, and a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring geologic repository disposal, or approved alternative, was published on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17709).

Office of Technology Assessment Report Additional background information comes from a recent report on GTCC waste. Following publication of the proposed amendments, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment published a report on management of GTCC LLW (Enclosure H). Its recommendations on disposal of GTCC waste _ generally support the stance taken by the Commission in the proposed amendments.

The OTA report states that "If a decision about the disposal of GTCC wastes were required today, a conservative approach would be to permanently isolate the waste in a deep geologic repository, as has been proposed for commercial spent fuel and defense HLW."

The report goes on to a: knowledge that further research and 2 Recommendations f or Management of Greater-than-Class-C-Low-Level Radioactive Waste. DOE /NE-0077. 1987.

1

l I

l The Commissioners 3  ;

1 development could demonstrate the acceptability of intermediate j disposal methods, such as deep-augured holes or an intermediate-depth repository. The OTA report agrees with the Commission that the volume of GTCC waste is probably not great  !

enough to justify a separate facility for this waste; costs of geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste would be comparable to, or lower than, developing a special disposal facility solely for GTCC waste.

The overall recommendations of the OTA report are that a Federal off-site interim storage facility for GTCC waste be established, as no permanent disposal facility could be available for at least 15 to 20 years. Until such interim storage facility became operational, the Federal government could provide limited access to an existing DOE storage facility. Within the next year or so, DOE should begin to evaluate the impacts on repository operations and performance of emplacing GTCC waste in the repository. If DOE determines that such impacts are unacceptable, it could then begin to develop an alternative disposal facility.

Discussion: Public Comments:

Thirty five comment letters were received, broken down as follows: 8 from States, 2 from a State regional compact, 3 from other Federal agencies, 7 from environmental /public interest groups, 5 from electric utility industry organizations or utilities, 2 from national laboratories, 1 from a professional society, and 7 from private individuals.

Most states expressed general support for the proposed amendments, although they did raise some issues. The major comments, and staff responses, are given below. A more detailed analysis of public comments is also enclosed (Enclosure G).

(a) Restricting Alternatives Many comments, including some by States and a regional State LLW compact, argued for restricting the alternatives to geologic repository disposal. These comments were concerned that GTCC waste would be disposed of in State or State compact operated facilities. NRC was urged to " eliminate the option" of disposal in State or State compact facilities, by limiting alternative disposal methods to Federal facilities.

The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, Public Law 99-240 (LLWPAA), clarified Federal and State responsibilities for radioactive waste disposal. States are responsible only for commercial LLW classified as "A", "B",

or "C" waste under Part 61; and all HLW and all GTCC LLW is a Federal responsibility. The concerns expressed by

Tha Commissioners 4

=

commenters on this point have therefore been addressed, to a large extent, by legislation. No health and safety concerns have been presented that would require.the use of-Federal facilities, to the exclusion of other facilities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act, for the disposal of all GTCC.

indeed, the LLWPAA appears to recognize the continued authority of a State, subject to the provisions of its compact, or a compact region, to accept GTCC waste for disposal, and in the absence of some compelling reason this cption should be preserved.

7 (b) Applicability of Standards Both EPA and DOE, among other con &ders, were concerned about one aspect of possible geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste. Should GTCC LLW be emplaced in a repository along with HLW, these two categories of waste would be subject to different standards -- EPA's HLW standard, and EPA's LLW standard. In addition, they questioned whether NRC's 10'CFR Part 60, or 10 CFR Part 61 would apply to GTCC waste emplaced in a repository. Commenters cited the potential for confusion in having dual standards apply to waste in the same repository.

The Commission's regulations were developed for specific types of disposal facilities. Thus, Part 60 applies to any geologic repository, regardless of what types of radioactive wastes may be disposed of there. Similarly, Part 61 pertains to isnd disposal facilities other than geologic repositories. Therefore, only Part 60, and not Part 61, would be relevant for disposal of GTCC wastes in a HLW repository.

If GTCC wastes were to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository, questions might be raised regarding the applicability to those wastes of the waste form and i

packaging requirements of Part 60. As Part 60 is now l structured, the retrievability requirement of $60.111 and j

the implicit requirement 1or packaging to permit safe waste j, handling and emplacement apply to all wastes, including GTCC wastes, that are disposed of in a repository. Applicability of the waste package containment requirement (300-1,000 years) is specifically limited to packages containing HLW or spent nuclear fuel. Since GTCC wastes would not be classified as HLW under these amendments, the waste package requirements of Part 60 would not pertain to GTCC wastes. .

The performance objectives for the engineered barrier system (release rate of 1 part per 100,000 per year) and for overall system performance are stated so as to be applicable to all wastes emplaced in a repository. The degree to which these performance objectives would affect GTCC waste form

l_ kl

[ThqCommissioners 5 a

?

and packaging would depend on the specific radionuclides present in the GTCC wastes and on the physical and chemical forms of'those wastes. The staff informed the Commission in SECY-88-285 that it may be necessary to add additional regulatory requirements to Part 60 in the future if DOE should elect to pursue repository disposal of GTCC' wastes.

Previous development of EPA's standards has addressed types of wastes rather than types.of disposal facilities, as in 2

NRC's regulations. Thus, it is possible that a repc-itory containing both HLW and GTCC LLW crould be subject to two EPA standards. The staff does not anticipate that this will cause significant problems for DOE. If it sho'uld pose an insurmountable difficulty, DOE would still be able to

,, develop a. separate, GTCC only facility. The staff will consult with EPA, as appropriate, to address (and resolve, if possible) potential issues.related to differences in regulatory approach.

(c) Effects on Repository Program There.were a number of comments, including those from DOE, that expressed concern over the possible impacts on the geo-logic repository program of emplacement of GTCC waste along -

with HLW in the repository. Specific concerns were over the potential for additional costs, GTCU .an# taking up valuable repository. space, and the burdes, for DOE of having to include GTCC waste in its performance assessment of the repository.

In the staff's view, these concerns do not warrant changes from the proposeo amendments. First, the proposed amendments allow for a range of GTCC disposal methods to be used by DOE. Under present Part 61, GTCC waste is specifically identified as "not generally acceptable" for near-surface disposal. Disposal methods for GTCC waste must generally be "more stringent" than nea'r-surface disposal.

The proposed ~ amendments to Part 61 specified that one more s:*ingent method would be geologic repository disposal.

Other methods are not specified but are also left open to DOE, subject to Commission approval. The proposed amendments were not what prevented DOE from routinely using near-surface disposal. Thus, relevant cost impacts of the amendments do not involve a comparison between costs of geologic repository disposal vs. costs of near-surface disposal. Cost comparisons involve geologic repository dis-posai 4s other unspecified Commission-approved "intermed-iate" methods. However, the proposed amendments did not require one method to be selected over another; either option is permitted. DOE would presumably weigh cost.com-parisons along with other factors in selecting which

a v ,

\..

~The Commissioners- 6 3

disposal method to use. Even if geologic repository disposai were selected, such disposal.should not cause an 4 increase in the present HLW fee charged nuclear utilities.

5 Rather, as suggested by DOE's study of the matter pursuant to S3(b)(3) of the LLWPAA, it is likely that a separate fund, similar to the HLW Nuclear Waste Fund, would be established to provide for payment of disposal costs by the generators of GTCC wastes, either as an advance fee or as a charge upon waste receipt.

The _ expected volume of GTCC waste is very small relative to volumes of HLW and Class A, B, and C'LLW. It is projected that 2,000-4,800 cubic meters of commercially generated GTCC' waste will need disposal through the' year'2020. This amount of waste is smaller then the anticipated excavated volume'_of a single emplacement room of a' repository, and would:not' present a~significant burden on the capacity of the reposi-tory to receive HLW. It would not be a significant factor underlying the need for a second repository. ,

Regarding DOE's assessment of the performance of the repository, if DOE found that it did pose a major obstacle, these amendments would permit DOE to choose.an acceptable alternative disposal method.

(d) Relationship to Defense Wastes Some comments were concerned with any effects this rulemaking would have on defense wastes.

The proposed amendments apply solely to commercial GTCC.LLW.

The Commission has ro legal authority to license disposal facilities used for defense generated wastes, unless these wastes are classified as HLW. Defense wastes analogous to commercial GTCC would not be classified as HLW and therefore, 00E plans for disposal of certain defens'e materials similar to GTCC waste would be unaffected by the proposed amendments.

In the case of facilities authorized for the disposal of-HLW, the Commission does have jurisdiction and the Commis-sion's regulations would continue to apply. Accordingly, to the extent that DOE disposes of HLW in facilities other than geologic repositories, a license would be required as before. 00E would not necessarily be precluded from proceeding with such disposal, but as has always been the case DOE would need to obtain the Commission's approval.

The NRC staff has been working with DOE to develop appro-priate classifications for defense reprocessing wastes Lnder existing laas and regulations. These efforts have led to I e

ng; + -

, y \

X fTheCommissioners'- 7 l-  !

agreement that decontaminated salts at. Savannah River and

' West Valley, generated incidentally in the course of processing, should not be classified as HLW. -Additional:

efforts are now underway to review-materials to be produced at Hanford in projected operations, so as to determine whether.the disposal therof is subject to Commission Ec licensing. ,

t-(e) Restricting DOE Options for GTCC Management DOE argued that the proposed amendments would limit its 4 statutory authority, under the LLWPAA, to develop a compre--

hensive policy for management of GTCC waste.

1

.The staff considers the proposed rule.to be entirely con-sistent *fith the " comprehensive scheme for developing a policy for' disposal of GTCC wastes" referred to in this comment, The proposed rule did-not constrain DOE's ability i

to " identify disposal options, financing mechanisms, and the legislation needed to implement them." Nor did the proposed rule require disposal of GTCC wastes prior to submittal of the Department's recommendations to Congress. The proposed rule only recognized that commercial GTCC wastes must be disposed of in a f acility licensed by the NRC -- a

-constraint. imposed by the LLWPAA.

(f) Mixed GTCC Waste EPA commented that some GTCC wastes would also contain-i harardous materials subject to RCRA regulations. DOE will indeed need to consider applicable RCRA requirements as well as those arising under the Atomic Energy Act. Should RCRA requirements associated with GTCC waste represent a significant impediment to placing a geologic repository in service, DOE will still have the option to propose the use of a separate facility.

Changes from the Proposed Rule

. In S61.55(a)(2)(iv) of the proposed rule, geologic repository disposal is required "unless proposals for disposal of such waste o in a disposal site licensed pursuant.to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval." In response to a comment, this has been changed to "unless proposals pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission." .

NRC resource needs for implementing this rulemaking have already been factored into current budget planning.

The ACNW reviewed the draft final rule at its February, 23, 1989 meeting. In response to ACNW comments, the staff has added j

)

ih!

The Commissioners 8 y

'T' L

E material to the statement of considerations addressing requirements for the waste package.for GTCC waste'. The ACNW comments and the staff response are contained in Enclosure I.

0GC has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.

l Recommendation: That the Commission:

(1) Approve for publication in the Federal Register the final amendments to 10 CFR 61 which would require repository disposal for GTCC wastes unless.an alternative means of disposal has been approved by the Commission.

(2) Certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have'a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is necessary. in order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(a).

(3) Note:

(a) That the notice of final rulemaking in Enclosure A will be published in the Federal Register .

(b) That the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification by the Division of Rules and Records.

(c) That the final amendments are corrective or minor, and do not substantially modify existing ' regulations; and they are accordingly eligible for categorical exclusion from the preparation of an environmental assessment.

(d) The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on the Environment and'Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the-Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee will.be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure C.

(e) This rule contains no new or amended recordkeeping, reporting, or application requirement, or any other type of information collection requirement, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.96-511).

(f) A regulatory analysis is presented in Enclosure E.

r

_._.m____ ._..- .- ____ __ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Commissioners 9 (g) The Office of Public Affairs has determined that it is necessary to issue a public announcement similar to Enclosure D in connection with these amendments.

(h) The changes to be made in 10 CFR Part 61 are provided in comparative text as Enclosure F.

(i) The draft Federal Register Notice states that provisions of 10 CFR 50.109 on backfitting do not apply to this rulemaking because the rule is not a generic requirement applicable'to production and utilization facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 50.

Victor Stelltr/ Jr.

Executive Director for Operations Enclosures A. Federal Register Notice B. Proposed Amendments (53 FR 17709)

C. Draft Congressional Letter D. Draft Public Announcement E. Regulatory Analysis F. Comparative Text G. Detailed Analysis of Public Comments H. OTA Report on Management of GTCC Waste

1. ACNW Comments and Staff Responsa Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Wednesday, May 3, 1989.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Tuesday, April 25, 1989, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time

f. for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the

• Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

l This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of May 8, 1989. Please refer to the for a appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, i specific date and time.

DISTRIBUTION:

, Commissioners EDO l OGC ACRS OIA _

ACNW

, GPA ASLEP l REGIONAL OFFICES ASLAP SECY l

l u

+;...

_ .. - . . ~

zn; m ,

m ;q. ,l e

v j,. .:i > ,jj . ,

c.

I)

<}4 jt i

e, 4

,s. 'j',

.m. m. . r a P 1  %

',,< j- ;' ,

p ';-

^S-

~ -4( ;-

l s.

u., 1 '

al. ,

r

, .y .].c

.y

.y.-

..?

, ::;r, .

1 h $,#

.ss.:. ,f, ,

.+ ..

s~ i

(; * , ~ ',.[.,. ,.

c. ...;..

, : y,,.> 'h-'

L.

o M. R. ., ,

I ,' ,

- *t

-1' le , v. j .'

q,.

.t

-;{ .

N 1

,3j g I ,,} I I ",;

.,'l

,: l '

(

-+I,',, .

^j :

I

^,i U; m

l ' i r ...

.,','.[.

g

'f f,6'..

L t, _ , . _ --

"I ,t ', -

b ,. > .

i r4 9, ;' !l y' .'.

a)

,[,)

r s I. n, :

I FNC1.0 S'J:J . /. .g.

1

', f , ,f :.'-'

) I 4i t' i n 4 1i

.'6f 'J 1 0

' 1e g

,.2-  :

1 e i 1

I I d I k

-. I-

't i

'f.I i

1 e i.

i r=

i r

.i 5

r .

i

'i g f i

t

'j .-

• r g..

} .

• ^'"-----m-----w..--.-,,_,__ , _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i (7590-01)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 61 Disposal of Radioactive Wastes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

This rule amends 10 CFR Part 61 to require disposal of

" greater-than-Class-C" low-level radioactive wastes in a deep geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere has been approved by the Commission.' The amendments obviate the need for altering existing classifications of radioactive wastes as high-level or low-level.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W. Clark Prichard, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, telephone (301) 492-3884.

e 6

---

.-----.-----a

2 l

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: )

Background )

On May 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published proposed amendments to Part 61 to require geologic repository disposal of greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) low level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative means of disposal was approved by the Commission (53 FR 17709).

The proposal to require geologic repository disposal, or an approved ]

alternative, was aimed at insuring that GTCC waste would be disposed of in a manner consistent with the protection of public health and safety.

This action was taken in lieu of a revision of the definition of high level radioactive waste (HLW). In proposing the amendments the Commission outlined its rationale for not proceeding with a revision of the definition of HLW along the lines proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published on February 27, 1987 (51 FR 5992).

It is the Commission's view that intermediate disposal facilities may never be available, in which case a repository would be the only type of facility generally capable of providing safc disposal for GTCC wastes. At the same time, the Commission wishes to avoid foreclosing possible use of intermediate disposal facilities Ly the Department of Energy (DOE). If DOE chooses to develop one or more intermediate disposal f acilities, the Commission anticipates that the acceptability of such facilities would be evaluated in the light of the particular circumstances, considering for example the existing performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61 and any generally applicable environmental radiation protection standards that might have been established by the U S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical criteria to implement the performance objectives and environmental standards would be deveioped by the Commission after DOE had selected a specific disposal technology and l

l decided to pursue development of an intermediate facility.

The Commission considers that the Part 61 amendments would obviate any need to reclassify certain GTCC wastes as HLW. Many comments on the ANPRM advocated classification of all GTCC wastes as HLW in order to ensure availability of a safe disposal "home" for those wastes, but these amendments achieve the same

}

} .

3 purpose while leaving open the prospect that an intermediate disposal facility may prove attractive at some time in the future.

Office of Technology Assessmcnt Report following p1blication of the proposed amendments, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment published a report on management of GTCC LLW.1 Its recommendations on_ disposal of GTCC waste generally support the stance taken by the Commission in the proposed amendments.

The OTA report states that "If a decision about the disposal of GTCC wastes were required today, a conservative approach would be to permanently isolate the waste in a deep geologic repository, as has been proposed for commercial spent fuel and defense HLW."2 The report goes on to acknowledge that further research and development could demonstrate the acceptability of intermediate disposal methods, such as deep-augured holes or an intermediate-depth repository.

The Commission emphasizes that these amendments preserve DOE's flexibility to pursue either one of these alternatives. The OTA report agrees with the Commission that the volume of GTCC waste is protably not great enough to justify a separate facility for this waste; costs of geologic repository disposal of GTCC' waste would be comparable to, or lower than, developing a special disposal facility solely for GTCC waste.

The overall recommendations of the OTA report are that a federal off-site interim storage facility for GTCC waste be established, as no permanent disposal facility could be available for at least 15 to 20 years. Until such interim storage facilities become operational, the Federal government could 1 U.S. Congress., Office of Technology Assessment, An Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater than Class'C Low Level Radioactive Waste, OTA-BP-0-50, October, 1988.

2 ibid. pp. 2-3.

k_ 2 i

provide limited access to an existing DOE storage facility. Within the next

s. ' year or so, DOE should begin to evaluate the impacts on repository operations A '

and performance of emplacing GTCC waste in the repository. If DOE determines that such in>.sacts are unacceptable, it' could then begin to develop an L - alternative disposal-facility.

l l'

l' Public Comments The Commission received 35 comment letters in response to its request for public comment. Among the responses were comments from the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the States of Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania,-South Carolina, Vermont, Michigan, Washington,

. Tennessee, and the Midwest Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Commission.

Remaining comments came from industry, professional, and environmental groups, as well as private citizens. The following is a summary of major comments and Commission responses. A detailed analysis of public comments is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L St., NW, Washington, DC.

.i (a) Restricting Alternatives Many comments, including.some by States and a regional state LLW compact, argued for restricting the alternatives to geologic repository disposal. These comments were concerned that GTCC waste would be disposed of in State or State

~

compact operated facilities. NRC was urged to " eliminate the option" of disposal in State or State compact facilities, by limiting alternative disposal methods to Federal facilities.

4 This concern must be examined in the light of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Public Law 99-240, 42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.

(LLWPAA) which clarified Federal and State responsibilities for radioactive waste disposal. States are responsible only for commercial LLW defined as "A",- ,

"B", or "C" waste by Part 61. All HLW, and all GTCC LLW is a Federal responsibility. The concerns expressed by commenters on this point have therefore been addressed, to a large extent, by legislation. No health and

l

)

I 5

safety concerns have been presented that would persuade the Commission to require the use of Federal f acilities, to the exclusion of other facilities i Indeed, licensed under the Atomic Energy Act, for the disposal of all GTCC.

.the LLWPAA appears to recognize the continued authority of a State, subject to the provisions of its compact, or a compact region, to accept GTCC waste for disposal, and in the absence of some compelling reason the Commission's judgment is that this option should be preserved.

(b) Applicability of Standards Both EPA and DOE, among other commenters, were concerned about one aspect of Should GTCC LLW be possible geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste.

emplaced in a repository along with HLW, these two categories of waste would be subject to different standards -- EPA's HLW standard, and EPA's LLW standard.

In addition, they questioned whether NRC's 10 CFR Part 60, or 10 CFR Part 61 Commenters cited the potential for would apply to GTCC waste in a repository.

confusion in having dual standards apply to waste'in the same repository.

The Commission notes that its regulations were developed for specific types of disposal facilities. Thus, Part 60 applies to any geologic repository for HLW, regardless of what other types of radioactive wastes may be disposed of there.

Similarly, Part 61 pertains to land disposal f acilities other than repositories. Therefore, only Part 60, and not Part 61, would be relevant for disposal of GTCC wastes in a HLW repository.

If GTCC wastes were to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository,' questions

'might be raised regarding the applicability to those wastes of the waste form As Part 60 is now structured, the and packaging requirements of Part 60.

retrievability requirement of S60,111 and the implicit requirement for packaging to permit safe handling and emplacement apply to all wastes, including GTCC wastes, that are disposed of in a repository. Applicability of the waste package containment requirement (300-1,000 years) is specifically Since GTCC wastes limited to packages containing HLW or spent nuclear fuel.

l would not be classified as HLW under these amendments, the waste package

_ _________-_______--_a

6 requirements of Part 60 would not pertain to GTCC wastes. The performance objectives for the engineered barrier system (release rate of 1 part per

- 100,000 per year) and for overall system performance are stated so as to be applicable to all wastes emplaced in a repository. The degree to which these performance objectives would cffect GTCC waste form and packaging would depend on the specific radionuclides present in the GTCC wastes and on the physical and chemical forms of those wastes.

For all wastes disposed of in a repository, Part 60 now requires:

(1) waste disposal operations shall be conducted in compliance with the radiation protection requirements of Part 20 of the NRC's regulations (660.111(a)),

(2) the option of waste retrieval shall be maintained for a period up to 50-  !

years after the start of waste emplacement operations (660.111(b)), and (3) "... any release of radionuclides from the engineered barrier system shall be a gradual process which results in small fractional releases to the geologic j setting over long times . . . The release rate of any radionuclides from the engineered barrier system following the containment period shall not exceed one part in 100,000 per year of the inventory of that radionuclides calculated to be present at 1,000 years following permanent closure ... (660.113).

Also implicit in Part 60 is a requirement that any GTCC wastes' disposed of in a repository not prevent HLW or spent fuel from meeting the specific performance objectives for those types of wastes.

These general objectives can be achieved in various ways for different wastes.

For example, containment within a durable waste canister might be appropriate for short-lived wastes (half-lives about 30 years or less), while processing of wastes to reduce leach.sility or use of retardant backfill materials might be more appropriate for longer-lived wastes. The NRC is initiating an effort, as contemplated by S60.135(d) of Part 60, to specify in more detail the waste form I

I i

q l

1 L________________________._________ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

S 7

and packaging criteria appropriate for specific types of GTCC wastes. The Commission anticipates that DOE will develop specific waste form and packaging alternatives for consideration by the NRC in that rulemaking, and the Commission'would welcome similar suggestions from other interested parties.

Previous development of EPA's standards has addressed types of wastes rather than types of disposal facilities as in NRC's regulations. Thus, it is l possible that a repository containing both HLW and GTCC LLW would be subject to two EPA standards. The NRC does not anticipate that this will cause significant problems for DOE, since the LLW standard _has not yet been proposed and this situation can be taken into account as the standard is developed.

(c) Effects on Repository Program There were a number of comments, including those of DOE, that expressed concern over the possible impacts on the geologic repository program of emplacement of GTCC waste along with HLW in the repository. Specific concerns were over the pot'ential for additional costs, GTCC waste taking up valuable repository space, and the burden for DOE of having to include GTCC waste in its performance assessment of the repository.

In the Commission's view, these concerns do not warrant changes from the proposed amendments. First, the proposed amendments allow for a range of GTCC disposal methods to be used by DOE. Under present regulations on land disposal of LLW (10 CFR Part 61), GTCC waste is specifically identified as "not l

generally acceptable" for near-surface disposal. Disposal methods for GTCC

/

waste must generally be "more stringent" than near-surface disposal. The l

proposed amendments to Part 61 specified that one "more stringent" method would be geologic repository disposal. Other methods are not specified but are also left open to DOE, subject to Commission approval. The proposed amendments were not what prevented DOE f rom routinely using near-surface disposal; that is already prohibited by 10 CFR Part 61. Thus, relevant cost impacts of the 1 1

amendments do not involve a comparison between costs of geologic repository disposal vs. costs of near-surface disposal. Cost comparisons involve geologic j 1

8 1

i repository disposal vs. other unspecified Commission-approved " intermediate" methods. However, the proposed amendments did not require one method to be selected over another; either option is permitted. DOE would presumably weigh cost comparisons along with other factors in selecting which disposal method to use.

Even if geologic repository disposal were selected, such disposal should not cause an increase in the present HLW fee charged nuclear utilities-- a specific concern raised on behalf of industry. Rather, as suggested by DOE's study of the matter pursuant to S3(b)(3) of the LLWPAA, it is likely that a separate fund, similar to the HLW Nuclear Waste Fund, would be established to provide for payment of disposal costs by the generators of GTCC wastes, either as an advance fee or as a charge upon waste receipt (Recommendations for Management of Greater-than-Class C Low Level Radioactive Waste. , U.S. Department of Energy, 00E/NE-0077, 1987.) The Commission anticipates that new legislation would be enacted if required so that the current situation does not represent a major impediment to disposal of GTCC wastes.

The fact thtt the expected volume of GTCC waste is very low was an important factor in the Commission's decision to propose the Part 61 amendments. Current evidence shows that the expected volume of GTCC waste is very small relative to volumes of HLW and Class A, B, and C LLW. It is projected that 2,000-4,800 cubic meters of commercially generated GTCC waste will need 3

disposal through the year 2020 This amount of waste is smaller than the anticipated excavated volume of a single emplacement room of a repository, and l would not present a significant burden on the capacity of the repository to receive HLW. It would not be a significant fractor underlying the ne'ed for a l second repository.

I.

3 U.S. Department of Energy estimates L-__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

9

- Regarding DOE's assessment of the performance of the repository, if DOE found that it did pose a major obstacle, these amendments would permit DOE to choose

- an acceptable alternative disposal method.

(d)' Relationship to Defense Wastes Some comments were concerned with any effects this rulemaking would have on defense wastes.

The proposed amendments apply solely to consercial GTCC LLW, and have no bearing on facilities for defense LLW. NRC has licensing authority only over commercially generated LLW; it has no licensing authority over defense LLW,

- including defense LLK that might be analogous to GTCC waste. And, since Part 61 by its terms would only apply to DOE activities subject to NRC jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction is lacking for defense LLW facilities, ~these efforts would have no effect on defense LLW disposal.

In the case of facilities authorized for the disposal of HLW, the Commission does have jurisdiction and the Commission's regulations would continue to apply. Accordingly, to the extent that DOE disposes of HLW ir facilities other than geologic repositories, a license under Part 61 would be required as before. DOE would not necessarily be precluded from proceeding with such disposal, but as has always been the case DOE would need to obtain the Commission's approval. The NPC staff has been working with DOE to develop appropriate classifications for defense reprocessing wastes under existing laws and regulations. These efforts have led to agreement that certain decontaminated salts at Savannah River and West Valley, generated incidentally 4

in the courte of processing, should not be classified as PLW. Additional efforts are now underway to review materials to be produced at Hanford in projected operations, so as to determine whether the disposal thereof is subject to Commission licensing.

1 I

10 (e) Restricting DOE Options for GTCC Management DOE argued that the proposed amendments would limit its statutory authority, under the LLWPAA, to develop a comprehensive policy for management of GTCC waste.

The Comission considered the proposed rule to be entirely consistent with the

" comprehensive scheme for developing a policy for disposal of GTCC wastes" referred to in this comment. The proposed rule did not constrain 00E's ability to " identify disposal options, financing mechanisms, and the legislation needed to implement them." Nor did the proposed rule require disposal of GTCC wastes The prior to submittal of the Department's recommendations to Congress.

- proposed rule only recognized that GTCC wastes must be disposed of in a facility licerised by the NRC -- a constraint imposed by the LLWPAA.

In DOE's 1987 report to Congress regarding management of GTCC wastes (D0E/NE-0077), DOE stated that certain regulatory actions were needed before One of DOE could proceed with identification of disposal options and costs.

these actions was a decision by NRC whether or not to proceed with development of a concentration based defittition of high-level waste. The Commission has cecided not to develop such a definition for the reasons previously discussed.

Thus, one of the regulatory impediments previously identified by DOE will be removed by this rulemaking.

(f) Reference to Analyses of Kocher and Croff In the proposed rule, the Commission cited a technical report which had recently been published (Kocher, D. C. and A. G. Croff, A Proposed Classification System for High-Level and Other Radioactive Wastes, ORNL/TM-10289, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,1987).

The Comission cited this report to support its view that evaluations of the waste isolation capabilities of

• intermediate" disposal facilities weeld be so speculative and site-specific thet such analyses would net provide a technically defensible basis for classifying wastes as PLW or non-HLW. The Commission further stated that it could not accept an alternative classification approach presented in that report because that epproach was based solely on the short-term storage and

~

11 handling risks associated with the heat and external. radiation levels generated by a waste rather than on the degree of waste isolation required following disposal' The authors of.the cited report (Kocher and Croff) commented on the proposed rule alleging that the Commission had misrepresented the content and conclusions of their report.

As discussed in the detailed analysis of public comments, the Commission acknowledges that its statements could have been misunderstood. The Commission's purpose in referring to Kocher and Croff's report'was solely to support its view that the proposal presented in the ANPRM, i.e.,' classification of wastes based on analyses of the projected performance of " intermediate" disposal facilities, should not be pursued because of the limited development of these facilities and because their performance is likely to be highly site-specific. The Commission continues to believe that Kocher and Croff's i report supports this view. Other references to Kocher and Croff's work are withdrawn.

(g) Licensino Under Part 61 Concerning alternatives to geologic repository disposal, some comments argued that the licensing-of any alternative disposal method should not necessarily be under the framework of Part 61- as was proposed in 661.55. This'would be too restrictive in their view.

The Commission's regulations for licensing of radioactive waste dispose.1 consist solely of 10 CFR Part 60, which applies to disposal in a geologic repository, and 10 CfR Part 61, which applies to land disposal other than in a

' l geologic repository. A wide variety of disposal methods, including all of f

those currently proposed as " intermediate" disposal methods, could be licensed under Part 61. Thus, the Commission does not believe that $61.55 places any I

unnecessary restrictions on 00E. -

1  ;

On the contrary, as provided in SE1.1, Part 61 establishes procedures, <

criteria, and terms and conditions with respect to " land disposal of i

1 I

i t- - - -- - . - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

r I

12 p

- radioactive waste". In implementing this objective, 961.3 requires that the

' disposal of low-level waste at any " land disposal facility" must be author ized under Part 61. 561.7 notes'that additional technical criteria might be needed

' for licensing of disposal. facilities other than "near-surface" disposal. If needed, 'such criteria would be added to Part 61 before licensing an

" intermediate" disposal facility. Since " land disposal facility" is defined broadly (so as'to include.any facility other than a geologic repository), the reference to . licensing under Part 61. is proper and in conformance with the .

existing regulatory structure.

(h) Mixed GTCC Waste EPA raised thE possibility that some GTCC wastes would also contain hazardous materials subject to RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulations.

' The Commission acknowledges this possibility as well as the importance of steps to insure that " mixed" GTCC wastes are managed appropriately. DOE will need to consider applicable RCRA requirements as well as those arising under the Atomic Energy Act. Should RCRA requirements associated with GTCC waste represent a significant impediment to placing a geologic repository in service DOE will still have the option to propose the use'of a separate facility.

(1) Limiting State Responsibility A number of comments wanted the Commission to promulgate regulations making all radioactive waste which is hazardous for over 100 years a Federal

• responsibility. Congress clarified Federal / State responsibilities for radioactive waste in the LLWPAA. States cre responsible for all commercially-generated Class A, B, and C LLW. The Federal government is responsible for the disposal of HLW and defense LLW. In view of this statutory framework, which the Commission considers to be compatible with protection of public health and safety, there would be no basis for any Commission action at this time.

= - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ = _ . __ _ - _ _ .__ __ _ _ -

1 13 Changes From the Proposed Rule Only one change from the proposed rule has been n;ade in these final amendments.

Proposed $61.55(a)(2)(iv) required geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste "unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval." A comment pointed out that the mere submittal of proposals was quite different than approval of proposals b3 the Commission. The Commission agrees that its intent is better expressed by requiring proposals to be approved. Accordingly, the wording in this section has been changed to reed " proposals.... are approved by the Commissior.."

Final pule Following its rcview and analysis of the public comments, the Commission believes that the course of action it had proposed --requiring geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste, er approved alternative-- should be adopted.

Therefore, these final amendments to Part 61 deviate little from those proposed. By them, the Commission is providing DOE with the regulatory framework DOE needs to proceed with plans for managenent of GTCC waste. The rule identifies one approved method of disposal for GTCC waste, but alloss DOE to plan and develop en alternative method if DOE so desires, cubject to Commission approval. It is now up to DOE to evaluate its options for GTCC waste disposal, and to proceed with GTCC disposal.

In line with the foregoing discussion, therefore, the Commission is promulgating two changes to its existing rules. First, by amending 10 CFR

$61.55, it would henceforth require P11 greater-than-Class-C waste to be disposed of in a geologic repository unless an alternative proposal is approved by the Commission. Second, the jurisdictional reach of 10 CFR Part 61 would be extended to cover all activities of the Department of Energy that may be subject to the licensing and regulatory authority of the Commission. This is intended to reflect the policy of the low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which provides that all commercially-generated w6ste with concentrations exceeding Class C 11 tits shall be disposed of in a facility licensed t) the Commission that the Commission determines is adequate to

14 1

protect the public health and safety. This change would take the form of

• eliminating the more restrictive language regarding the Department of Energy that appears in S61.2.

Environmental Impact The amendments to Part 61 contained herein are corrective or of a minor nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Accordingly, under 10 CFR $$51.22(a) and 51.22(c)(2), they are eligible for categorical exclusion from the preparation of an environmental assessment.

The first change, pertaining to the definition of " person," is corrective in that it merely reflects the broader jurisdiction of the Commission under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. The modification is not substantial.

The second change, pertaining to the disposal of greater-than-Class-C radioactive wastes in a geologic repository, is minor. The existing regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 already preclude disposal of GTCC in a Part 61 licensed disposal facility without further review and approval. This amendment I

does no more than state the Commission's conclusion that, in the absence of such an approved alternative, a geologic repository is the only currently authorized facility acceptable for GTCC disposal without further review by the Commission. It is thus a minor change to specify that the "more stringent" methods are to include disposal in a repository, where it is also expressly

.provided that, as before, proposals for other methods of disposal may still be submitteo to the Commission for approval. No substantial modification of existing regulations is involved.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This rcle does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0135.

15 Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this final regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room.-2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from W. Clark Prichard, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, telephone (301) 492-3884.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

605(b)) and' NRC Size S+^,dards (December 9, 1985, 50 FR 50241), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entity subject to regulation under this rule would be the U.S. Department of Energy, which does not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. All waste generators, some of which might be-classified as small entities, must pay the costs associated with management and disposal of the wastes they generate. This rule would not affect those costs since it preserves all options currently available for waste disposal. Only DOE's selection of a specific disposal technology from the full range of alternatives available would potentially have an economic impact on small entities.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 61 Low-level waste, Nuclear, .aterials, Penalty, Radioactive waste, Reporting

,' and recordkeeping requirements, Waste classification, Waste treatment and disposal.

Backfitting Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not r equired for this rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would j impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

f 16 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under'the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, Part 61 of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 61 -- LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:

Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5842, 5846); secs. 10 and 14, Pub.L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851).

For the purposes of Sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2273):

Tables 1 and 2, SS61.3, 61.24, 61.25, 61.27(a) 61.41 through 61.43, 61.52, 61.53, 61.55, 61.56, and 61.61 through 61.63 issued under Sec. 161b, 68 Stat.

948 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); SS61.10 through 61.16, 61.24, and 61.80 issued under Sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

.2. In SSI.2, the definition of " person" is revised in the alphabetical sequence to read as follows:

S 61.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

n * *

• a

" Person" means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department of Energy (except that the Department of Energy is considered a person within the meaning of the regulations in this part to the extent that its facilities and activities are

• i subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission  ;

pursuant to law), any State or any political subdivision of or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political

e

! 17 l-subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or' agency of the. foregoing.

- * *

• a ,

3. In $61.55, paragraph (a) is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

S 61.55 Waste classification.

(a) *

(2) * .

(iv) Waste that is not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal is waste for which waste form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent', Cian those specified for Class C waste. In the absence of specific requirements in th1; part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in Part 60 of this chapter uniess proposals for

-disposal of.such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission.

1 Dated at Rockville, Md. this day of , 1989.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

. . . . -----m -

---

,.r.r,7-,-.r, - ..,3--. . - .,

v , . _-_ _ , . _ . _ - , ,,,_. ,__ _ _

'. F' \

7 i .; , .. t e i

'*'A- ' .1

..,; ;, i 4

-}7

^^

,; , N ,P E -

s, y u, .

r

.'.g

.,,,- , n -

, . g , I)I 2

/ ,3 >-

1,$h'i ' I 1 4

< ,J, gc )y * .: ,s, , , a

,., r ,.

u

r. .fi ,s .

• s IL, '

E r

t . i

,.- 4 s -

t: .(

I , i 4 i',

d ..

4 7

k n-L'

- \

-> y'-

\'.).>

3 k/,

t

.1

.' 1

?I i

b _'

. + .

ty I.44fj A {L s +gp

. .% uV .~

0

.a f 4 ,

'.'k.

\- f 1

6 1 1

?

f L 9 i

.m., iin, d 1

, . . ...a- . ..

typog Proposed Rules * **- '

Vol te No, m wednesday. usy a uns Tres secten of the FEDERAL REGSTER Advance Notice af Proposed Commission te asempueb HLW from contes noeces e the pec of the Rulemaking (ANFRM)(51R $es2) aosWLW. Per sameple. even the basic i poposed amenos of Mes arid announcing its intent to revise the encospt of a m@t definitaan of l

'****'* h m'P* o' "" "**" definition of the term "heleveJ HLW.as sayssend ta the ANPRM. was is 2 ye Warwwd pereere en radiosetive waste" (HLW) that appears criticised as an imetsatsse to elate or in to CFR Part 80. In the ANPRM. the becstamate wastas solely to altar their m of hai Comunission reviewed the previous claninostsam kn hgbt af the 9=====ts a received, es r'm=ni =r='s own review statutory and regulatory uses of the term l "high level radioactive waets," the of avallable todmicalinformestico NUCLEAR REGULATORY NRC's current regulations related to related 2 weste rimanshation and CotasisseoN waste classification and disposal and intermediate" disposal indhties, and M Cm Part 61 e P"unant W eMe Wh Waste Policy Act of 1982. Pub. L s7-425 mview d mienst seututory pmposu.

the Consunasien has deternatand that it 42 U.S C.10101 et seq. (NWPA). As would be best to proceed quite D6spoemd of M Wastes indicated in the ANPRM the NWPA &5mruntly from th arismal segreetion Aeoecr. Nuclear Ifegulatory includes a specific d*Rnition of 'Wgh' put forth ta the ANRM.

Comminion. level rediosetive wute" and the Commission was ennadenas a change Aepromasing WaKas m Pmposed rule. to its own rules to conform to that ne NWPA first labels es HLW under susansurr.ne NRC is publishmg definition. Cluue (A), ese *Wghly radioscure pmposed amendments which require in the ANFRM. the r^waaion proposed to define HLW in a manner mateda!" svedens from ee disposal of "grestar.than. Class-C" !ow. - of spet, fuel, tech &ng not level radiosetive wastes in a deep that in general would apply the term Zh westse but also any sobd geologic repository unless disposal high. level radioactive waste to metsdal derived from such Equid waste sisewhere has been approved by the snaterials in amounts and Commieslot De proposed amendments conornt'ations exceeding numerical h t m W & s Bosbo W t i su2dem whv6cm." Clause (A) abriste the need for altering existir4 values that would be stated explicitly in warus have 9tde amace br '

cJunificatims of radioactive wastes as the farm of a table hs,HLW would -

j l be charactedsed by the kind of hazard A 0 * '

lugh. level or low 4evel ,,

cara; comm,nt period axpiru July la, that could only be guarded against by for the disposal of a5 repmassing 1988 Caraments ts:aived after this date disposal in a geolog.c repository or , ,, g, g,, g, ,g gg, ,

will be considered if it is pract. cal to do equivalent facibty. nose wutes that p ,g7 so, but the Comminsion is able to assure could be dieposed of safely in an " ,,4, consideration on! for comments " intermediate" disposal facility woeld Qg FMbeM nce ed a w m eis date. '

re8Ponalbiltty in 1950 parenant to the oact! e i a W*

West VaDey Demonstration Iroject Act.

mane Mail written comments to-Secretary. U.S. Noclear Regulstory Commemis Pob. L e6-ses 42 USC. sorta nota.)In Cornh WesMagtm, 2 DC m ne Commission sobcited comments light of this fact,the Conunission Att e W W k m on several specmed issues and received bebevos that the preferable construction

" "'

• 1 N ' letters from nearly 100 public agencica d the statu la e confono u es Mint Non,11su"Roch & tr3didual de$n! don. Under &Is RoolwlDs,Md. bohren 7:30 am and tia p, yate ]afzatione.

Virtually comments on the ANPRM and individuals apnroach, l astarials that are HLW for p.rn. Federal workdays, or to the NRC agreed with the Commisalon oc one purposes d the baanstnHurtadic6m PubGc Domment Room et the address point use of the term *Wgh-level pro ions of the Enessy RacaaMaawn and tunes below. Coples of ee radioeceve waste," at least under Act of1874 ) wm also be regarded regulatory analysis and e-ta Clause (B) n'b NWPA dennition, as HLW WWPA.This would moelved may be ev==inari at the NRC Publicnner ment Roomw 1717 H Street

- 21d4' 6>on wutn wMeh .locfsde the prhaary reprocessing waste streams at DOE lacWties, though not the require the d ofisolation afforded NW We se , M, betwwn 2 by a deep geo e repository. However. Incidental wastes produced in

• • • 2 P" comments diffared wtdely regarding noe NProce**itar ma pi mPomarm coerTact specific wantes pertalved to require that Other Womens W. Clark Prichard. Divisim of des e* c'iselstioc Some comments Engincedng. Ofhee of Nuclear advocated dasetfication of aD in the AWRW ibe Commission Regulatory Rese arch, U.S. Nuclear - redloncure wastes,other then the most propoud to ceasely wastes as HLW or Regulatory Commisston, We sMag% inamous, ae HLW sin other noo.HLW by oneining the dasposal

' DC 20%5. telephone (301) 'C-8884- comments won!d prefer to reclasst$y as capad!!ty of tical, suse namTany asFosuursoot low.levellarge quantifiee of defanse "totarmedlain* fecilities less reprou sring wartes long rege n!ed s s secure than a deep repos. tor) . .

BW HLW.Coneylcooush sbsent from tte Wutas which not be safely On Pel ser) c.19e7, the N. t er comments ws: ary r r.senru rega ' ng djeposed ofin such feelhtees would be Rentato y Cc: .mlesion pubtsM rn the eneens to be used by the etassified as HLW.

. /

W G e

t~~ ,

l Fedeeni Registee / Vol 51. No. 98 / Wednesday,' hEey 18, 1938 / Proposed Radise -

17710 i

i Following publication of the ANPRM. re8ects *he th=tadava v6ew est The thelad== at== mha-eas abst d" a technical report (Koder. D. C and A. latesmediate disposal facilities anay es seteiary framework for nuclear 1

. C. Croff. A Proposed Classifxweion never be available,la whid case a l ' waste matters has changed great!y since i System for High leveland Other repository would be the only type of enactmee of NWPA. When that law l Radioactive wasres. ORMLhM-102as, facibty generally capable of pres 6dhg was poseed, k placed a responsibuity on i Oak Ridge National 14borotory.1987) safe disposal for CfCC wastes. fame es Federal t to receive.

I was pubbsed whidi attempted to name time. the Commission wishes to . sannaga esposal of carteiri wastes i provide a technical basis for avoid foreclostas poselble use of (HLW es 4 es spent nuclear fuel)in classification of wasta as }EW or non.

intermediate disposal facilities by the geologic ra ramh'ma== In that context. the i IEW.His report described a number of Department of Energy (DOE). If DOE , deSaltion eths,Eurm "high.}evel  !

conceptual "intarmeesh" despod! Aaaaaa to develop one or more radioectise muss" assumed importance internadiate disposal facilities, the '

facilibes which would use elsber sbecanes it psodesd4 beste for "

' engineered bamers ce desper burialis Commission anticiptes that the .

ddfeersGathsheessesa State and I provide a degree of waste loo 6enon acxaptabutty of such facilities would be ' Federal reg-n_^ "_%.This concern -

l interme6 ate between that of shallow evaluated in the hght of the at suas seh-C, moeted by adoption land burial and a deep geslag6c arcumstamoss, considering example . of the law 14 vel a.ma.4,e Waste u ]

i repository.The autho s attempted an the existing performance objectives of pobey Amendmaats Act of1ses, Pub. L.

i analysis of the westeisolation to CFR Part et and any generally '30-240. 42 U.S.C. so21b et seq.This later

, capabihty of such facibuas bot. spplicable rmvironment radiation statute established a Federal emphaeizmg the site-spedfic esture of protection s'e.ndarde that might have Government responsibihty for the

, such analyses and the very large twen established by the U.S. disposal of comunercially generated uncertainties involved, conduded that Environmental Protection Agency. wastes with radionuchde concentrations

"(a tt the psent tune . . . lsech Techn,ical criteria to implement the exceedmg the limits established in 10

. facthties are] not sufficiently developed performance objectives and CFR Part et for Class C radioactive

, to provide r basis for dermuw weste environmental star.dards would be waste. In view of & development, the i

classes. and disposal of any wastes developed by the Commission after DOE C& mission penwiveelittle practical. *

, usmg [such facihties) must be had completed its conceptual design and importance or significance in proceeding j considered on a case-by. case basta." selected e site for a speci$c type of with a precise dermition of Hl.W. To do i Kucher and Croff then presented an fe cility. so would not advance the objectives of

, alternative approach for defming IEW The Commission considers that the NWPA. ,

which,in essen? is based solely on the. proposal presented in the notice would Proposed h=ad====h short term storage and b sadhng n,aks obviate any need to reclassify certain

, associated with the best and external GTCC wastes as IEW.The proposal In line with the foregoing discussion.

radiation levels genersted by a wasta, follows the alternative approach alluded therefore, the Commission is proposing to to the ANPRM. that the Co nn5ssion two changes to its axisting rules. First. '

The alternative Commission approach sinos could not accept this -

• need not exercise it bears no by NWPA amendmg to Clause Cm e1.55.(B)It would i correlation to the degree of waste authonty in order to assure that henceforth reguire aD greater.than.

isolataon required following 6sposa!. ra6oacative wastes from bcensed Qaas C waite to be d sposed of in a The Commission's review of Kocher activities are disposed of properly"(52 geologie repoeltory unless an alternative and Croffs study leads it to Ibe same FR 5%e). Many comments on the proposalis approved by the -

conclusion regardmg the ANPRM adocated classiLeation of an Commiseion. Second. the jurisdictional irepracticabibty of waste classi$ cation GTCC wastes as }EW in order tc reach of to Cm Part 61 would be based on analyses of the performance o' ensure availabihty of a safe 6 posal extended to cover au actmties of the intermediate 6sposal fadhues. If waste "home" for those wastes. but thn Department of Energy that may be classification is to be at alt riabatic. propc> sal achieves the same purpose subject to the boenoms and regulatory a dd2tional disposal facibry development while leaving open the pmspect that an authonty of the Commisfeion. This is must be completed which wiB provide a intermediate disposal facihty may prove intended to reflect the pobey of the low-supportable basis for such classiScation. attractive at sc ne time in the future. IAvel Radioactive Weste Policy Such disposal facihty development is (Since the possibility of using such e Amendments Act, widch provides that more properly the responabibry of DOE facibty is left open, the C-daa!an is all commerdally generated waste with rather than NRC. Howeves, the very not now determining that the wastes, concentrations exooeding Casa C lunits small volume labout 2Joo a' through even 'l highty radioactive, do in fact shall be disposed of in a facility bcensed the year 2020) of commeraalle

~

" require permanent isole' ion"; by the Commission that the Commission generated greater-than-Qass-C (GTCC) acwrdingly, the NWPA definition of determines is adequate to protect the wastes may make an intermed.ste FEW Goaa not apply). Moreover, this Public health and safety. This change disposal facibty economically proposal avoids the problem of trying to woald take the form of eliminating the >

unattractive. Bu::a se ao anc1 facility 6stmguish Hl.W from non-H1.W without more restrictive language regardmg the '

now exists for disposal of com.mercially- an adequate technical basis for doing se. Deparatment of Energy that appears in generated wastes, and because there is And t!.c legal and administrative the definition of the term " Person"in no assurane that one willever be com;'!1 cations identified in the ANPRM. I 81.2.

constructed. the Commissise be!! cree tha t an alemative, tedrdcaf!) as well ae questons as to the retroactswe EndronmenW/pd Categorical application of any new classiScaSon.

conservatwe approed aboon be tak en. would be sNolded or reduced. However. Ms/on - -

ne Commisstoc pdoposes e rquire ad6tional legislation'may be needed b4 The NRC has determined that this e isp 2 of all CITwastes an s ..eep DOE te provide for payment of dispoe% proposed regulat.on is the type of act;oo Fer's c rip,sitory crdess dtspoal cceit fo abevt Qass C =a_stes er to . desenbed in categorical exclue on to =

els, w here he s tm eghc 6 'y a7,w eW e redpt of such wastes for CFR 51.22(c)(2). Nrefore neither an by the Commisr% Tb p.3pou' d:sp:sa! at a repository. _

enviornmental impact statement nor an ,

Federal Segister //Vol. m No. es / Wednesday, May is. tess / ?.ud tales ryn3

? ,- ' 7 Flexibility Ad Careficatiori trough et;Is eastussed assersse mb.et P

environmental =====-ama h== been d r= a P-Pad =sm De firet change, pertainlag to es m sooord-oe wie se Regasi y Flexibtfity Act of' lee 0 (5 U.S.C. so6(b))

,';---esecgg,, ,

m assen.ssa m tsened eder defirduon of " person." is oormattes in and NRC Site Standards (December 9, ===A=d let UAC tantolk thet it merely reflects the broader 1985. 80 PR 8020). the Comminion

2. In i til Ilse definition of " person" juno 6ction of the enmmission edw the certifies that this proposed rule wiu not 14w.14 vel Radioactve Waste pohey have a significant economic tmpact on a is revised to the $phabebcal sequence Amendments Act.De modt6cationis substantial number of small'entues The to read as follows:

only entity subject to regulation und:r  %

not substantial tra proposed rule would be the US gsta sensesssfst De second change, portaming to afie -

&sposal of greater than. Clam C Department of Energy, which does not g, og g part radioecove wastes in a geological fall within the scope of the definittom of , , , , ,

repository, is minae.no existmg small entitles" set forth in the "Fstoon" meana (1) any individual, regulations in to CPR Port es alisedy Regulatory Flexibility Act. All weste generators, some of which might be corporation. partnership,6rm.

preclude disposal of GTOCin a Part e1 boensed &sposalfodbty witb>ut farther ~ classified as amaU entinei, must pay the anociation. trust, estate, pablic or review and approvst his amendment costs associated with manarement and private institirtion group, government disposal of the wastas they generate. agency other than the Cnemission or does no more than etees the Comminion's conclusion est,in &e This proposed rule would not affect the Department of Energy (except that absence of such an apprned those costs ainee it preservea aU options the Department of Energy is considered alternative, a geologic repository is the currently available for weste &sposal a person within the meaning of the only currently authorized ledbty Only DOE's selection of a specific regulations in this part to the extent'that accepta ble for GTCC disposal without 6sposal technology from the full rtnge its facilities and activities are subject to further review by thecommiasion.Thus, of alternatives evailable would the licensing and related regulatory it la e minor change to that the potentially have an economic impact on authority of theremma==a pursuant to

• more stringent" meth are to include smaU entities. 144 ny State or any pohuca!

I sub6 vision of or any pohtical entity

,jy p [

l" " I'

'g',t Bockfittir;g Anolysis The NRC has determined that the wi6in a Stata, any imign gownmut proposals for other methods of 6sposal m nata or any pohucal subbsion of may stiU be submitted to the backfit rule.10 CFR 50.100, does not . any sud swernment er nabon, w oeer Commission for approval No apply to tins proposed rule, and entity; and (2) any legal successor, substantial modification of existung therefore, that a backfit analysts is not representative, agent, or agency of the regulations is involved. required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do notinvovle any foregoing.

Poperwork Reduction ActStaternt provisions which would impose bacLfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.100(a)(1). 3. In i 61.55, paragraph (a) is amended This proposed rule does not contain a by revising paragrepb (a)(2)(iv) to read Elst of Subjects in le CFR Part 81

. new or amended informaton collectior. "

• requirement eubjeci to the Peperwork gow. level wa ste. Nuclear materials.

Reduction Act of i940 (44 US.C 35CI st Penalty. Ra&oa cuve, wa ste, Reportmg 161.55 Wate m seg ). F.xisting requirements were and recordkeeping requirements. We:te approved by the Of3ee of Management classification. Waste treatment and (a) * *

• and Budget approval number 3150 0135 disposal (2) * *

• For the reasons set out in the (tv) Weste that is not generally preamble and under the authority of the a cceptable for near surface disposal is Regulofor) Analysis Atomic Feergy Act of ISM. as amended. waste for which waste form and De Corr mission bas p epared a drsft the Energy Reorganization Act of19~4. disposal methods must be different, and as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 653 the NRC in general more stringent. than those 8j' Q* 0[08 [ is propwmg t adopt b foDw.ng speciSed hClass C waste. In 6e costs and benefits of the ahernatries amedmmta to% Nart el abeam of speci$c mquiromuts in this considered by the Com= Won.De pan waste must k dasW d m draf t analysis is evillable lor laspection PART 51-UCD4SDiG a geologic repository as defined in Part in the NRC Document Rosei.1717H gogggggENTS FOR g 40 of this chaptar unless proposals for street NW., Washingtem DC DtSPOSA1.OF MAD 60 ACTIVE WASTE disposal of such waste in a &sposal site copies of the draft analysis ma bcensed purenant to this part are 1.%e authority citation for Part et obtained from W. Clark Pdcha submitted to the Commission for Dwiston of Engineering D15ce of continues to read as foDows:

Autbarter Secs. 13.57,62.83.65 et.Det.

approval Nuclear Regulato'ry Research,US * * * *

• Nu,:leat Regulatory r=='aalon. - 1s2.1s3. as stat eso, t't. sas, sa6. sea, ess.

Wasbington DC 20555,tekphone(301) est, as amanded (42 UAC ao~a. ar7, sor Deted NvM.&ls 12th dsy of 492-3 M4 20G3. 2o06. 2111,22ot. 2.2+r. 2+231 seas 20:. g 'g,gg --

toes as Stat 1244.1246 (42 UAC 5642. Sate) For the 1GJ4=*=Megdtory Commission.

De Consion mquecs M '

secs. to and 14. Pub L. es-act. 82 Sta t. 2951 c amroent on the draft regulatory k2 USr 2o21e sM 6851)

For 1he purpoems d Bec 223. to Stat ta& as

&ad JM y '

anelysis Corunents on the disft

.,sl)n s ma) be subtr;ued to the M.C asumdei 142 US C c2m 7st4es 1 em! t. in Doc es-tusa Nad MS-aa ass am!

aa ind cated etder the ADDRESSES - Il enJ ei24 etts e 2?ist e141 eriutt, et el e t2. elas, ents, e12t aM e1Jn satase cosa reso-no he e d. 4 >.e st '

i s

I DRAFT' CONGRESSIONAL LETTER p

i i

t.

^

Dear Mr. ' Chairman:

IL Enclosed for your information is a copy of a notice of final rulemaking _to be published in'the Federal Register.

p- This' action would require peologic repository disposal o'f greater-than-Class-C low level radioactive waste, unless an alternative method of disposal were approved by the Commission. It would give DOE the regulatory framewark it needs to proceed with management of greater-than-Class-C waste. The Commission gave careful consideration to public comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking, published on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17709), in preparing this final rul ema k.i ng.

l Sincerely, 4

Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office cf Nuclear Regulatory Research i

4 54 COMPARATIVETEXI Changes From the Proposed Rule 61.55. Waste classification fa)* *- *

(2)* * *

-(iv) waste that is not generally acceptable' for near-surface disposal is waste for which waste form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent, than those specified for Class c waste. In the absence of specific requirements in this Part, such haste must be disposed of-in a.

geologic repository as defined in Part 60 of this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this Part cre-1trbmitted- to- the-Commissiom for-epprorai . are approved by the Comission.  !

e 4

0 e

9 4

I l

i u_ _2__ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ .

y,gs,~

_ _ . a_ a. .

__ 3

• Y '=-L+ q :. .

',.f'^?! ,

e, . . . . . ,

x ,v - :;,,

n

,.-x ,

,. ,., ,  :\. a; 1 > .

'..., s& . '. ~ "  !

i s ei ,c,'

n ,-- O

,s, %a.cx:

r - o4 4, , 4 i

-.-,5,-

• ~ m.

~

h. I ? ;> '_ ,' ;4.' y n ; .-

~

, . e.

g '..!-

y >

s, : ,

.n

. s

• I s

_' ,k 1 2

.o I

'c n, -i

, 4 . _

. n yy O'  ?

s .a Y- t 4 ,

. .r ,

c n t., . ,

1. O .i

.3-

j. ,

i i

E <

% ' \

1 TSCLOSt'RE C 4

u I', h : <

h

]

• d'?

3 i

F

. p:s * '

f r h y %'.

. 4_g i

-f .'

g s

c t'

k i

s>

4 A

e 5'

I i

i i

1

_---____.___.---____________m__

.k3

% m

-s . .

m ;g t <

1 F

. DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for your information'is a copy of a notice of final rulemaking to be

-published in the Federal Register. ,

A .s y

This action would require geologic repository disposal of greater-than-Class-C s

' low level. radioactive waste, unless an alternative method of disposal were approved by the Commission. It would give DOE the regulatory framework it

needs -to pro'ceed with management' of greater-than-Class-C waste.

~

The Commission gave. careful consideration to public comments on the notice of proposed rulemak'ing, published on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17709), in preparing this final rulemaking.

Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i

l l

._y.

. q.

c.,w .

t >

' I' '

' _- _._ ( ;

J

--yh... ,Q y ,,G_ ^ '} '1 ' ;_

r 3a ;- .o--

- u.

..t

,4 ; ~L:_ '

r 1

' . c+ _ , . . ,

.. . . , , a ), --

w. .,.c. -

, -.. o, g

'#t o

1 4)

' L '

' p, .

.n ,

. , ,;. y,1 <

g..

, 4 d / I'

$T , r

.t 4

.y .

3

.-i,.

..)

~\ ., , . .

..,  ;.4' )

I

, ;p . . .

b

. 1 .

5

+

9, ,'k,'

. L l;'. . , 'k ,

t

i. 's i

r ,CLo c"',E.

. y D

\-

i g .,

9

,q-t

]

i.., , y, i o.

tj.,

n .

4_ i

,\l s

w. , ,..

'g .

,1. - .,

,.- -'j l'

.I E

"N f

(.

.I '

t , .

m

%3

. ..;: s

)-  %,

. k y

..p,-'

1 4;

< y

[

h.

I

l. .. n-e i, ,.,*

, k.'.

?

, T.p

2 . DRAFT NRC' CHANGES REGULATI0flS ON DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE

)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to provide for additional types of radioactive waste to be disposed of in a high-level waste repository. -

The amendments state that wastes " greater than Class C," as defined in the Commission's current regulations, must be disposed of in a deep, excavated '

repository to be built by the Department of Energy, unless disposal elsewhere has been approved by the Coamission.

Generally speaking, greater-than-Class-C waste is radioactive waste that is less toxic than high-level waste, but more toxic than ordinary low-level waste.

More specifically, radioactive waste is greater than Class C if it -

contains more than 8 curies per cubic meter of Carbon-14; 80 curies per cubic meter of Carbon-14 in activated metal; 220 curies per cubic meter of Nickel-59 in activated metal; 0.2 curies per cubic meter of Niobium-94 in activated metal; 3 curies per cubic mete'r of Technetium-99; 0.08 curies per cubic meter

. of Iodine-129; 100 nanocuries per gram of alpha-emitting transuranic with a half-life greater than five years; 3,500 nanocuries per gram of Plutoniumr241; ,

i or 20,000 nanocuries per gram of Curium-242.

l l

l

lJ 1 CRAFT o j 4

L Waste-is:also greater than Class C'if it contains more than 700 curies'-

E t

(per cubic meter of-Nickel-63; 7000 curies per cubic meter of flickel-63 in -

activated metal; 7000 curies per cubic meter of Strontium-90; ,or 4600 curies

.per cubic meter of Cesium-137.

i If waste contains a mixture of these radioactive materials, the

' determination as to whether it is greater than Class C is made by use of a-formula, as described in Part 61'of the Comission's regulations.

f

i Most of the greater-than-Class-C wastes are expected to-come from the a

decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Examples are certain instruments, metal components and reactor internals such as control rods.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.gave the federal government responsibility for disposal of greater-than-Class-C radio -

. active waste. Commercially generated wastes that are Class C or lower, which are not a Federal responsibility, may be disposed of in commercially operated-

' low-level waste facilities.

If DOE decides in the future to build an intermediate disposal facility c for greater-than< Class-C waste's,.the Commission would evaluate its

, . acceptability at that time. However, the very smal.1 volume (about 2,000 cubic meters _ through. the year 2020) of commercially generated, greater-than-Class-C wastes may make an intermediate disposal facility unattractive. Providing that these wastes be disposed of in a high-level waste repository ensures that -

they will have a safe disposal "home," while leaving open the prospect than an intermediate disposal f acility may prove attractive at some time in the future.

4

j.

[f ' p

. j-f DRAF,T,; ' .j W t.

, ll n'

,1, -

TA proposed rule on this subject 'wes published .in the Federal Register on- ,

May 18, 1988. As a result of the comments received,.the wording of'the

.g

! . reguliition has been changed to' clarify the Commission's intent .that' proposals for ' alternative disposal methods be approved" by the Commission, rather.than b{c

\" .

I just' " submitted 'to the Commission 'for approval."

g A ,y The amendments will be-effective on (

1 i4 (p., days after publication in the Federel Register on .-.

-i k

i e

t 0 h I

+ ,

. . - _ - _ - _ _ - , - _ _ _ _ _ ___ ~~~

u. v!' .w, ~z- ,

7;'

i E3 s.. ', <

_ . . :dp 4 .. 7/ 7 1

- - ),: ,

<1,' . _1 ;

l l 1, .

lL = _, 'l.,. , , pj - - 1

._,.  ;'>* f ;y .fr

.. : _qi w ._ ' - . -

.y' g, ,,,: .A-gw. m .y e s 3 s

. j, 8 ..,

,9 . y .

1

• 3~ 1-

. 4 : , a. .; }) !- }f ,

. ., ,, j_1,.' g

> b.. e .

p{t.

1

, C, ..L 'l ;

, , .1_

f).

.>. 1' ,

! b y ') ,. . . . . f. ._ ,4.-

-;}lf- <l _-

,.-2'r . : '}' .: <

a, -'

t . u.;

, a.

,yJ c

., ( ,

.. r -.

2

,3a .c ,.- ,

- -p t , : .,.- .

pg - i.?

( y ,

A /

.; ; 't

+

f';?,' , ..,

, i v -

.E l f ;f,'.

. ! ' t , i. .

r.

.g,, 'E-  %$:

.w .t_ ,

,0,

.!].c. ! . - , -

1 31-' _ ' ' j' - L

..e -

+

' t l{ ' f'-

I. af. .;. i Y

f,r5

' h *. '

, j ', . s-11

.,y v

h-1 P

j 7 .. ,

4 .,

.. ,p h' y j- it

-).- -

' E:? CLOSURE E. . 7.

i 4

p, : , f.-.

~

) ;-

.P

' 'e}^

ta

.,i,.

.f l

l 1

4 j .: s 5'

,f-r b

/ 4'i " / , ,

'f~.g '

e

.l S

r t

v A

g '4 .

.7 '

?

'v '

(j'_.',.

.,*},.( , 3

',h' aw r. e

\< fr -s.

. ?.

en .

'..f.

l- 4 i

I

'g I

• f i

'), -.

l l-

,1 e

h' REGULATORY DCPACT ANALYSIS c

/

4 4

0 i

I

'l l

I. BACKGROUND On May 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a notice of propcsed rulemaking which would require the disposal of Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in a deep geologic repository, unless an alternatwe disposal method was approved by the Commission (53 FR 17709).

This proposed rulemaking was an outgrowth of a review by NRC of the need to revise the definition of high-level radioactive waste (PLW) in 10 CFR Part 60.

This review examined the implications for the radioactive waste management sys-tem of such revision. The issues involved were discussed by the Commission in a February 27, 1987 advance notice of proposed rulemaking (51 FR 599?). The Commission received a large number of comments on the advance notice and these comments, along with other inforrration, led the Commission to set aside any l revisiori of the definition of HLW. A detailed analysis of the comments is available in the Commission's Public Document Room. However, to address a gap in the reguidtory framework for waste disposal which concerned disposal alternatives for GTCC LLW, the Commissicn proposed the amendments to 10 CFR Part 61 which would require geologic repository, or approved alternative, disposel of GTCC waste. The need to reduce uncertainty about the licensing of disrcsal methods for radioactive waste was an important issue brought out by the public comments on the advance notice.

This was particularly true for GTCC LLW. This category of wastes is LLV which contains concentrations o' radionuclides which exceed the upper limits of Class C LLV. Part 61 classifies LLW into three categories, Class A, B, and C

-- with C being the most hazardous. The significance of GTCC LLW is that Part 61 makes waste exceeding the upper limits of Class C generally not elig-ible for near surface disposal. According to DOE, approximately 2,000-4,800 At cubic neters of commercial GTCC will need disposal through the year, 2020.

present, there is ne alternative disposal facility available for disposal of GTCL waste. Uncertainty about licensing the disposal of GTCC was therefore a major issue.

RIA 61 1

I?/09/88

'The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLWPAA)

. clarified Federal / State responsibility for waste disposal. States are only responsible for Classes A, B, and C LLt!. The Federal government is responsible for GTCC waste. The Federal government is also responsible for HLW. The LLWPAA contained a provision which directed DOE to prepare a report for Congress on management of GTCC waste. This report, entitled Recommendations for Management of Greater-than-Class C Low Level radioactive Waste, DOE /NE-0077, 1987, cited lack of NRC regulatory guidance on GTCC waste as a major impediment to DOE planning for GTCC disposal. It called for prompt NRC action to remedy this situation.

Following publication of the proposed amendments, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment published a report on management of GTCC LLW ("An Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater than Class C Low Level Radioactive Waste", US Congress, Office of Technology assessment, OTA-BP-0-50,1988). . Its recommendations on disposal of GTCC waste generally support the stance taken by the Commission in the propcsed amenoments.

The report estimates that deep geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste would cost $90 per cubic ft vs. $140 per cubic ft. for a separate near surface GTCC facility. Based on 2,000 cubic meters of GTCC waste, this would indicate total costs of $6.36 million for repository disposal vs. $9.89 million for an alternative facility.

The OTA report states that "If a decision about the disposal of GTCC wastes were required today, a conservative approach would.be to permanently isolate the waste in a deep geologic repository, as has been proposed.for

- commercial spent fuel and defense HLW." The report goes on to acknowledge that further research and development could demonstrate the acceptability of intermediate disposal methods, such as deep-augured holes or an intermediate-depth repository. The OTA report agrees with the Commission that the volume of GTCC waste is probably not creat enough to justify a separate facility for this waste; costs of geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste would be comparable to, or lower than, developing a special disposal facility solely for GTCC waste.

2 RIA 61 12/09/88 l

1 lhe overall' recommendations of the OTA report are that a Federal off-site interim storage facility for GTCC waste be established, as no permanent dispcsal. facility could be available for Et least 15~ to 20 years. Until such interim storage facilities become operational, the Federal government could provide limited access to an existing DOE storage facility. Within the next

. year or so, DOE should begin to evaluate the impact on repository operations and performance of emplacing GTCC waste in the repository. If DOE determines that such impacts are unacceptable, it could then begin to develop.an alternative disposal facility.

Mention should be made here'of the statutory regulatory authority of NRC over DOE waste disposcl. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 established NRC licensing authority over facilities for disposal of HLW; and under the LLWPAA commercially generated LLW must be disposed of in an NRC licensed facility.

Defense LLW may be disposed of by DOE without NRC licensing. There may be some defense waste materials managed by DOE analogous to commercial GTCC waste. The disposal of these materials would not be subject to Commission licensing.

8

. 1 i

12/09/66 3 RIA 61

N

.).

II. OBJECTIVE Establish a regulatory framework for disposal of GTCC waste. Ensure that.

- regulations exist for disposal of GTCC' waste which will protect public health and safety. Insofar as consistent with protection of health and safety, reduce uncertainty regarding licensing of disposal of GTCC waste.

What is not affected by this rulemaking and'not an objective, is State responsibility for radioactive waste disposal. This is set forth in the LLWPAA.

FRC licensing authority, established by the Energy Reorganization Act, is also unchanged.-

III. ALTERNATIVES

1. [ Selected F.ecuire Disposal of all GTCC waste in a Geologic Repository or Approved Alternative.

The selected alternative keeps GTCC LLW clessified as LLW. No change is made in thc.definiticrs of HLW or LLP. However, geologic repository disnosal of GTCC waste is required, unless an alternative disposal method has been approved by the Commission. This action is but a minor change to the status cuo. Currently,'Part (1 prohibitt the routinc disposal of GTCC waste by near surface disposal. Part 61 specifies that disposal methods for GTCC must be "more stringent", but does not identify acceptable l disposal methods. These amendments to Part 61 would identify one acceptable method, geologic repository disposal, but would also permit Commission-approved alternatives. The amendments thus provide the needed regulatory framework for GTCC disposal by; (a) continuing to classify GTCC as LLW, and (b) reducing uncertainty about licensing of GTCC disposal. It would also provide DOE with a wide range of flexibility in managing GTCC. .

DOE may chcose geologic repository disposal, or it may chcose some alternative intermediate type of disposal, so long as it meets Commission approval. DOE can weigh the costs anc tenefits of the two apprcaches, and make its dcc1sion.

4 RIA 61 1P/09/88 ,

1 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

[,

2. Proceed with a Numerical Reclassification of HLW alone the lines suggested'

,in the Advance Notice In the advance notice, the Commission suggested the following steps to establish a waste classification system. Waste would be classified as HLW if it was both highly radioactive and required permanent isolation.

I

" Highly radioactive" waste would be defined as any waste with radionuclides concentrations above those listed for Class C waste in Table 2 of 10 CFR Part 61. To determine which of this highly radioactive waste required permanent iso 1'ation, the Comission would carry out technical studies on waste types and a variety of different waste disposal technologies. These studies would make use of performance assessment models of each type of reference case disposal facility. Waste classifications would be established by determination, through modeling, of what types of waste could be safely isolated in each type of facility. For example, a certain type of waste might be found to exceed release limits in all types of disposal facilities except a geologic repository. This type of waste would recuire the " permanent isolation" afforded by a geologic repository, and be defined as HLW.

The case against this alternative was made in detail in the supplementary inforniation to the proposeo Port 61 amendments. Briefly, there is no consensus underlying any specific method to classify radioactive waste by concentration. To develop such a method would be costly, time-consuming, and controversial. The technical studies referred to above would be quite expensive to carry out and, since " intermediate" disposal facilities are not available to serve as the basis for classification analyses, hypothetical facilities would have to be postulated based on somewhat arbitrary assumptions.

More importantly, as discussed in the advance notice and in the proposed amendments, reprocessing waste now classified as HLW, such as some Hanford.

tanks waste, does not appear to be a good candidate for reclassification for several reasons:

12/09/88 5 RIA f]

(a) Even if radion M ide concentrations of some wastes are not high, .

total radionuclides inventory.in these wastes is very large, making them' unsuitable for disposal in shallow land burial facilities.

(b) ' The historic legislative and administrative' treatment of reproce'ssing wastes has been as HLW.. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974' recog-nizes this waste as HLW, and extends NRC licensing authority over it.

Therefore, reclassification of some reprocessing waste to the LLW category under Nuclear' Waste Policy Act (NWPA) authority, would not exempt it from Commission licensing authority. Disposal of this reprocessing waste would remain under Commission licensing authority.

The NRC staff is working with DOE to develop appropriate classifica-tion for defense reprocessing wastes under existing laws and regula-tions. These efforts have led to agreement that certain decontaminated salts at Savannah River and West Valley, generated incidentally in the course of processing, should not be classified as HLW. Additional efforts are now underway to review materials to be produced at Hanford in projected operations, so as to determine whether the disposal thereof is subject to Comission licensing.

For non-reprocessing waste not now classified as A, B, or C LLW (essentially GTCC LLW), only a small amount is generated. DOE esti-mates that approximately 2,000 cubic meters will need disposal through 2020 (DOE /NE-0077, 1987). A more recent DOE estimate, cited by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment

( OT A-BP-0-50, 1988) , suggests that the GTCC volume may.be twice this laroe. This relatively small amount of waste suitable for reclassification does not justify a major technical effort to establish a numerical classification system. The only benefit of such a classification system would be to ensure a disposal "home" for those GTCC wastes requiring disposal in a repository. However, the remainder would still not be routinely eligible for near surface disposci, and wculd not t'c t State respersibility. The problem would still exist as to where to dispose of this GTCC waste. The Commission can accomplish much rore by simply recuiring repository RIA 61 6

12/09/88

r_-_ - _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ , - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - - _

disposal of all' GTCC wastes, unless DOE has developed an approved

" intermediate" disposal facility.

i i

3. Classify All GTCC Waste as HLV i

l This option would redefine GTCC LLW as HLW. Numerous public comments on L the ANPRM published by the Commission in 1987 advocated that all waste with concentration limits above the upper limits of Class C should be classified as HLW. Under this alternative only non-reprocessing waste material with con-centrations lower than the upper limits of Class C would be LLW. As the NWPA contemplates only geologic repository disposal for material classified thereunder as HLW, this redefinition would' result in GTCC waste going to the repository.

The disadvantages of this option, compared to the selected one, is the limitation it places en DOE's flexibility to dispose of GTCC. It would dis-cllow the option, held open by the selected alternative, of permitting COE to select Commission-approved alternatives to geologic repository disposal,

~

Should future developments result in the availability of more cost-effective intermediate methods, DOE would be prevented from taking advantage of them.

This could result in excessive costs for the waste management system and waste generators.

IV. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSEP ALTERNATIVE

• As DOE is responsible for disposal of GTCC waste, direct impacts would fall on it. The impacts of the proposed rulemaking should not be major, as it does not change the status quc. DOE may select either geologic repository disposal for GTCC waste, or another alternative, so long as it is approved by the Commission. GTCC waste is not now generally eligible for near surface disposal by the provisions of 10 CFR Part 61. These amendments to Part 61 are not what prevents DOE fron routinely using near surface disposal-- it is aircady prohibited by existing regulttion. Cost impacts do not involve a com-i 7

RIA 61 I?/09/EE i I

parison of shallow land burial with either geologic repository, or intermediate l

disposal techniques.

The fact that geologic repository disposal was suggested in the supple-mentary information to the proposed amendments causes no impact. Cost compar- 'l isons already presented in this regulatory analysis indicate that geologic repository disposal would be as cost-effective as an intermediate disposal method which would require DOE to develop a new disposal site solely for GTCC Waste.

There would be no adverse radiological impacts from this alternative. No performance requirement.for any type of disposal facility is _being changed. On the contrary, as this rulemaking reduces uncertainty as to the regulatory framework for disposti of GTCC waste, it allows the development of plans for disposal to proceed at a nore rapid pace. It should result in more timely disposal of GTCC waste, rather than an indefinite period of interim storage.

GTCC waste is relatively small by volume. It could be disposed of in a geologic repository with little impact on the capacity of the repository to receive spent fuel and HLW. There should be no significant costs imposed upon generators of spent fuel and HLU from addirg GTCC to the repository. Moreover, the rule imposes no requirement for geologic repository disposal. DOE should be able to establish a metbed for recovering costs of GTCC disposal from generatu s. The LLWpAA directs DCE to identify such a method, even if this would require legislative changes. i There would be no impacts on States or State LLW Compacts. This,

. rulemaking has no effect on Federal / State responsibilities for radioactive waste disposal. States already are not responsible for GTCC waste disposal by the provisions of the LLWPAA.

For NRC, there would be no adverse impacts on costs / resource needs for licensing. It is quite possible that the licensing of GTCC disposal by means i

of the geologic repository would be less of a burdensome licensing responsibil-ity than that of licensing a separate GTCC-only facility. Powever, NDC must

'icense whatever aisposel method is selected by DOE. )

12/09/86- ( PIA 61

)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .-- _ - _ )

'"[ '(i h f, 3 , j- -pi' .  ! '

L; \,,q:.\ t.. > s ...; * - ' s ,. . '.' u r-u -ec. s ,

& ' . t I' '

\ ;*. '~

_ . . , 3)

< m.:: . .; ;- ,

, L ,- J e

p e: t r-

>, , df ; ~

i t #

3: c.-

. . . a

.I Y j'. [

I

).. wf j:,^ ' .i, C k'r,&

fl ( v' <[' *

' ,-- l

,l

.,1. g I -

. .a . . . .y, i

?

V gi- )' : '

4 r f -l Q

-(_

y . 9, ,

"}m'n,-

"Y

, h g . ', e e r 4.

.( '-b j..- ..p.,.

(

Li k p II

.h

j. y.

t I

n T

• II' w L u[,] w('L'.D ew7 t l

f k,

f se h- ..

6. t.

s 1

4

?

^

L

,.kt,Js -

> ('.

h-(

t i

1

.' > /fj

\

[',. -

)'

O g I

' .

• ___m__-m _m__._-- ---_ _ - - - - - -- - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - ^ ~ - - - ^ ^ ' " ' - - ' - ~ - - - ' ' - ^ - - - -

h,c z,*.:4 :

r 4 T COMPARATIVE. TEXT Changes From the Proposed Rule (61.55' Waste classification

-.(a)*. '*. *

(2) * *

• fiv). waste that is not generally-acceptable for near-surface disposal is waste for which waste form and disposal methods must be different, and in general-more str i ngent, t han t hose specified for Class c waste. In the absence of specific requirements in this Part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository as: defined in Part 60 of this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste <in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this Part ere '

strbmttted-to-the-Commission-for-epprorai are approved by the Comission.

4 8 @

4 e 9

e ,

et

l

',\-

1 2

4 1

I i

4

.F GCLOFGE G ,

o 4

E l

t m -

_m ._m_m_-..-.______-m - __.__.u m_ .___

PART 61 AMENDMENTS ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS DRAFT 1 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

IMPACTS ON COMMERCIAL LLW FACILITIES l

l A' comment wanted NRC to assess any impacts that the proposed rule would have on

,. commercial low-level waste (LLW) facilities.

Response

The proposed Part 61 amendments would have no adverse effect on commercial LLW faci'lities since the amendments deal only with Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act'of 1985 (LLWPAA) clearly identifies disposal of GTCC waste as a Federal, not State responsibility. States which operate LLW disposal facilities, either solely or ar part of a State compact, are not required to accept GTCC waste for disposal.

The proposed amendments were developed in recognition of this reality.

.Some States commented that the proposed amendments would have a beneficial effect on State ef"rts to manage LLW by reducing uncertainty about disposal of GTCC waste.

03/20/89 2 61 COMMENT RESPONSE

IMPACTS ON UTILITIES AND RATEPAYERS A comment wanted NRC to assess any impacts on utilities and ratepayers.

Response

The Commission believes that impacts on utisities 'nd ratepayers would be negligible. Firstly, the proposed amendments allow for a range of GTCC disposal methods to be used by DOE. Under present rt ulations on land disposal of LLW (10 CFR Part 61), GTCC waste is specifically idt tified as "not generally acceptable" for near-surface disposal. Disposal methods for GTCC waste must generally be "more stringent" than near-surface disposal. The amendments to Part 61 proposed here specify~ that one "more stringent" method

. would- be geologic repository disposal. Other methods are not specified but are also left open to DOE, subject to Commission approval. The present amendments-are not what prevents DOE from routinely using near-surface disposal; that is already prohibited by 10 CFR Part 61 without a special technical analysis.

Thus, relevant cost imp' acts of the amendments do not involve a comparison between costs of geologic repository disposal vs. costs of shallow land burial.

Cost comparisons involve geologic repository disposal vs. other unspecified Commission-approved " intermediate" methods. However, the present amendments do not require one method to be selected over another; either option is permitted.

DOE will presumably weigh cost comparisons along with other factors in selecting which disposal method to use. Even if geologic repository disposal is selected, it is not likely that the disposal of GTCC waste in the repository

', would cause an increase in the present HLW fee charged nuclear utilities.

Rather, as suggested by DOE's study of the matter pursuant to $3(b)(3) of the LWPAA, it is likely that a separate fund, similar to the HLW Nuclear Waste Fund, would be established to provide for payment of dispc-sal costs by the generators of GTCC wastes.

3 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

~

is

' Finally,'the Commission notes that a recent' study by the Congressional Office ~

1

.of Technology Assessment suggests that' disposal;of GTCC waste ~in'a HLW.

p repository may be.less expensive than developing.an alternative, intermediate.

. type.of disposal facility. In any case, the amendments proposed by the '

Commission allow DOE to select'any disposal-option that is safe,'so no. adverse

~

cost impacts will restit from these amendments.

l.

p I U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater than Class C Low Level Radioactive Was 01A-BP-0-50, 0-tober, 1988.

4 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

t 1

BURDEN ON CAPACITY OF REPOSITORY l

Several comments expressed concern that requiring geologic repository disposal of GTCC wastes would be a burden on the capacity of the geologic repository.

Some noted that this could be a factor leading to tlw need to develop a second geologic repositc.'y. One comment noted that fractionation of HLW may be adopted in the future, and that this would result in larger volumes of GTCC waste than projected.

Response

The fact that the expected volume of GTCC waste is very low was an important factor in the Commission's decision to promulgate the proposed Part 61 amend-ments. Current evidence shows that tte expected volume of GTCC waste is very small relative to volumes of HLW and Class A, B, C LLW. It is projected that less than 4,800 cubic meters of commercially generated GTCC waste will need disposal through the year 1020. This amount of waste is smaller than the~ j anticipated excavated volume of a single emplacement room of a repository, and f would not present a significant burden on the capacity oi the repository to receive HLW. It would not be a significant factor underlying the need for a second repository.

The Commission does not consider that fractionation would affect the proposed amendments for three reasons: (1) Proposals for fractionation of defense HLW are not expected to produce GTCC wastes, and even if they do, Part 61 would not be applicable to disposal of defense wastes, (2) Fractionation of spent fuel (rod consolidation) produces a waste (fuel hardware) which should continue to be classified as spent fuel rather than as GTCC waste, and (3) Reprocessing of commercial spent fuel is unlikely to occur in the U.S. Nevertheless, if the ,

I projected volumes of GTCC waste should increase, DOE could still develop any appropriate type of disposal facility under the provisions of the proposed amendments.

5 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

i

~

COMPLICATE LICENSING OF REPOSITORY l

1

'There were several comments pointing out that the possible addition of GTCC wastes to the geologic repository would conplicate DOE's task of characterizing the performance of the repository, necessary for licensing. DOE's work to date has assumed a reference inventory of radionuclides corresponding to spent fuel and reprocessing HLW. Commenters stated that the proposed rule would make DOE include this additional type of waste in its performance assessments of the repository.

Response: ,

Again, the Commission stresses that the proposed rule does not force DOE to place GTCC waste'in the repository. If DOE finds that demonstrating per-formance assessment of GTCC wastes in the repository is too great an obstacle, it may propose another form of disposal for GTCC.

However, given the relatively less hazardous inventory of radionuclides in GTCC waste, compared to spent fuel and reprocessing waste, it is difficult to imagine how adding GTCC waste to the repository would make DOE's performance assessment tasks much more burdensome.

6 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

l.

L DON'T ABANDON RISK BASED CLASSIFICATION Several comments objected to abandoning the attempts, as exemplified in the approach proposed in the advance notice of proposal rulemaking (ANPR) on the definition of high-level radioactive waste (51 CFR 5992), to base the waste classification system on risk or hazard of the waste.

Response

The Commission agrees that this type of classification system would have certain advantages. However, in the context of the present waste management system, it would present offsetting disadvantages. The reasoning behind'the change in approach represented by the proposed Part 61 aaendments was summarized by the Commiss, ion in the supplemental information to the proposed rule (58 FR 17709). It need only be reiterated in brief here.

While the theoretical advantage of a risk-based classification system was acknowledged by many public comments on the ANPR there was a disparity in views )

on how this should be implemented. There was no consensus supportin; the Commission's approach, or any alternative approach. This would mean that a new cla:,sification system would have to be developed. The Commission had to consider t %ther a major technical effort to develop a new risk-based classifit.n*2n system was justified.

Several factors were crucial in reaching the decision that such an effort was not justified. Reprocessing waste inventories, currently classified as HLW, did not seem to be good candidates for reclassification. This waste, regardless of concentration, contains such large total inventories of radionuclides that reclassification would pose practical problems for disposal.

Also, the historic legislative treatment of reprocessing waste as HLW would pose pratt1t.al problems for reclassification.

03/20/89 7 61 COMMENT RESP 0 HSE l

Finally, the NRC statf has been working with DOE to develop appropriate classifications for defense reprocessing wastes under existing laws and regulations. These efforts have led to agreement that decontaminated salts at j

Savannah River and West Valley, generated incidentally in the course of processing, should not be classified as HLW. Additional efforts are now underway to review materials to be produced at Hanford during projected operations in order to determine whether disposal thereof is subject to Commission licensing.

For non-reprocessing waste, Classes A, B, and C LLW were recognized as a State responsibility by the LLWPAA. Other LLW--GTCC waste--is a very minor component of the total LLW stream. As it is clearly a Federal responsibility, its classification would not alter Federal / State responsibilities. The volume of GTCC waste is just too minor to warrant a large-scale effort to classify some as HLW and the rest LLW. Further, any effort to do so would necessarily involve some judgements with respect to practical design concepts that are more appropriately made in the first instance by DOE as the license applicant. In fact, classification of some GTCC waste as HLW would encourage disposal of those wastes in a deep geological repository, restricting DOE's flexibility to develop the most appropriate type of disposa? facility for those wastes. The Commission considers it more appropriate for [23E to develop an acceptably safe disposal facility for GTCC wastes than to worry about classification of those wastes as HLW or non-HLW.

03/20/89 8 61 COMMENT RESPONSE l

RELATIONSHIP 0F PROPOSED AMENDMEWTS TO DEFENSE WASTES Some comments were concerned with any effects this rulemaking would have on .

defense wastes. The State of Washington expressed interest in Commission activities to establish standards for GTCC facilities other than deep geologic repositories, and how these activities may relate to DOE activities with respect to defense waste disposal.

Response

The propused amendments apply solely to commercial GTCC LLW, and have no bearing on defense LLW. NRC has licensing authority only over commercially generated LLW; it has ne licensing authority over defense LLW, including defense LLW that might be analagous to GTCC waste. Therefore, DOE plans for disposal of certain defense materials similar to GTCC waste would be unaffected by the proposed amendments.

These efforts would have no effect on defense LLW disposal, since (as indicated above) Part 61 by its terms would only apply to DOE activities subject to NRC jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction is lacking for defense LLW. In the case of facilities authorized for the disposal of HLW, the Commission does have jurisdiction and Part 61 vould continue to apply. Accordingly, to the extent that DOE disposes of HLW in facilities other than geologic repositories, a license under Part 61 would be required as before. DOE would not necessarily be precluded from proceeding with such disposal, but as has always been the case they would need to obtain the Commission's approval.

The NRC addressed the issue of whether 10 CFR Part 61 was applicable to near-surface disposal of waste using methods that irtorporate engineered barriers or structures and other alternatives to conventional shallow land burial disposal practices in the EIS for Part 61. It was later re-examined in NUREG-1241 (" Licensing of Alternative Methods of Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste", December, 1986). It was concluded that 10 CFR Part 61 was 61 COMMENT HESPONSE j 03/20/89 9 l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

applicable to alternative methods for the land disposal of icw-level )

radioactive waste. Subsequent to the publication of NUREG-1241, the NRC revised its Standard Review Plan ( NUREG-1200) in January, 1988 to provide guidance on additional near-surface disposal concepts that incorporate structures constructed of cementitious materials with an earthen cover.

l

)

l l

1 10 61 COMMENT RESPONSE I 03/20/89 I

1

I' ,

^

}.

t si j,\

RESTRICT ALTERNATIVES TO FEDERAL FACILITIES

[

Many comments,; including some'by States and regional state LLW compacts, argued for restricting the alternatives to geologic repository disposal. These comments were concerned that GTCC waste could be disposed of in State or State compact operated facilities. NRC was urged to " eliminate the option" of disposal in State or State compact facilities, by limiting alternative disposal methcds to Federal facilities, s

Response

4 The LLWPAA addressed Federal and State responsibilities'for radioactive waste disposal. States are responsible only for commercial LLW classified as "A",

"B", or "C" waste according to Part 61. All HLW, and all GTCC LLW, is a Federal responsibility. The concerns expressed by commenters on this point have therefore been addressed, to a large extent, by legislation. No public p health and safety concerns have been presented that would persuade the Commission'to require.the use of Federal facilities, to the exclusion of other

. facilities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act, for the disposal of all GTCC.

Indeed, the LLWPAA appears to recognize the continued authority of a State, subject to the provisions of its compact, or a compact region, to accept GTCC waste for disposal, and in the absence of some compalling reason the Commission's judgment is that this option should be preserved.

i n

\

l C

11 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

WHAT STANDARDS WOULO APPLY TO GTCC WASTE EMPLACEO IN A GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORY?

g Both EPA and DOE,Jamong other commenters, were concerned about one aspect of possible geologic repository disposal of GTCC waste. Should GTCC LLW be emplaced in a repository along with HLW, these two categories of waste would be subject to different standards -- EPA's HLW standard and EPA's LLW standard .

In addition, tht;, questioned whether NRC's 10 CFR Part 60 or 10 CFR Part 61 would apply to G1CC waste in a repository. Commenters cited the potential for

' confusion in having dual standards apply to waste in the same repository.

Response

10 CFR Part 60 -- Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Geologic Repositories-- does not' apply'only to HLW. It was promulgated to apply to any -adioactive waste emplaced in a geologic repository. However, some requirements in Part 60, for example 560,113(a)(ii)(A), which specifies performance requireme.'ts for the waste package, apply to HLW only. This situation has parallel in other NRC regulations; for instance Part 61 contains different packaging requirements for Class 1: LLW than for Class A LLW.

It is expected that GTCC waste emplaced in the repository will have to meet the general Part 60 performance criteria. However, for those sections of Part 60 referring to HLW specifically, alternative requirements would need to be developed for GTCC waste. The Commission is currently' planning to provide this guidance in future rulemakirig.

For all wastes disposed of in a repository, Part 60 now requires:

(1) waste disposal operations shall be conducted in compliance with the radiation protection requirements of Part 20 of the NRC's regulations (section 60.111(a).

12 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

'I

(2) the option of waste retrieval shall be maintained for a period up to 50 years after the start of waste emplacement operations (section 60.111(b), and (3) "... any release of radionuclides from the engineered barrier system shall be a gradual process which results in small fractional releases to the geologic setting over long times ... The release rate of any radionuclides from the engineered barrier system following the containment period shall not exceed one part in 100,000 per year of the inventory of that radionuclides calculated to be present at 1,000 years following permanent closure ... (section 60.113).

Also implicit in Part 60 is a requirement that any GTCC wastes disposed of in a repository not prevent HLW or spent fuel from meeting the specific performance objectives for those types of wa-tes.

These general objectives can be achieved in various ways for different wastes.

For example, containment within a durable waste canister might be appropriate for short-lived wastes (half-lives about 30 years or less), while processing of wastes to reduce teachability of use of retardant backfill materials might be more appropriate for longer-lived wastes. Tha NRC is initiating an effort, as contemplated by section 60.136(d) of Part 60, to specify in more detail the waste form and packaging criteria appropriate for specific types of CTCC

{ wastes. The Commission anticipates that DOE will develop specific waste form and packaging alternatives for consideration by the NRC in that rulemaking, and the Commission would welcome similar suggestions from other interested parties.

Previous development of EPA's standards has addressed types of wastes rather than types of disposal facilities as in NRC's regulations. Thus, it is possible that a repository containing both HLW and GTCC LLW would be subject to l

two EPA standards. The NRC does not anticipate that this will cause significant problems for DOE. If it should pose an insurmountable difficulty, DOE would still be able to develop a separate facility only for GTC waste.

The NRC staff will consult with EPA, as appropriate, to address (and resolve, if possible) potential issues related to differences in regulatory approach.

l 13 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89 1

U -__ --_____- _ __- - _ _ - _ _

OBJECTION TO TYING ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL METHODS TO PART 61 Some commentors objected to tying proposals for alternative disposal methods to Part 61. The proposed amendments state that such alternative proposals be for l 1

disposal of GTCC waste in a disposal site licensed " pursuant to this Part" (Part 61). Commenters wanted the reference to Part 61 eliminated, reasoning that this restricted the flexibility of DOE to pursue alternative methods for

' disposal of GTCC waste.

Response

The Commission has promulgated two sets of 'egulations for the disposal of radioactive waste; 10 CFR Part 60, which governs the disposal of radioactive waste in geologic repositories, and 10 CFR Part 61, which governs land disposal of radioactive waste. Since the alternative disposal methods referenced are in lieu of geologic repository disposal. 10 CFR Part 60 would not be applicable.

The single remaining NRC regulatory framework in existence is Part 61. Part 61 is applicable not only to disposal of radioactive waste by means of near-surface disposal but to other types of land disposal.

As provided in S61,1, Part 61 establishes procedures, criteria, and terms and conditions with respect to " land disposal of radioactive waste". In implementing this objective, S61.3 requires that the disposal of low-level waste at any " land disposal facility" must be authorized under Part 61. S61.7 notes that additional technical criteria might be needed for licensing of disposal facilities other than "near-surface" disposal. If needed, such ~

criteria would be added to Part 61 before licensing an " intermediate disposal facility. Since " land disposal facility" is defined broadly (so as to include any facility other than a geologic repository), the reference to licensing under Part 61 is proper and in conformance with the existing regulatory structure.

03/20/89 14 61 COMMENT RESPONSE

} j' :i

()

3 i )

e 4 j DOE COMMENTS t r  ! .

GENERAL .

T I

' DOE Comment

]

The Department's first objection is that the proposed rule f ails to-acknowledge the comprehensive scheme for developing a policy for disposal'of GTCC wastes  !

which was created by Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Public Law 99-240, (LLWPAA). This statute confers on 7 the Department a long-range responsibility to identMfy disposal options, financing mechanisms, and the legislation needed to implement them, and further <

.i provides that no disposal shall be undertaken until the Department's recommendations'have been submitted to Congress.

Response

I The Commission considers the proposed rule to be entirely consis. tent with the

" comprehensive scheme for developing a policy for disposal .of GTCC wastes"

. referred to in this comment. The proposed rule does not constrain DOE's ability to " identify' disposal options, financing mechanisms, and the legislation needed to implement them." Nor does the proposed rule recjuire disposal of GTCC wastes prior to submittal of the Department's recommendations to Congress. The proposed rule only requires that GTCC wastes be disposed of i

in a facility licensed by the NRC -- a constraint imposed by the LLWPAA.

In DOE's 1987 report to Congress regarding management of GTCC wastes

-(DOE /NE-0077), DOE stated that certain regulatory actions were needed before DOE could proceed with ide. notification of disposal options and costs. One of these actions was a decision by NRC whether or'not to proceed with development of a concentration based definition of high-level waste. The Commissicn has decided not to develop such a definition for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this response to corrnents. Thus, one of the regulatory impediments previously identified by DOE will be removed by this rulemaking.

03/20/89 15 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 4

~. a

" DOE Comment.

4 i

'4 ,

'If this proposed rule is misinterpreted as a premature designation that all 1

j, W GTCC wastes shall be disposed of in a geologic repository (unless placed in

. .l d / some other' licensed facility), the Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission (Commission) w'ill disturb the deliberative process mandated by Congress before that process h.

v.

• can de completed. This interferes with the Department's ability to perform an

. objective study unbiased by other regulatory initiatives O

- R_esporgel i The Commission would not consider the proposed rule to be " mis 1terpreted" nor a!" premature designation" that all GTCC wastes be disposed of ir. t geologic repository or other licensed' facility. On the contrary, the Commission

. considers this to be exactly the requirement imposed by Section 3(b)(2) of the

'LLWPAA, ite., "[GTCC wastes) shall be disposed of in a facility licensed by the 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . .

, DOE Comment By suggesting that the Department obtain legislation to implement the

[

Commission's policy choice, the Commission is asking the Department to act without first having complied with its own responsibility under the LLWPAA.

Response

~

1 The Ccmmissic,n did not suggest that the Department obtain any legislation. The Commission merely recognized that additional legislation may be needed -- a point-emphasized by DOE in its own comments.

As th6 Commission clearly stated in its Federal Register notice, "[t]his )

proposal reflects the Commission's view that intermediate disposal facilities may never be avtrilable, in which case a repository would be the only type of f

facility generally capable of providing safe disposal for GTCC wastes. At the

' same time, the Commission wishes to avoid foreclosing possible use of intermediate disposal facilities by the Department of Energy (DOE). If 00E

> 03/20/89 16 61 COMMENT RESPONSE p

n ,

s chooses to develop one or more intermediate disposal facilities . . ." .The

1. Commission could scarcely have stated more clearly that it was leaving the selection of disposal facilities to the discretion of DOE. The Commission's policy choice is merely to require repository disposal of GTCC wastes if no other suitable disposal facility is proposed and developed by DOE.

DOE Comment The Department believes that the proposed rule should be abandoned, and that the Commission should resume the course announced in the ANPR of developing a definition for HLW. This would be of great assistance to the Department in defining GTCC LLW- prerequisite for evaluating policy options--and would be j consistent with more conventional regulatory procedures. If this course is follcwed, then, once the' Department has developed appropriate disposal options and.has advised Congress of needed legislation, and Congress has acted on those recommendations, the Department will be in a position to. work with the Commission re0arding technical matters and licensing' procedures. This would be a far better approach to the problem of disposal of GTCC wastes in that it would not foreclose deliberations intended by Congress to be the responsibility of the Department.

Response

The Commission fails to see (and DOE fails to demonstrate) that there would be any benefit to be gained by classifying some GTCC wastes as HLW. On the contrary, such an action might have the effect of encouraging or requiring

~

F ,

repository disposal of those wastes -- thus restricting DOE's flexibility to

- develop appropriate disposal options.

The Commission also fails to see (and again DOE fails to demonstrate) that there is any deficiency in the description of GTCC wastes provided by the LLWPAA. That act refers to "any other low-level radioactive waste [other than-certain wastes generated by the Federal government] with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the Commission for class C 03/20/89 17 61 COMMENT RESPONSE i

iradioactivewaste,,asdefinedbhsection61.55oftitle10,CodeofFederal Regulations, as in effect on January 26, 1983." Absent a demonstration of .

. deficiency in this description, the Commission sees no merit in develop ing a revised definition of GTCC wastes.

DOE Comment l

l l If, however, the Commission dcas not accept the Department's recommendation concerning this matter [developire a definition of HLW], then, in the alternative, the Department recommends that the proposed rule be amended to preserve the Department's policy-making responsibility under the LLWPAA. In either case, the Department urges the Commission to proceed with developing an.

appropriate risk-based definition of waste streams, as initially proposed in the ANPR.

Response

As discussed previously, the Commission does not recognize any infringement on DOE's " policy-making responsibility" resulting from the proposed rule. Thus, no amendment would be needed for the purpose stated by DOE. The Commission's

. reasons for departing from the risk-based approach suggested in the ANPR were articulated in the supplementary information accompanying the proposed amendments, and are discussed further below.

DOE Comment The proposed wording for section 61.55(a)(2)(iv) states, in part, that "In the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository . . . urless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval." The wording of the preamble and the proposed rule create confusion and might be misinterpreted to imply that the Commission is expressing a preference for disposal in a repository. GTCC wastes need better definition.to determine whether, or which, GTCC wastes require the isolation of a geologic repository. Disposal in a geologic repository nay be an unnecessarily expensive alternative for some GTCC wastes and for some 18 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

j

~ I

.ow-activity wastes that may be considered HLW under a source-based definition while it may be the only appropriate alternative for others. The activity

~ levels of the various forms of GTCC wastes and low activity HLW should be considered to assure an appropriately safe form of disposal without excessive costs to the generators and the public. Further, the addition of a new waste form for disposal in a geologic repository may well impact the design of such a repository and/or necessitate.special treatment of the new waste form.

L Licensing and permitting of the repository may also be complicated by the inclusion of another form of waste.

Response

It would not be a misinterpretation to conclude that the Commission is expressing a preference for repository disposal of GTCC wastes. This preference results from the lack of any DOE proposal for alternative disposal facility for those wastes. However, the proposed rule clearly provides for use of an alternative type of disposal facility if one is proposed, developed, and licensed. If the Department finds repository disposal of GTCC wastes to be

" unnecessarily expensive" or complicated, development of an alternative means of dispcsal would be a' logical course of action. The intent of the Commission's proposed rule is to avoid continuation of the current situation where no disposal f acility of any kind is available for GTCC wastes, causing those wastes to be retained ir temporary storage indefinitely.

)

I' 00E Comment The Department suggests that the wording of the rule be modified to allow the Department the clearest opportunity for maximum flexibility by changing the l last sentence of 61.55(a)(2)(iv) to read as follows: "Such waste must be disposed of either in a disposal site or sites licensed pursuant to this Part or in a facility licensed pursuant to Part 60 of this Chapter."

Response

(See earlier response to " Objection to Tying Alternative Disposal Methods to Part 61").

19 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

l DOE Comment The preamble further states that additional legislation may be needed by the Department to provide for payment of disposal costs of GTCC wastes or to authorize receipt of such wastes for disposal at a repository. Unless the Commission makes a determination under section 2(12)(B) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) that GTCC waste requires permanent isolation, the Department j agrees that such legislation would be required. The Department has no )

authority to dispose of wastes other than high-level (as defined in the NWPA)  !

and spent fuel in a repository authorized by the NWPA.

Response

DOE agrees with the Commission's suggestion that additional legislation may be needed before GTCC wastes - if not determined to be HLW - could be disposed of in a repository. This may be a regrettable constraint, but it is an unavoidable one. It remains open for DOE to propose oisposal of such waste in an alternative facility; if such disposal were approved by the Commission, in the exercise of its existing or extended jurisdiction, the limitations of the NWPA would be of no consequence. Further, DOE itself may determine that, based on economic considerations as well as safety and environmental concerns, certain well-defined categories of GTCC should be classified by the Commission as HLW. This could be accomplished in the course of further rulemaking; to the extent the Commission were then to conclude that the materials thus categorized by DOE ought to be defined as HLW, under the statutory standard, the need for legislation would be eased (although adjustments might in any event still be required to address the advance-contracting limitations of Section 302(b)(2).

The LLWPAA directed DOE to identify options for ensuring that those who benefit from activities resulting in the generation of GTCC waste bear the costs of disposing of such waste, and also to identify any statutory authority required for disposal of such waste [LLWPAA, 63(b)(3)].

03/20/89 20 61 COMMENT RESPONSE

DOE Comment The Commission states that " Technical criteria to implement the performance objectives of [10 CFR 61] and [the Environmental Protection Agency]

environmental standards would be developed by the Commission after the DOE [the Department] had completed its conceptual design and selected a site for a specific type of facility." The Department would like the opportunity to discuss the applicability of the existing repository technical criteria for spent nuclear f uel and HLW to the disposal of GTCC wastes in a repository.

Response

The Commission's regulations for a deep geologic repository (10 CFR Part 60) were specifically developed to accommodate disposal of wastes other than HLW and spent nuclear fuel. Paragraph (d) of section 60.135 specifies that

"[d]esign criteria for waste types other than HLW will be addressed on an individual basis if and when they are proposed for disposal in a geologic repository." Thus, the existing criteria of Part 60 would not necessarily be applicable for GTCC wastes. If and when DOE proposes to dispose of GTCC wastes in a specific type of facility (repository or other), the NRC staff will initiate development of appropriate technical criteria for that type of facility.

DOE Comment While the Department appreciates the flexibility the Commission is making available in the proposed rule, the Department is concerned that the effort to define high-level waste has been discontinued by the Commission. A risk-based definition of high-level waste, which is tied to adequate protection of public health and safety, is needed. The Department would like to see this effort resumed and is willing to assume a more active role in the effort, if requested by the Commission.

03/20/89 21 61 COMMENT RESPONSE

Response

The Commission does not agree that a risk-based definition of high-level waste is needed. For_GTCC wastes, it is more.important to develop one or more suitable disposal facilities than to divide the population of GTCC wastes _into l

HLW and non-HLW subsets. Instead, the Commission considers that it would be_

m' ore productive to deal with GTCC waster, as a separate waste class. DOE would i

be permitted the flexibility.to dispose of these wastes in any way technically j responsible.

i An unstated goal of this comment may be " deregulation" of some or all of the reprocessing wastes currently in tank storage at DOE's Hanford reservation.  ;

But, regardless of any revised definition of HLW that might be developed f

pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Commission considers that reprocessing wastes would remain "high-level wastes" for purposes of the Energy.

Reorganization Act and hence subject to NRC jurisdiction.* Thus, licensing of the facilities to be used for disposal of these wastes would be required, and the goal of " deregulation" would not be accomplished. Stated another way, if the Commission's licensing responsibility for the Hanford " tank wastes" is to )

be eliminated, this must be accomplished by amendment of the Energy Reorganization Act rather than by any unilateral action by the Commission or by DOE.

• The Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes the Commission'for purposes of the NWPA to define the term "high-level radioactive waste."

Regulatory jurisdiction is defined by the Energy Reorganization Act, not by NWPA. Moreover, Section 8 of the Act states that ". . . the provisions of this i Act shall not apply with respect to any atomic energy defense activity or . ..

- facility . . ." Thus, any revised definition of HLW that might be developed by the Commission would not apply to the Hanford wastes that might be found to be acceptable for some form of near-surface disposal.

l DETAILED COMMENTS 22 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89 f

l L-----__-____________

r .

L DOE Comment Nowhere 1n the proposed rule has the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) attempted to insure that its policy objectives are consistent with the P Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLWPAA), Public Law 99-240, . . .

Response

The Commission's single policy objective is'to achieve safe disposal of GTCC J and high-level wastes consistent with the law., As discussed above, the proposed amendments allow DOE virtually unlimited flexibility to select j disposal 'acilities for GTCC wastes. The only constraint imposed on DOE is that the facilities selected must be licensed by the Commission -- a constraint ]

already,provided by the LLWPAA. The Commission sees no inconsistency with the law.

DOE Comment

. . . the Department was hampered by the lack of a definition of greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) wastes. The Department urged the Commission to provide such a' definition so that a disposal policy could be, formulated . . .

Response

c DOE's 1987 report to Congress (DOE /NE-0077) cited uncertainty about development of a numerical definition of HLW as an impediment to proceeding with identification of disposal options for GTCC wastes and with estimation of 4

disposal costs. The present rulemaking ends that uncertainty, since revisions to existing definitions are no longer contemplated. As stated in a previous NRC staff letter to DOE, disposal of GTCC wastes in a HLW repository appears to be an acceptable alternative. Should DOE desire to pursue this alternative, the NRC staff will work with DOE to develop appropriate criteria for such disposal.

23 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89 i

I

DOE Comment

~

The Department of Energy believes it is inappropriate for the Commission to require .that a particular type of waste be disposed of in a specified facility.

The Commission should be concerned with disposal of radioactive waste without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

Response

The proposed amendments would require repository disposal of GTCC wastes only if no other acceptable type of disposal facility were available. Such a requirement is entirely consistent with the Commission's mandate to protect the public health and si "ety.

DOE Comment As noted in the preamble, the Nuclear Waste Policy.Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, would need to be amended in order for the Department to comply'with the requirement of the proposed rule that GTCC waste be disposed of in'a geologic repository,-unless the Commission determines that GTCC waste requires permanent isolation in accordance with section 2(12)(B) of'the NWPA.

Response

If such an amendment to the NWPA is needed and is unavailable, the Department tuay develop an alternative means of disposal, as permitted by the proposed amendments. However, if DOE concludes that some GTCC should be disposed of.in a repository (considering costs and other relevant factors) and if the need for

', legislation is viewed as an obstacle, DOE may petition the Commission at that time to classify GTCC so identified as HLW under the statutory criteria.

DOE Comment The proposed change that would require commercial GTCC waste to be disposed of l

in a geologic repository unless a licensed intermediate disposal facility is 24 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

available may still necessitate long-term storage of GTCC wastes by the >

I Department. )

l

Response

A recent report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater Than Class C Low Level Radioactive Waste, OTA-BP-0-50, October, 1988, forecasts that long term storage of GTCC wastes will be required regardless of the specifi. final disposal technology ultimately chosen by DOE.

The NRC agrees that storags will be required, and considers that the present rulemaking has no impact on he need for or the length of such storage. l DOE Comment Our concern with the proposed rule is that its interpretation and effect are unclear. [ Comment details creas considered to be unclear.]

Response

The wording of the proposed rule has been amended to clarify the Commission's intent.

DOE Comment The proposed use of geologic repository space for GTCC waste deserves more thorough evaluation and consideration including the following:

(a) Risk basis; (b) Systems analysis of alternative GTCC disposal methods versus deep geologic repository for safety and cost; (c) Accurate forecast of GTCC waste volume for repository planning; 25 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

I (d) High unit disposal cost; and 1 (e) Suitable waste forms and canisters for GTCC that are amenable to the l 1

proposed repository design. 1 4

Response

The Commission agrees that the factors listed will be relevant to DOE's decision regarding the type of disposal facility to be used for GTCC wastes.  ;

The OTA report considers these factors in arriving at its recommendations. NRC is providing 00E with the flexibility it needs to make a decision.

DOE Comment The Department strongly encourages the Commission to clarify the performance objectives to be used for the GTCC waste, whether it is to be disposed of in a geologic repository or in another facility, so as to facilitate the Department's decision on how to dispose of the GTCC wastes.

Response

Perfc-mance objectives are set out in 10 CFR S60.111-60.113 and in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C for a geologic repository and for land disposal' facilities other than a repository, respectively.

DOE Comment

[Long list of difficulties associated with repository disposal of GTCC wastes.]

Response

The proposed rule does not require repository disposal of GTCC wastes. If the cited difficulties prove insurmountable, DOE could choose to pursue an alternative means of disposal. It is not clear, however, that these (or 03/20/89 26 61 COMMENT RESPONSE

v similar) difficulties would not also be encountered for an alternate disposal l

approach. .

00E Comment Footnote 1, page 5993 (ANPR) (53 FR 5992) from the February 27, 1987, proposed rule should have been included in the Backgrond section of the Supplementary Iniermation provided in the preamble at p. 177c9 This footnote clarified that the waste generated in further treatment of HLW, such as decontaminated salt, at the Savannah River Plant was considered incidertal wastes and not within the Appendix F definition.

Response

A more complete statement regarding classification of reprocessing wastes, including the " incidental waste" concept, will be included in the Supplementary Information for the final rule.

DOE Comment Th Jepartment is concerned that the Commission has changed its longstanding plans to define radioactive material based on its hazardous characteristics rather than its source. We believe that a risk-based definition which distinguishes HLW from LLW is the most reasonable, technically sound, and appropriate basis for management of such material.

Response

O As discussed above, the Commission does not agree that there is a need for such a risk-based definition. On the contrary, the Commission considers that such a definition could prove counterproductive, as explained previously.

27 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

k 1

COM*iEN15 ON THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PROPOSED BY K0CHER AND CROFF-In the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), the Commission proposed l

to develop a definition of HLW by evaluating the waste isolation capabilities

! of less secure " intermediate" disposal facilities. Then, in the proposed l rule, the Commiss'on rescinded this proposal arguing that the performance of

< such " intermediate" facilities would be so speculative and site-specific that it would not provide a technically defensible basis for clatsifyirg wastes as HLW or non-HLW. In support of this revised view, the Commission cited a technical report which had recently been published (Kocher, D. C. and A. G.

Croff, A Proposed Classification System for High-Level and Oth r Radioactive Wastes, ORNL/TM-10289, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1987). The Comission further stated that it could not accept an alternative classification er.proach presented in that report because that approach was based solely on the short-term storage and handling risks associated with the heat and external radiation levels generated by a waste rather than on the degree of waste isolation required following disposal. l The authors of the cited report (Kocher and Croff) commented on the proposed rule alleging that the Commission had misrepresented the content and conclusions of their report. Specifically, Kocher and Croff summarized their comments as follows:

The NRC is incorrect in stating that our approach to defining HLW is based only on consideration of short-term risks associated with decay heat and external radiation but not on consideration of long-term risks from waste disposal.

The NRC is incorrect is implying that we considered only short-term risks

,% ing waste handling and storage in defining HLW, but did not consider s,hort-term risks during waste disposal.

The NRC's discussion of our anslysis of risks from disposal of wastes in intermediate disposal facilities is potentially misleading, because it 03/20/89 28 61 COMMENT RESPONSE j

l l implies that (1) our initial goal was to use this analysis in developing a l definition of HLW, (2) we developed an alternative definition of HLW only af ter our analysis for intermediate disposal facilities proved too uncertain to be useful, and (3) our analysis for intermediate disposal facilities supports the NRC's decision not to revise the definition of HLW.

None of these implications are correct.

Regarding the first criticism above, the Commission acknowledges that its statement was potentially misleading. A key element of Kocher and Croff's suggested classification system is the assumption that the Class C limits of 10 CFR Part 61 are appropriate for distinguishing between wastes that require permanent isolation and those that do not. The Commission would have been more accurate if it had stated:

"For wastes with radionuclides concentrations exceeding the Class C limits of Part 61, Kocher and Croff's approach to defining HLW is based only on consideration of short-term risks associated with decay heat and external radiation but not on consideration of long-term risks from waste disposal."

The Commission also acknowledges that its characterization of Kocher M Croff's analysis of short-term risks was inaccurate. Their report Jia discuss short-term disposal risks (e.g., boiling of water that might contact waste containers) as well as handling and storage risks.

Finally, the Commission acknowledges that its description of Kocher and Croff's analyses of " intermediate" disposal facility performance might have been misleading. In Appendix C of their report, Kocher and Croff state that analyses of intermediate disposal facilities could provide a basis for determining which wastes require permanent isolation. Since one of the authors had previously commented favorably (in response to the ANPRM) regarding the NRC's proposed analyses of intermediate facility performance, the Commission inferred that the authors woulv have preferred to have based their HLW definition on such analyses if they could have been carried out in a g technically defensible manner. The C-ommission acknowledges that such an inference was unwarranted.

29 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89 1

j

LThe' Commission'spurpose'inreferringtoKocherandCroff'sreportwassolely to support its view that the proposal presented in the ANPRM, i.e. , '

classification of wastes based on analyses of the projected performance of

" intermediate" disposal facilities, should not be pursued because of the limited development of these facilities and because their performance is likely to be highly site-specific. The Commission continues to believe that Kocher and'Croff's report supports this view.

I 0

6 30 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89

"ARE APPROVED" IN PLACE OF'" SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL" A comment noted that the language in 61.55(a)(2)(iv) of the proposed

amendments; .

"in the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be

- disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in Part 60 of this chapter unle.ss proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval."

would allow GTCC waste to escape geoloo'; .'epository disposal as long as alp rnative proposals for disposal were submitted to the Commission. A series of inadequate proposals could be submitted, simply to avoid repository disposal. The commenter suggested that this possibility could be eliminated by changing the language from " submitted to the Commission for approval" to "are approved by the'Ccmmission".

Response

The Commission agrees that this suggested new language better represents the basic position taken in the proposed rule-- that geologic repository-disposal is necessary in the absence of a Commission-approved alternat1ve means of disposal. Accordingly, the change has been incorporated in the final amendments to Part 61.

31 61 COMMENT RESPONSE 03/20/89 t

_m_______m__________.m_ ____._. _ _ __

M l J

ALL WASTE-HAZARDOUS FOR OVER 100 YEARS L SHOULD BE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY Some comments argued that all radioactive waste with a hazardous life of over 100 years should be made a Federal responsibility.

Response

The Commissien sees no need to provide for this change in responsibilities in its regulations. 10 CFR Part 61 regulates land disposal of radioactive waste.

As part of the Part 61 rulemaking, extensive technical studies of the performance of shallow land burial facilities were carried out. These studies confirmed that, for Classes A, B, and C LLW, the risks posed by waste inventories up to 500 years after emplacement were acceptable. Thus, LLW for which States are responsible (Classes A, B, C) can be effectively managed by disposal methods currently in use by States. Moreover, many States and State compacts are planning disposal facilities more secure than shallow land burial.

There is not sufficient reason to presume that any change.in responsibility for some of these wastes would significantly enhance public health and safety.

Additionally, relative' State / Federal responsibilities for waste management were clarified by the LLWPAA in 1985. Classes A, B, and C LLW were retained as a State responsibility, and only GTCC wastes were made a Federal responsibility.

No public health and safety concerns exist which would lead the Commission to

. interfere with that statutory mandate in this rulerr.aking.

03/20/89 32 61 COMMENT RESPONSE

\

MIXED.GTCC WASTE.

EPA noted that some GTCC waste could contain hazardous waste subject to' RCRA-

- regulations. The final rule should contain'some referen;e to EPA involvement.

- in'any decision concerning alternative. disposal licensing.

Response

If some GTCC waste does contain hazardous waste subject to RCRA regulations, EPA would certainly be a factor in regulation of those wastes. The

' supplementary information to the final amendments acknowledges the EPA role.

4 6

e 03/20/89 33 61 COMMENT RESPONSE I- ,

G-

- _ _ - -_ _ u

sic q'.

/ c, . UNITED STATES

[I , e 'g' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' g WASHINGTON, D. C,20555

\./ -

NAMES OF COMVD,'TERS 9

1. Desiderio D. Demes

-2. E.. Nee thy / Ecology Alert

3. Tun Spoors, . .. .

4. Susan L. Hiatt/ Ohio Citizens for. Responsible Energy 5.- State of Indiana

6. Rich Ferguson/ Sierra Club- Santa Lucia Chapter

7. New York State Low Level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission

8. State of South Carolina 1

9. . Gerald Drake-

10. Midwest Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Commission 11..Walbridge J. Powell

12. State of Vermont

13. David C. Kocher and Allen G. Croft / ORNL

-14.' Union Electric

15. American Society of Mech.: Scal Engineers

16. State'of Michigan

17. Mr. and Mrs. Carl Berg

18. Madison County. Environmental Defense League

19. State of Washington

20. Argonne National Laboratory 21._ Washington Public Power Supply System

22. DOE-

23. Edison Electric institute

24. Yankee Atomic.

25. State of Tennessee-

26. (misdocketed)

27. Nuclear Information and Resource Service

28. Duke Power

29. Marvin' Lewis

30. Judith H. Johnsrud/ Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power

31. Donna Monro i

32. Judith H. Johnsrud/ Food and Water l

. 33. EPA -

34.' DOE

35. Midwest Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Conmission

.36. State of Pennsylvania 4

I hh ._.m.-__.___.____________-._.___.m.m-___._ -

__ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . ____.__ _._m._ _ _ . _ _ . . _

i p .- ,

l DOCKET fiUMBER

/

To 'he Secret 1ry of UCEC PROPOSED RULE 6/ PR Attn: Docketinc and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555.

$~$F/tI77o9) xtg if

te .

Re. Eequent/ Question.

8B JLN -9 PS :46 Pine 317.ff, June 6, 1998.

OF' 'L: . - ; a: r -

00CKE W '.SI K i 1 Dear Sirs 6hANLH

}

In 1987 I (gg centr,ctor, director / principal inves-igator) was completely abscrbed in the U.E. Army's Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program's Sommunity I had no time to pay adequate attention to the l'RC's Review,Therefore,(July extended deadline 29,1987) for coments on itc interhon to revise the definition of "hiet-level radioactive waste."

At this time I rsise the al+ernatives:

1) If you made a re-cl. ossification of "high-2cvel radioactive waste" in the meanti.ie, please, send r.e a copy of the redefined / reclassified text of you* determination.

2) If you didn't cake a redefinition /re clucification, as yet, would you like to accept my own "com.ent" for the care purpece? If yes, indicate a

" deadline". Thanks.

Sincerely, Om CD-Qrib.

M Demecs <

Ph.D. In Ph12osephy

, o w.,4. o %

Ph.D. in Economics and Commerce

$4h 71601 Professor of Humanities & Phil sophy UA-P3, PJ. Box L111 Pine Iluff, AR 71601.

6 4

I

m

-; r., a. ,...x

.c ir -

u. ..... . 'ys* *" PR 6T

' FR0 POSED RULE W

, ,7

~ ..~.r ,n:..  ; -. r. , , - a

~

( O', PI II r., N er..ethy , . ye c ' y ,;s- c Sec'y. . hC he: Fro;oseo- -

'ispossl ofc had W Mvbalak$$ - Fed Reg.

n;C: LL CKc':'I1,G : x -5ERVICL 3.%.DH iay 15-65, p.17709 o p !u ; :..,; "9I j.

00CKEliniA.

BR A N'."

, Gent'lemen -

Your proposal - to plice all wastes (re6ardless of class),which are not acceptable for near-surface disposal, into a geologic repository - nas our vote.

It'would elminate endless nit-picaing as to what is, or is not HI.W . V.e suggest all transuranic be disposed of tais w3y -

regardless.of Ineir concentrations in nC1/g.

1,1s;, we'.e glud to see c.C will retain control of licensing authority ov;r Ts0E - an atency notorious for 1 [ sloppy pro-cedures.at Hanf:rc, svaar.:.ah River, etc etc etc.

f}

f,) ,\ .\k; LU i

l l

DOCKET NUMBER no'" /o [

3 L PROPOSED RULE rn c

l (5 3 F R l '7 70L usar.'

j g '

'88 JN 21 P7 :30 FI // (

6fd & DC e26 TW fishk9 BRANP.

an . /L L OD / Cwa osa

n a Ad ya

~ m.S k/qy '

/4s & - f .oi<be y '

.sy . .

mm e. u .

'gj yy ,

g ,.

w as,na-A^ yp= & C _

Ga nP - A ,J,M, '

y.

yJ _

5 ea

/,, ,

Gweov x4/46W ygryr A \

l

. _s i c + 9 .Aj,1 St. i TABt.E 7.3-3. Reference Radionuclides Inventory  ;

As.bvried

,.t.1 ,wr,.1 s/

Malf Life Averste Activity Activity per Grev,ad et los of Inventory'

$tte

.lsotope (Yeart) in Waste (Ct/ml) Trench (Ct; Closure (til Hadf lift, qvira.,.[td...d N 1.2 s 108 1.6 s 10,*3 ,,_

1.3 s 108 1.1 s 105 /2.2.644ars d 6.$ 8'C 5.7 s 103 . $ 1 _. .d- 4.2 a 108 7.4 s 108 #7)C yt.ars C.A r a em iu ,,, HCr 7.6 a 10*3 6.I : 10.a 4.7 It3 3.0 a los gy,gg,,,

manadense Han 8.3 e 10*3 3.3 a 10*8 2.7 a 108 1.9 a le- 3e3 d.vs W# Hfe 2.6 a 10' l.7 s 10-6 4.7 a 10s 1.0 m 108 J. 6 vaare j Qajt 84Ce 2.0 10-8 S.7 s 10 8 4.7 s 108 5.2 a 108 'F/. *' da gr.s "Ce 5.3 a l'P - 1.7 a 10' l.4 s 10' S.2 s 108 .g." 2 & v a see m' tk d 841 8.0 e i Ja a,7 s 10.s U.4 s 108 2.5 a IP S O_ese o wame sam t 9.2 s 10' ,

3.2 s 108 2.4 a 10+ 4.2 s 108 T ,2 y g., /p g ) , ,, asZn 4.7 a 10d 2.7 a 10 3 2.2 s 103 1.2 s 108 , 2 4f 3, g. gg h .+; .m "$r 2.8 106 4.4 10-8 5.3 a 108 4.7 s 10s .t g,g ,,,,,-

y Ptri um H T6a1 1. 3 a 10 1 6.7 s 108

& av ha swa t'e ru n'e um UZr 1.8 10*n 2.7 a 10*8 2.2 a 108 2.0 a 108 6 5 d a y s ,,,,,,

ts ch e:et.*g m Hic 2.1 a 108 4. 3 r 10*

• 3.6 10** 4.5 gl .l2 /.2 . e c o w e e r u +h a n i u m sese, 1,0 , ice g,; , 10* 2.2 s 108 1.1 e 103 y 6 7 g ,,

e h a d j u ,,., lHah(8l 9.$ e 10*' ... ... 1.9 a 108 / 3 0 m ;,, ,,.4 ,

amfIm.ny '8'$b 1.6 s IC*' 6.6 : 10-8 5.$ s 108 3.8 a 105 L e. 2 devs state 2.7 e 10' 6.6 10*8 S.5 s 10' 1.3 a las ,y , 7 y e a, r g

. j a g} ' n e lat: 1.7 s 10' t.5 10** 7.C 10*8 1.3 a 108 ( 7 em. flT w u , E

(. c,3 ; u m 18* C s 2.0 s 10' 4.4 a 10*' l.3 a 108 9.4 e 10' . .85 yea'e's i8aCs 3.0 a 10* ~

4.3 e 10*n 3.6 : 10' 6.8 s 108 .3000_000 Vd 83'Cs 3.0 s 10' *1.1 a 10' 9.1 s 108 1.2 s 106 3 O. *4 3 v e n e C t ri u m 6"Ce 7.8 s 10 8 2.7 a 10*8 2.2 a 103 1.4 i 108 J F . 9 ela y s o re..S t e d , c . 4"trii i 3.* a 10*S .~ -- ' 1 a n '28 / 7. 3 r59 sseaves

, r a, d en IllenW 1.0 s 10** ... ... 2.1 108 .3 . 8 2 3 d a v s F.E. u m a s

• ta 1.6 a 10 8 1.5 s 10 " 1.2 a 10' 2.1 s 10: /6oe ve,e,rs ther"eurg 83'In 8.0 a 107 9.4 a 104 7.8 a 10*l 1.4 s 108 & e t' e e u ma ca -

as Th 1.4 : lose 1.1 s 10 8 9.1 s 10*8 1.6 s 10' t +. 8 k. fPlan v.

g r e, n . s e a l8U 7.1 a 108 4.3 a 10** 3.6 10*8 6.5 e 108 '7 f 0 sadle e n yea rs as*U 4.5 s 10' 9.4 s 10 " 7.8 s 108 1.4 a 108 4. .r 4////d wp2, ne p h;am 3 8 7.9p 2.1 a 10' 6.1 a IC.e 5.1 s 10 " 9.2 a 10** *2 /W o e ao je r3 o

' % ,, , , , 3 "#w 8.6 a 108 4. 3 a 10" 3.4 s 10' 4.0 a 108 ' f(e vas es#

3 HPw 2.4 s 10' l.7 s 10** 4.7 s 10*8 8.5 101 14 # be ve dre a*ep, g.6 s 10 6.9 s 10*S 7.4 s 10*8 1.3 s 10a g, s g o ,, s are ani8v 1.3 s 108 ,, 2.2 s 10*8 1.8 s 108 _ 1.6 e 10' 13. 2. ,e ast b8Pu 3.8 a 108 3.2 s 10 " 2.6 s 10-1 4.7 a 10*8 3790 0 0 v e m.f 3

! g mge;g'u m *ne 4.6 s 104 4.0 s 10*' 3.3 s 10** 9.1 s 103 es3 g s e.e,ee,,,

a*ias 8.0 a 108 2.8 a 10** 2.3 s 10*: 4.1 a 108 'l 370 ve.ng t .j, J**Cs 4.4 s 10** 3.J s 10** 2.7 s 108 9.4 s 10' / (e 3 es av s 8"Cs 1.0 s 105 2.5 a 10" 2.1 10' 2.2 e 108 17. b v e e,r s (4:5hert.lt.ee savgnter of parent with same was asser, f

• [g ,/t h r/M af t II'

/

(bilhort.11.ee sawgnter of +86t a. > ,

t. i .,, ic 's tie, o ** su ro ss f e )

a-**- f.s.e C 'lf'} .

• - *c.

,,,) GJ., ,f r. w e' .r,soo A.a 'd'",'h"

- . .Tu ul.I7. S f6

. e J ~ g N'l= q,1 o1c*, S , O f a. . I kTsf* *l f!*\a* M ja 2edw D: u m,s1.a .y a.I'4 % rt n t

. .. .. . . . . - . 1, s . n o n .

y 7,p

- a.

,$,, me 7 , g Qf,(;h

m . _ _.

, ' Safe' level of radiation-j

~

Qcssy exposure needs to be' 'l .

h reevaluated, data show:

sones tround nuclear ' power h .

By Po'ert N. Spetts sw -= w tre cwqwn uwe k

plants, for example.

Studies of Ow 90,000 Japa.

M" uA 'g/ gf7. elimits *Tighter radiation exposure nese who survived the atomic.

- seeton may lie ahead, based on bombs arouse such $nterest be. '

new esumrtes of the e5ects of esume they account for about:

.J atomic.bonibs that were drcp- half the data scientists use to -

ped on Hiroshima and Naga . detarmine efects of radiation' '

saki. . ,' - - en humans, Dr. Sinclair says.

s The revisions indicate that 'the revised dose estimates .  ;

survivors received much lower come imm the US. Japanese Re '

doses of radiation than pre- diation FAects Researen Fbun , j 1

vlously thought. When com- dation. It found that the Hiro-bLned with the survivors'heL!th shima bomb's yield was 20 pere records since then,the new esti . cent higher than the original mates suggest that u takes less estimate. The Nagasald bomb's, radiation to induce cancer than yield fell nearly 6 percent.

=

previously thought. '

Housing provided about twice. I

+The resulting radiation risk' the shielding allowed forin pre . I assessments are under study by vlous estimates, while the body i groups such as the US National was found to be a less esecuve .

Research Council's Committee shield for its ottans.

on the Biotop'eal ENects of Ra- As a resultof these and other distion. "we re expectmg a changes, the dose of neutrons i ,

moderately large shoe to drop" from the Hiroshirr.a bomb fellto :

when studies are . completed, about 10 percent ofits previous ,

says Warren K. Sinclair, presi- level, with the gamma ray dose dent of the US National Council 2 to 3.6 tirnes higher. Ibr Nags-on Radiation Protection and saki, the neutron dose estimate -

Measurements. .

fellby half;the gamma ray dose .

US agencies arelikely to wait was trimmed slighuy.

for the council's results - ex- Mr. Cooper says several un '

peeted later this year - before certainties remain as scientists deciding if the new risk esti- sort through the implications of

..1 mates warrant changes in expo- the new dose estimates.

sure standa>ds, says Eny Coo. One involves the nistive per of the council's Board of damage done by twotrons and Radiation E5ects Research. gamma rays. Animal tests are Other countries are moving used to get at this p oblem. But more quickly. Britain's' National questlo a remain on how appil-Radiological Protecdon Board cable the results are to humans,

' recommended last month that he says " Neutrons are-more

. the British government reduce damaging" he says, but esti-s by 70 percent the annual maxi- matasrange from 10to20 times mum legal exposure level for more. Refhdng that Agure will those working with radioactive help pin down the relative risks materials. It also asked that the from twutrons and gamma rays.

Another is the extent to maximum J1owable exposure t

for the publ6c be halved. - which adentists can estrapo ,

Mr. Cooper says that any late the riska from high expo-change in standahls will most sures tolevels perhaps a mUllon likely afect people working di- times less. *Most radiation is at irectly with radioactive mate- pretty low levels," Cooper asys. .

rials or processes. But he says "And the data come from peo-it's possible that if a change is pie who received very high large enough, it could afect a doses. Only theory exists for ex-broader segmert of society by trapolating downward from requiring larger evacuation that high a level."

g, DOCKET NUMBER J u ri e 30, 1996 PHOPOSED RULE 3~

y/'3

'~

'l4:i 55FR/77'C,!

COMMENT 5 0F CHIC CIT!ZEtl5 FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC.

04 PR0F'05ED (*00RE')

I ncr (May 18,RULE. lese) DISPOSAL OF R A D I O 4 W C ATSI Tt.'E E 5 , 53 FED. REC. i

'88 JLL -5 P2 :34

{

The Commiss2cr. hos proposee o revtsten to 10 CFR 5 l

fh' h 4 j ,ThicM;'.

' oul e remuste all greater enon Clots C Woste to be disB03 M of in a a;: geologic proved by therepost:NRC. cry, unless on c.1ternotive preposal is is on OCRC supports this proposed rule. This i

n. m p o r t o n t step forward toWord the protectiOO of the {

Publae heolth mcter1cis, and Sofety Trcm the h o :: o f' c 5 of Guch roc 1ooctave l f

Fespectru;1y subm2eetc.

v M Suson L. Hi0tt C CF:E R e p t e s e n t o r s '< s 90?$ Munsen Roce f M e ri t e r . CH 4 4 0 f. 0

• 2161 25$-315e e

i S

4*-

'o 6

l l

l l

)

M- _

. . < . . . . . . . . . . . , a FRCPCSE0 Rul.E .$b ROBERT D. ORR. GOVERNOR SLFA m H

,'a: - ^~ ','

1

%'OODRO'n A **JERS. JR.. M.D . STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER

[

g * ~ -

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH - 'J / .-

~ ' '

-r ,s ;

. ' ^; F,'

1 p , 13'm % EST MICHIG AN STREET . . , ;, ~

~

P.O BOX 1964 1. /

/ .

INDI ANAPOLIS. IN 4620619M INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH Q vn : . - -

AN EQt'ALl[PPbHWft17Y EMPLOYER l

l

)

Secretary I'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing 6 Service Branch j Subject; Proposed Rule, 10 CFR Part 61

Dear Sir:

Thank you for including the Indiana State Board of Health in l

your review, My staff has reviewed the proposed Rule, 10 CFR Part 61, which requires the burying of " greater-than-Class-C" low-level radioactive vastes in a deep peologic repository unless disposal elsewhere hw sces, approved by the Coc:.ussion. We wish to comment favorably, if we may be of service, please contact us.

l y*

l Stadx,$1 y, j ,

p ,

T. S. Danielson, Jr., M. .. M.P.H.

Indiana State Liaison Officer l

l "Tbe health of the people is really the foundation upon u hich all their happiness and all theirpou ers as a state depend "

-Disraeli J

r-c . ,; M.

.~ .-

.swimc9

.: ' ,.c a

n* SIERRARocky CLUB -

Canyon Star Route Smx C6M diaerea a" Creston, CA 93432 *gg g j g gg g5 (805)-238-5437-July 5, 1966 f

'O _

@GCMC:

u ..,,.;

Secretary '

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'DC 20555

. Attn Docketing & Service

Dear Sir:

l I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposals f or the

. storage of Greater than Class C radioactive waste (Federal Register,.May 18, (53 FR 96:17709)). .

Greater than Class C wastes are extremely hazardous and should remain under f ederal control, closely monitored by the NRC. It is not in the I public interest for states or state compacts to design storage f acilities j for this material, even with approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. l Ideally', Greater 'than Class C materials should be stored in a deep geologic repository. Interim *torage of these materials at selected low-level storage sites may be acceptable. However, the design of such storage f acilities should be done by independent experts.using standards promulgated by the NRC. One of the National Laboratories such as Brookhaven or Argonne would seem to be a reasonable choice f or such design work.

- Proposed storage technologies f or Greater than Class C wastes should i

receive thorough review f rom the scientific community, from the NRC and

.f rom. the public before being implemented. Facilities eventually accepting these wastes should be regularly monitored by the NRC to ensure that design and. saf ety criteria are met.

[ t, The public interest demands that the f ederal government maintain responsibility f or extremely hazardous radioactive materials. The NRC should not be perceived as acquiescing to storage schemes proposed by

. private enterprise. The agency must not relinquish its leadership role in the safe storage of radioactive materials. By setting safety standards, overseeing independent design efforts and ensurir.g full review, the NRC can develop public confidence in the national radioactive was'te storage program.-

• - S,i erely,

,sa + -

d ich Fergusonf hair i

SC/NRCC

,v_

O

.m .s c .a. :: .a.o. To mkor. rm s ont o'mra & norm > vem< reww<n L4 '. '

y

i .

New York State .

'V7fy' Law - Level

' z.. n ,, ,

Radioactive Waste v:

j Siting Commission J AY D DIMLEl1ERu[R

• T m u t o h. ro ^ a

$ SA Ub0 ks

• nden. rote liH NTANLD 1 GiLIM!lTH DR h DN.lllM AILLl[ l Y.h." .. MARialh

• B HINAllai LEE UULP; 'e i , ! ..i:k H AH101'. WOUD I E FA- i 1

,i July 6, 1988 Secretary- I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )

Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: 10 CFR Part 61 Proposed Rule ,

i

Dear Sir:

This letter conveys the views of the New York State Low- l Level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission (Siting Commission) on 4 l

the proposed modification of 10 CFR Part 61 published in . the Federal Register on May l '8 , 1988. The proposed rtile would require disposal of " greater-than-Class C" low-level radic active waste (LLRW) in a deep geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The' Siting Commission has a direct interest in the proposed rule. In July 1986, New York State enacted the < New York LLRW Management Act which provided a detailed plan for establishing a LLRW disposal f acility by the 1993 Federal deadline. The Siting Commission is responsible for choosing both a location and disposal method for a LLRW disposal facility in New York.

The Siting Commission has always interpreted the Federal

'LLRW . Policy Act and .its amendments a f, establishing a Federal responsibility for the disposal of commercially generated LLRW

'with radionuc3ide concentrations exceeding the limits established in 10 CFR Part 61 for Class C waste.. Nevertheless, the lack of a clear Federal statement to date about the ultimate disposal of these " greater-than-Class C" wastes has created en elenent of LLRW uncertainty in New York's planning for development 'of disposal capability. By specifying through the proposed ~ rule that these wastes will be disposed of in a geologic repository, unless othervise approved by the Commission, it removes this uncertainty. We regard this change as beneficial to New York's LLRW disposal progran l

l I" . Albany. New York 12103 * (518)438-6130 1215 Western Amnue I

N ' ' ' IL_ _ _ __ _

g p ,,

yM, .1- f l .a .

+

, ';

• f j- ,: ,

.b._

. g:.

l g. J / ;' f ,f. n, ' .,

9,., a

,v , s: ;y lp? f ,

(^ gl

?

. _ ~j ~2-y  :/~

1 i : n 1'

1 Q;w  :/g7 ~~

..:, +;

~ 11.'-. j; ,.

>=

')

The-Siting Commission, therefore, supports tha pioposed rule

,:1 and-urges'its. adoption.

,a I::. . -

'/h ' Sincerely, it

-ai J

i- /- J y D. Dunkleberger l' Executive Director 1

BGG /JDD/ rig

,l .

s/

>c.

9 9

'k,.'

e 4

4

?

h--m_ .d____.__ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _,____._____.__.____m_...__.m._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _

y , y , M b / ,-

South Carolina Department of HemithJ RAE , , .

and Environmentni, Control F A '77 8[  ;

4-Board -

2f 00 Bull Street Columbia. S C. 29201 O **

-7 P 3 :25 uose, H Ciartion, Jr.. Chairman Oren L. Brady, Jr., %ce-Chairman Euta M Colvin. M D., Secretary Commi,sk.per ,

Harry M. Hallman, Jr.

Michael D Jarrett S  : .If f Henry S Jordan. M.D i BU N. " Toney Graham Jr. M.D.

July 5, 1988 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear f Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Reference:

Page 17709, Federal Register Notice Vol. 53, No. 96, Dated May 18, 1988 Proposed Rule 10CFR Part 61

Dear Sir:

In regards to the above, the following comments are hereby offered:

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Radiological Health supports the proposed rule to require greater than Class C Waste to be disposed of in a nanner other than shallow land disposal; e.g.,

intermediate disposal such as a geological repository unless ,

specific approval is granted.

As an Agreement State with regulatory authority for by-product material waste disposal (low-level radioactive waste) at the Barnwell, South Carolina. facility, we urge the NRC to proceed as expeditiously as possible with such rule making.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide ccmments.

very truly yours,

//.

H yward G. Shealy Chief j

Bureau of Radiological Health VRA/md l cc: Mr. Don Nussbaumer, Agreement State Program u

DOCKET NUMBER GERALD A DRAKE, M.D. .

PROPOSED RULE h e bI

% W G 5 3 fRi?70<

WINTER ADDRESS SUMMER ADDRESS -

7921 INDIAN GARDEN ROAD 310 B SPRING LANE -

CHAPEL MLL N C.

g Mk I49770 919 933 0831 -

61 ) 3 4 9530 h 2-

. sm.

L, L . b, , .- , a a* s ,~

[4 3/ . 4 - e i, U c. m - -em Cc c -

G, 4 . Ci . Aavi d+

{ ct . d< 4.T

~

. , g%

f~co-,~ -

G,-n. un...

53 F /C ')L ' I 7 7 C 't, ^0 <r~ww E.-,a .s- ' A-4,.x. L / g%Ea .

n .,-.,_ C G -< 6 h G --

Apu j A . c ~ ~ ^

.c a .1 ' " G--

" ~ ' *" ^r ~ ~ ' ^ .' '

~?i N e

.a **

M4

• N '

88* b k 'M % gA,g c m w-.

-<. % w----

- -t .% . C - u. . u L- " " ->>u*-o E ss k

(',s . .i 4.uc.n L ~- u m wL- -^- v *-

a ,~ a c. -.~

[w v -,-]

L<, s < a_ /z .

~ y . c . ~ u ,. ~ u ~ y -

i y_ <:9 i<

Nl' ~ m6 ,

,w r b ,

\

l 1

j

DOCKET NUMER b/. -

PROPOSED RU!.F Midwest Interstate Lo'w LevelRadioactiveRpste[ 63FAmo9 commissio

)

I Roo~m 588

• 350 N. Robert Street

• St. Paul, MN 553.01 * (612) 293 0126

'88 A 11 P 3 ;)7 1

July 8, 1988 g.4,, yg BR W H Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Weste Commission has reviewed the proposed rule notice on " Disposal of Radioactive Wastes" (Federal Register, May 18, 1988, p. 177709) and requests that the following comments be consddered.

The Midwest Commission noted, in ita April 16 comment on the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (Federal Register, February 27, 1987,

p. 5992), that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should

" consider the institutional implications of redefining high-level radioactive waste, especially any potential effects on the current structure for management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste." One such implication is the possibility that new commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities could be used for disposal of some greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) waste.

The Midwest Commission supports the basic approach taken by the NRC in requiring that all GTCC waste be disposed of in a geologic ,

repository. However, we request that the NRC amend the language in the proposed rule by limiting the exception to such disposal to Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The additional wording (underlined) should be inserted in Part 61.55(a)(2)(iv):

Waste that is not generally acceptable for near surface disposal is waste for which waste form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent, than those ape'cified ,

. for Class C waste. In the absence of specific requirements in j

, this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic  ;

repository as defined in Part 60 of this chapter unless proposals  !

for disposal of such waste in a Department of Energy intermediate disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval. >

heasons for inserting the additional language include the following*

{

1) The additional language is consistent with the regulatory j analysis and the NRC desire to accommodate DOE intermediate i disposal facilities. The NRC has stated, on l

'i 1

\

Indiana lowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri Ohio Wisconsin ]

I-

Mr. Samuel Chilk July 8, 1988 Page Two >

page 17710 of the May 18 Federal Register notice, that the exception to disposal of GTCC wastes in a geologic repository is provided because "the Commission wishes to avoid foreclosing possible use of intermediate disposal facilities by the DOE. If the DOE chooses to develop one or more intermediate disposal facilities, the Commission anticipates that the acceptability of

, such facilities would be evaluated-in the light of the particular circumstances, considering for example the existing performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61 and any generally applicable radiation protection standards that might have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical criteria to implement the performance objectives and environmental standards would be developed by the Commission after the DOE had completed its conceptual design and selected a site for a specific type of facility."

2) According to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments '

Act of 1985, GTCC waste is not a state responsibility. New commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities will not be designed for disposal of GTCC wastes, and it is highly unlikely that states will voluntarily accept GTCC waste. l Without the qualifying language, however, the proposed rule invites speculation that new low-level radioactive waste disposal sites will dispose of GTCC wasto. Some of the compacts and ,

states developing these sites already have encountered public {

opposition to the disposal of even Class C waste. In addition, Resnikoff's recent book (Living Without Landfills) has further contributed to public apprehension with its assumption that new sites will be used for disposal of GTCC waste. By limiting the repository exception specifically to DOE facilities, the NRC would eliminate argumente that can now be made regcrding an "open door" for disposal of GTCC wastes at low-level radioactive waste sites, despite the denials of compacts and states.

Wo appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Sigrerely[]

f/ Y f ..

Dr. Tezi Vierima Chair cc: Midwest Commissioners Compacts and States

. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ .______m-

E5sisA"R!4/

j. N & EOL ST 12061232-5295 g,jy 3/'W /77ofj l 4314 island crest way mercer island,WA 9804 d

g ygggc n.p gpp/

j " h,D,C a2O5Eb d Q3L,pJa/u/a2?l b $ ate"M4"I r m

,'g'faj'~fM"

~

naadt S ""%g ',,

g y ,,ax

& aph 1A*v d a *' Wy '

A dx/rA #Rc p

1 f ""1 6 bg ia va k E, 5

1. r*C A N f bj Yt va wt,

,-nyeq}5N[k7

'2hk"2 l

~ qq.ggg ---

---

y----

t; PROPOSED RULE laJ gfh, State _' of Vermont -

,g N

N 7 7 0ff)

%gy-- "

AGENCY OF N ATURAL RESOURCES 103 So. Main St.

ceaser 8aindias -

'88 EL 13 P6 :07 Waterbury. Vermont 05676

~/ .

cepe,tmoet of F .sn .no wia:,,e Mila .

.l OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Department of Forests. Ferns, ena rae

eet on b bCUk ',h - UdI Departaient of E nveronmentet Cor ser s ation Oste Geologist

/Netweal Resowrces Coase** stion Cownc:a

/. 6 July 1987 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION

Docketing & Service Branch TO: The-Nuclear Regulatory Commission The proposed rule concerning " greater than Class C" low-level radioactive waste attaches the responsibility for  ;

such waste to the federal government as is legally necessary. However, the State of Vermont would-urge that other components of the low-level waste stream be' included in the Federal Government's area of responsibility, going-beyond what the proposed rule suggests.

Our concern its that the remaining waste classified as A, B, and C in 10 CFR 61 includes wastes that are of small volume, i but which contain higher concentrations of short and long lived radionuc12 des that will be hazardous for longer than the institutional control period of 100 years.

It is neither practical nor efficient to require states to be responsible for such wastes. The need to design and' build a repository to be secure for 500 years or more adds substantially to the costs of low-level waste disposal and in some respects may increase short-term risks by interfering with appropriate management practices. Furthermore,~NRC's

' systems approach to determining' concentrations.is b0ilt on.

- modeling assumptions that involve Site Characteristics, Design and Operation, Institutional Control, Waste-Form and Intruder Barriers. The public finds such modeling unpersuasive and the need to rely on modeling assumptions to assess long-term risks increases the likelihood of strong public opposition. We would prefer to deal with risks that are scientifically more certain, the known decay rates of radioactive substances, and make a state responsible for Reotonal Offices Baue Esse n Jc' P.ns'o'c N Spong! eid St Joesbn i

'4 u mb ._ _l_____________________

m y i) >

h waste that decays to innocuous levels within a reasonable j time frame such as 100 years.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposal would make the state responsible for concentrations of waste de' ermined by methods that will be difficult to defend in a puic setting. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act makes the states responsible for the waste, but preempts the states from determining what they reasonably can handle.

We, therefore, would request that wastes that will not decay to innocuous levels within 100 years be placed with greater h than Class C waste and be handled as a federal responsibility.

)

Sincerely, J nathan Lash, Secretary k ency of Natural Resources JL/1w 0

ne, - -

DOCKET NiJMBER.PR PROPOSED rut. o O d/77d7 t . a .c a

. OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY-

W'

- Post orricE SOX 2006 OAK RIDGC. TENNE $$EE 37831

~ OPERATED 'BY MARTW MAmiETTA ENERGY sv8TEMS, WC July 14. 1988 118 .11.15 P4 :26 0F 5 .2. .-' -

00CKLit's 6 t0.'+

2i44.%

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sirs:

We are submitting the attached comments (Attachment 1) in response to the l Proposed Rule for 10 CFR Part 61, " Disposal of Radioactive Wastes," which was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 1988.

In the supplementary information for the Proposed Rule, the Commission discussed a recent report which we co-authored entitled "A Proposed Classification System for High Level and Other Radioactive Wastes," Our objections'to this discussion are the subject of our comme-ts in Attachment 1.

Because of the Commission's unusual action of commenting in the Federal Register on our report, which was not prepared under its sponsorship, we believe that we deserve an opportunity to respond in kind. Therefore, we request that the Commission take the following further actions.

[1] We request that the Commission explicitly include the substance of our specific objections to the discussion of our report in the Proposed Rule in preparing the supplementary information for the Final Rule. That is, we request that our objections be duly noted in the Federal Register itself.

I2) We request that the Commission specifically provide us with the opportunity to review drafts of the supplementary information for the Final Rule as it pertains to our work. This would provide a

~

mechanism for resolving any further misunderstandings of our work j

- that might arise before publication of the Final Rule in the Federal '

Register.

Should the Commission decide to withdraw the Proposed Rule for 10 CFR Part 61 or reinstitute rulemaking proceedings for revising the definition of the' term "high-level radioactive waste" in 10 CFR Part 60, rather than  ;

proceed with promulgation of the Final Rule for amending 10 CFR Part 61, ,

then our requests would still apply to these actions.

h

(

i L_ - -

l

gg COMMENTS ON NRC PROPOSED RULE 10 CFR PART 61 DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES D. C. Kocher Health and Safety Research Division A. G. Croff Chemical Technology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Introduction On May 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Proposed Ru'le to amend 10 CFR Part 61 (53 FR 17709). The proposed amendments would require disposal of " greater-than Class C" low level vaste in a deep geologic repository, unless dispossi elsewhere has been approved by the NRC.

The supplementary information for the Proposed Rule discusses a previous Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANFRM), which announced the intent of the NRC to revise the definition of the term "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60. The Proposed Rule clearly indicates that the NRC no longer intends to proceed with revising the traditional definition of HLW as the primary wastes from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In presenting its rationale for this decision, the NRC discussed a recent report which we co-authored on the development of generally applicable and risk-based definitions of HLW and other waste classes.

The purpose of these comments is to express our objections to the NRC's discus sion of our report in the suppicmentaty information for the Proposed Rule. The discussion contains serious factual errors concerning our proposed definition of HLW and could result in a misleading view of our entire waste classification system.

In order to provide a framework for discussing our' objections in detail, the paragraph in the supplementary information for the Proposed Rule that describes our report is presented in its entirety below.

Following publication of the ANPRM, a technical report (Kocher, D. C. and A. G. Crofi, A Proposed Classification System for High.

Level and Other Radioactive Rastes, ORNL/TM-10289, Oak Ridge National l

l Laboratory 1987) was published which attempted.to provide a l

3 generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal; these limits are ,

]

obtained from the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 and its supporting documentation j j

and methodology. Indeed, a similar approach to defining HLV was discussed l

by the NLC in the ANPRM for 10 CFR Part 60. -

A second error. concerns the attribute " highly radioactive" included in our proposed definition of HLV. As implied by the NRC, this attribute is rf sted to short-term risks res.ulting from h'.gh levels of decay heat and s ternal radiation. In particular, we proposed that HLV, in addition to requiring permanent isolation as defined above, would have a power 3

density greater than 50 W/m or an effective dose equivalent rate greater than 1 Sv/h (100 rem /h) at a distance of 1 m from the waste form.

However, the next-to-last sentence of the NRC's discussion is incorrect in implying that we considered short-term risks only during waste storage and handling. In Sections 3.1.3 and 4.2.2 of our report, we emphasized that the proposed quantitative and generally applicable definition of " highly radioactive," particularly in regard to the Irvel of decay heat, was based primarily on the need to mitigate shorter-term risks from vaste disposal. As indicated in Section 4.2.5, Appendix A.3, and Table 1, decay heat would be the controlling factor in determining wastes that are " highly radioactive," except for those wastes in which Cs-137 is the predominant rad;onuclide.

l Potential for Misinterpretation of Vaste Classification System Ve now address our concerns regarding the potential for misinterpretation of out entire waste classification system.

The NRC's discussion of our report emphasizes our analysis of risks from disposal of wastes in " intermediate" disposal facilities, which we refer to as greater confinement disposal (GCD). On the basis of an assumed scenario for exposure of an inadvertent intruder at a hypothechical GCD facility, we estimated maximum concentrations of radionuclides that would be acceptable for disposal. Vastes with concentrations of radionuclides greater than these limits then would require disposal in a deep geologic repository (or ancther system with

' equivalent waste-isolation capabilities). This analysis is in accord with one of the approaches to defining HLW discussed by the NRC in the ANFRM for 10 CFR Part 60 The NRC's discussion of our analysis for GCD is misleading in three important respects. First, the NRC implies that we attempted to use this isolation" and, analysis in quantifying the attribute " requires permanent In fa.',

thus, in developing our generally applicable definition of HLV.

however, our analysis for GCD is completelv irrelevant to our proposed

4 definition of HLW. This is evidenced by the definition of " requires permanent isolation" discussed in the previous section of these comments and by several parts of our report (e.g., Fig. C 1 and Sections 3.1.4, 4.3, and 4.6).

Second, the next to last sentence in the NRC's discussion implies that we developed our proposed definition of HLW only after the analysis for GCD appeared too uncertain to be useful. This is not the case. The definitions of HLW and the other vaste classes are completely developed in our report before the role of GCD is first discussed in Section 4.6. Our analysis for GCD was presented only to encourage further investigations into the feasibility of intermediate disposal facilities. Furthermore, as indicated in Section 4.6 and Appendix C.1 of our report, we believe it is not uncertainties in the intruder dose analysis that preclude defining HLW at the present time on the basis of GCD, We recognized that a waste classification system which could be implemented at the present time must be consistent, to the fullest extent possible, with existing law and regulations (see Section 1.2 of our report). Therefore, at the beginning of our work, we concluded that a generally applicable waste classification system should require only two disposal technologies, i.e., near-surface land disposal and deep geologic repositories, because these are the only technologies for which the legal and regulatory framework has been established. We recognized, as has the NRC, that it is impractical at present to develop a definition of HLW based on the existence of GCD, primarily because the required legal and regulatory framework is not in place. We would also note that our waste classification system is compatible with the NRC's proposed amendmunt to 10 CFR Part 61 regarding disposal of greater-than Class-C low-level waste in a deep geologic repository, except we would call such vaste by a different name.

Third, the NRC's discussion r,e;ms to imply that our analysis for GCD supports the NRC's decision not to revise the definition of HLW. On the contrary, noting again that our analysis for GCD was not relevant to our waste classification system, we believe that our work and the support it received during extensive peer reviews shows that a reasonable quantitative, generally applicable, and risk-based definition of HLW and other waste classes can be implemented at the present time.

Summarv In conclusion, we would summarize the factual errors and potential for misinterpretation in the NRC's discussion of the report on our proposed waste classification system as follows.

5'

+

' - The NRC is incorrect in stating that. our approach to defining hLW is based. only on consideration of short-term risks associated with decay

- heat and external radiation but not on consideration of long-term risks from waste disposal.

- The NRC is' incorrect in implying that we considered only short-term risks.during waste handling and storage in defining HLU, but did not censider short-term risks during waste disposal.

- The NRC's discussion of our analysis of risks from disposal of vastes in intermediate disposal facilities is potentially misleading, because it implies that (1) our initial goal was to use this analysis in developing a definition of HLU, (2) we developed an alternative definition of HLU only after our analysis for intermediate disposal facilities proved too uncertain to be useful, and (3) our analysis for intermediate disposal facilities supports the NRC's decision not to revise the definition of HLV. None of these implications are correct. 1 l'

• l l

l l

l l

l i

l

1 A PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR -

l i

HIGH LEVEL AND OTHER RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES ,

D. C. Kocher Health and Safety Research Division A. C. Croff ,

Chemical Technology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 37831 ABSTRACT This paper presents a proposal for quantitative, generally applicable, and risk based definitions of high-level and other radioactive wastes. Heretofore, high level waste (HLW) has been defined only qualitatively as vaste from chemical reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

~

On the basis of the definition of HLW in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and previous descriptions of reprocessing wastes, we propose a definition based on the concept that HLW is any waste which is highly radioactive and requires permanent isolation. This conceptual definition of HLW 1eads to a two-dimensional vaste classification system in which one axis, related to " highly radioactive," is associated with shorter term risks from waste management and disposal due to high levels of decay heat and external radiation, and the other axis, related to " requires permanent isolation," is associated with longer-term risks from waste disposal.

Wastes that rre highly radioactive are defined quantitatively as vastes *'

l l with a decay heat (power density) greater than 50 W/m 3 or an external dose equivalent rate greater than 100 rem /h (1 Sv/h) at a distance of 1 rn

• Research sponsored by the t S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05 840R21400 with Marta,Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

n. --, _., on -

- ~ . m .. .. vs c, ~, - - - , - n AC06 640R21400 Accoremp, p. ys (sover-i toisew a ew. am,ve enveny *ee acer.e to pm e es,amma 10 .0 90r y I

l 2 l from the vaste, whichever is more restrictive. Vastes that require permanent isolation are defined quantitatively as wastes with concentrations of radionuclides greater than the Class-C limits that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal, as obtained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10 CFP Part 61 and its associated methodology. This proposal leads to similar definitions of two other waste classes: transuranic (TRU) waste and equivalent is any waste that requires permanent isolation but is not highly radioactive; and low level waste (LLW) is any waste that does not require permanent isolation, without regard to whether or not it is highly radioactive. This paper also discusses (1) various considerations on the intended implementation of the vaste cicssification system, (2) the intended relationship between definitions of waste classes, selection of technologies for waste disposal, and development of waste acceptance criteria, and (3) impacts of the waste classification system on selected commercial and defense wastes.

1 W

i  !

i 3

1. INTRODUCTION l

This paper presents a proposed definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) that is (1) quantitative, (2) generally. applicable to.any waste,,regardless'of its source or isotopic composition, and (3) based primarily c. consideration of risks from vaste management and disposal. -

From the proposed definition of HLU, we also. develop quantitative, generally applicable, and risk based definitions of two other waste classes: transuranic (TRU) waste and equivalent, and low level waste (LLW). The three waste classes defined herein are intended to encompass s

all radioactive wastes. .As demonstrated below, quantitative and generally applicable definitions do not presently exist for any class of radioactive waste.

The impetus for this work was the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 (Public Law 97-425), which defines HLU as -

"(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly radioactive material that the [ Nuclear Regulatory]

Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule , requires

. permanent isolation."

Similar to previous definitions of HLW,l'2 the definition in the NWPA is w

only qualitative; i.e., the terms "contains fission products in sufficient concentrations," " highly radioactive," and " requires permanent isolation" are not quantified. The definition in clause (A) represents the

• The acronyms used in this paper are listed in Table I.

7 i

4 traditional description of HLW as the more hazardous radioactive wastes from a particular source, i.e. , from chemical reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The definition in clause (B) represents a significant departure from the traditional source-based definition by calling for development of a generally applicable definition of HLV, i.e., one that is not based on the source of the waste.

The NWPA assigns responsibility for developing a generally applicable definition of HLW to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC has indicated that a revision of 10 CFR Part 60 may be forthcoming in which a quantitative and gener4 ,1y applicable definition of HLW will be developed,

~

in response to clause (B), that will also encompass and quantify the traditional cource-based definition in clause (A). This approach to defining HLW has been taken in this paper.

Two other classes of radioactive waste have been defined in law and regulations: TRU waste and LLU. TRU waste is defined, in part, as waste containing core than 100 nCi/g of leng lived, alpha emitting transuranic radionuclides. However, since the definitions of TRU waste explicitly exclude HLW and, as demonstrated above, HLW currently is defined only -

qualitatively, a quantitative definition of TRU waste that unambiguously distinguishes such waste from HLW is lacking. .

LLW is defined in the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985 (Public Law 99-240), but only by exclusion. Since the definition of LLW particularly excludes HLV, a quantitative and generally applicable definition of LLW also is lacking. The LLRWPAA also assigns to the NRC the responsibility for classifying radioactive 1

materials as LLW. In this regard, it is important to note that the NRC's 10 CPR Fart 61 does not define cW, but only establishes classes of waste

5 (Classes A, B, and C) that are generally acceptable for near surface land disposal.

Ve also note that the definition of LLV in the LLWRPAA implicitly includes TRU waste.

The foregoing discussion on the definitions of radioactive vastes in current law and regulations clearly indicates the need for development of a classification system that (1) encompasses all radioactive wastes and (2) unambiguously distinguishes between different vaste classes. Such a waste classification system is proposed in this paper. We retain the traditional names of waste classes (i.e., HLW, TRU waste, and LLW), except TRU waste herein is called TRU waste and equivalent. But for the first time, we develop quantitative and generally applicable definitions of the three waste classes based on common considerations of risks from vaste management and disposal.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the conceptual approach used to obtain quantitative, generally applicable, and risk based definitions of HLW, TRU waste and equivalent, and LLV; and Section 3 presents the proposed quantification of the vaste classification syste=,

Sections 4 6 then discuss (1) various considerations on the intended implementation of the waste classification system, (2) the intended relationship between the definitions of waste classes, selection of technologies for waste disposal, and development of waste acceptance criteria for specific disposal facilities, and (3) impacts of the waste classification system on sc'.ected commercial and defense wastes, respectively. In Section 5, we particularly emphasize that some form of grester confinement disposal could provide an acceptable alternative to l l

deep geologic repositories for relatively dilute wastes classified as HLW or TRU waste and equivalent. Finally, Section 7 summarizes the proposed

6 i

vaste classification system, compares the definitions of waste classes with the current definitions described above, and discusses important conclusions from this study.

The discussions and analyses in this paper usually are presented only 1

in summary form. A complete presentation of the proposed waste classification syste. *s contained in a recent report.

2. CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS OF HICH-LEVEL WASTE AND OTHER WASTE CLASSES This section presents the conceptual approach used to obtain quantitative, generally applicable, and risk based definitions of HLV, TRU waste and equivalent, and LLV.

2.1 Conceptual Definition of High-Level Waste It has long been recognized that the more hazardous radioactive vastes from chemical reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel have two important properties:1

- high concentrations of fission products, principally 90 Sr and 137 Cs in wastes that are aged for about a decade, which produce high heat generation rates and external radiation doses; and 1

- high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides- 'rincipally alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides, that would result in high internal radiation doses per unit activity of inhaled or ingested material.

l l

HLV traditionally has been defined in terms of the source of the vaste, i

f

7 rather than its properties, because fuel reprocessing was the only significant source of waste with these properties.

. The-properties of reprocessing wastes described above also have long been associated with risks from vaste management and' disposal.1 First, high heat generation rates and external doses necessitate systems for heat removal and shielding to limit shorter-term risks to workers and the public during waste handling and storage. The NRC also hk. recognized the potential importance of decay heat in limiting risks from disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories by requiring substantially complete containment of radionuclides within vaste packages during the period of highest heat generation (i.e., for at least 300 years).O Second, high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides necessitate waste disposal systems that provide a high degree of isolation from the biosphere to limit longer-term risks to the public.

In this paper, we assume that the two properties ef reprocessing wastes described above, and their associations with risks from vaste management and disposal, provide a suitable basis for a quantitative, generally applicable, and risk based definition of HLV. The view that HLV can be characterized in this way, regardless of the source of the waste, is supported by the definition in clause (B) of the NVPA given in Section 1 - namely, that HLW is "other highly radioactive material. .!

. that... requires permanent isolation."

Thus, we propose a definition based on the cor.;ept that HLM has two w

distinct attributes:

i HLW is any waste that is -

l (1) highly radioactive and (2) requires permanent isolation.

I____-._._---.____ ~--__--__.____._---_a _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

I 8

This conceptual definition of HLW results in a _two-dimensional waste i 1

I classification system in which one axis is related to " highly radioactive

• I l

and the other axis to " requires permanent isolation." Furthermore, we )

, . propose (1) that " highly radioactive" is a general attribute related to '

the potential for significant shorter-term risks from waste management and disposal due to high heat generation rates (power densities) or external dose rates and (2) that " requires permanent isolation" is a general attribute related to limitation of longer term risks from vaste disposal, 2.2 Conceptual Definitions of other Waste Classes From the proposed definition of HLV, co. :eptual definitions of the other two classes of radioactive waste then follow immediately:

[1] TRJ waste and equivalent i= any waste that requires permanent isolation but is not highly radioactive; and

[2] LLW is ar.y waste that does not require permanent isolation, without regard to whether or - ;t it is highly radioactive.

The first of these classes is called TRU waste and equivalent because it not only encompasses traditional TRU waste but also may include high concentrations of long lived, non-TRU radionuclides (e.g., 10C, 99 Tc, and 1291 ). Tha con:eptual definition of LLW is consistent with the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 in the sense that vastes that are generally acceptable for w

near-surface land disposal are defined therein only from consideration of longer-term risks from waste disposal, but without regard to shorter term -

risks due to high levels of decay heat or external radiation. ,6

l-, t 9

L 2.3 Qualitative Depiction of Waste classification System The rwo-dimensional waste classification system that results from the proposed conceptual definitions of HLW, TRU waste and equivalent, and LLU is depicted in Fig. 1. The vertical axis is related to shorter term risks due to the levels of decav teat and external radiation. Although decay -

heat and external' radiation depend on the total activity concentration of all radionuclides, high levels result primarily from high concentrations of relatively short-lived radionuclides. The horizontal axis is related to longer term risks from vaste disposal, ar.d depends only on the total activity concentration of long lived ra.aonuclides. The Permanent Isolation boundary separates wastes that require permanent isolation (HLW or TRU waste and equivalent) from these that do not (LLV). The Highly Radioactive boundary ' then separates HLW from TRU waste and equivalent, but has no bearing on the definition of LLU.

3. QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE AND OTHER VASTE CLASSES This section presents the proposed quantification of the Permanent

• Isolation and Highly Radioactive boundaries depicted in Fig. 1. The quantification of these boundaries is based on considerations of r.isk. We focus principally on risks from waste disposal, since disposal is the primary goal of waste manageme.t. We first develop the definition of the Permanent Isolation boundary, because this boundary is used in defining all three waste classes, and then develop the definition of the Highly Radioactive boundary.

____m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - - - - - _ - - - ' - - - - ' - ~

i-10 3.1 Quantification of Permanent Isolation Boundary As described in Section-2.1, we associate the attribute " requires permanent isolation" with longer term risks from vaste disposal due to high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. We quantify the Permanent Isolation boundary on the basis of the concept that disposal -

systems for HUW or TRU waste and equivalent must limit radiation doses (risks) to the public to acceptable levels.

It is important to recognize that the concept of " permanent isolation" has been applied in law and regulations to the disposal of all i

radioactive wastes; e.g., see refs. 3-5, the NWPA, and the LLRVPAA. For any waste and regardless of the disposal technology used. " permanent" means that there is no intent to recever the waste after disposal, and

" isolation" refers to requirements for long term protection of public health. Thus, for example, " permanent isolation" does not necessarily imply disposal in deep geologic repositories. The intended relationship between " requires permanent isolation," as defined in this paper, and the ,

selection of disposal technologies is discussed in Section 5. I l

l 3.1.1 Definition of Permanent Isolation Boundary i

1 At the present time, near surface land disposal and deep geologic i .

repositories are the only technologies for waste disposal that are recognized in law and for which radiation standards and technical

~

' ' ~

criteria have been established. However, the regulations for these technologies differ in the following important respect: whereas maximum concentrations of radionuclides that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal have been established,5,6 minimum concentrations of 1

L__________----_------ - -- - ---

11  ;

radionuclides that would require deep geologic repositories or equivalent for protection of public health have not been established.

In order to pr: fide reasonable compatibility with existing law and regulations, we propose the fo11owin8 quantitative and generally I applicable definition of wastes that require permanent isolation:

" Requires permanent isolation" means -

- wastes with concentrations of radionuclides 3reater than the Class-C limits that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal, as obtained from the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 and its associated methodology.5,6,10,11 From the conceptual definitions of the three waste classes given in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. LLV includes only those wastes that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal, whereas the other two classes include all wastes that are not generally acceptable for such disposal.

3.1.2 Radionuclides Concentrations Corresponding to Permanenc Isolation Boundary From the definition of " requires permanent isolation" given above, concentrations of radionuclides that correspond to the Permanent Isolation boundary are based entirely on the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 and its associated methodology. The resulting boundary concentrations for selected radionuclides are given in Table'II, and were obtained from the following w

sources:

- Tables 1 and 2 of the Final Rule for l'C, 59Ni, 63Ni, 90Sr, 9'Nb, 99Tc, 1291, and 137 Cs; j

l i

o

.______._____m.___ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _

12

- Section 7 of Appendix C of the' Final Environmental Impact Statement .

(FEIS) for all TRU radionuclides;

- Table 4.5 of the Main Report of the FEIS6 for 135 Cs, 235 U, and 238g ;

- Table 4-3 of Volume 2 of the revised impacts analysis methodology 1 for 226 Ra; and

- calculations of Class-C limits which we performed, using the revised impacts analysis methodology,10,11 for 108mgg, 126Sn, 210Pb, 2273c, 229Th. 230Th 232 Th, 231p ,, 232 U, 233g, 234U, and 236g ,

We have considerably expanded the list of radionuclides for which Class C limits are given in the Final Rule and the FEIS in order to provide a generally applicable definition; the NRC established Class-C limits only for those radionuclides expeerad to be of primary importance in commercial wastes that could be acceptable for near surface land disposal ,6 The boundary concentrations for 241Pu, 243Cm, and 2Cm are based on the Class-C limits for their respective longer lived daughter products 201Am, 239 Pu, and 240 Pu and the half lives of each parent and daughter. '

There are two noteworthy aspects of the boundary concentrations in Table II. First, whereas Table 1 of the Final Rule gives a Class C limit of 100 nci/g for all long-lived, alpha emitting TRU radionuclides and

, Table 4-3 of ref. 11 gives 20 nci/g for 226 Ra, we use the separate a

concentration limits in Ci/m3 for each TRU radionuclides given in the 7EIS and a limit for 226Ra in the same units because: (1) activity per unit

• volume, not per unit mass, is the quantity directly related to the limits on dose to an inadvertent intruder at a disposal site, which provide one of the bases for the 14RC's Class-C limits; 6 and (2) a single Class-C

1 29 i

maximum concentrations of long-lived radionuclides that would be s acceptable for intermediate depth burial were estimated on the basis of l

(1) a solid waste drilling scenario for an inadvertent intruder, ' which is assumed to occur at 500 years after disposal, and-(2) a limit on annual effective dose equivalent for an intruder of 0.5 rem (5 mSv). The dose limit for an in ruder and the time at which intrusion occurs are similar to the assumptions used by the NRC in daveloping the Class C concentration limits for near-surface land disposal.5,6 The results of the analysis are summarized in Table IV. The i

concentration limits for GCD appear reasonable in the sense that the values for most of the important radionuclides in existing wastes lie between their Class C limits for near-surface land disposal in Table II and expected concentrations in commercial spent fuel and reprocessing vastes, ' ' which usually contain the highest concentrations of long-lived radionuclides of any wastes.

The concentration limits in Table IV define an enample GCD Permanent Isolation boundary, which is depicted in Fig. 3. Again, this boundary would separate wastes that are acceptable for CCD from those that require i

deep geologic repositories or equivalent. The depiction of this boundary as a cross hatched bar represents the considerable uncertainty inherent in

,)cs determination. In particular, the analysis has not taken int 6 account

~

the need to comply with the stringent containment and ground-water protection requirements in current standards for disposal of spwnt fuel, HLM, and TRU waste; and, furthermore, technical criteria applicable to CCD have not been specified in regulations. Thus, our analysis is intended primarily to demonstrate that it is reasonable to consider CCD as an alternative to deep geologic repositories for relatively dilute HLW or i

I

30 TRU waste and equivalent.

As indicated in Fig. 3, the acceptability of CCD for some HLW or TRU waste and equivalent would not ' affect the proposed definitions of these waste classes. But the waste classification system does not preclude defining subclasses of HUW or IAU waste and equivalent corresponding to

~

(1) wastes that are acceptable for CCD and (2) wastes that require deep geologic repositories or equivalent. A precedent for defining subclasses of waste is provided by the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61, in which concentration limits and associated technical criteria are specified for three classes of waste that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal. ,6

6. IMIACTS OF WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM This section discusses impacts of the proposed waste classification system on the present classification of selected wastes, including (1) commercial spent fuel and reprocessing wastes, (2) defense reprocessing. wastes, (3) commercial and defense TRU wastes, (4) commercial uranium mill tailings, and (5) wastes containing 90Sr and 137 Cs.

6.1 Commercial Spent Fuel and Reprocessing Wastes Radionuclides concentrations have been reported for 10 year old spent

. fuel from commercial light water reactors and for liquid wastes and wastes encapsulated in boros111cate glass that would be obtained from reprocessing of commercial spent fuel.18,25 Each of these wastes would be classified as HLU, because the radionuclides concentrations greatly exceed both the Highly Radioactive and the Permanent Isolation boundaries. Such a result intuitively would be required of any reasonable waste

31

)

classification system.

Alkaline (liquid and sludge) and acid (liquid) reprocessing wastes j obtained primarily from commercial. spent fuel are stored at the West Valley Demonstration Proj ect. Reported radionuclides concentrations generally are less than those in the commercial reprocessing wastes j

discussed above. The acid wastes and alkaline sludges would be classified as HLV, but the alkaline liquids would be classified as TRU waste and equivalent. However, as emphasized in.Section 4.1, these classifications rio not necessarily apply to solid wastes prepared for disposal, and they do not take into account any further processing that may occur prior to solidification (e.g., removal of 137 Cs from the supernatant or concentration of wastes by removal of inert salts).26

+

6.2 Defense Reprocessing Wastes Defense wastes currently called HLW, because they arise from fuel reprocessing, occur in several forms and with widely varying radionuclides concentrations. The radionuclides concentrations in most of these wastes are considerably. less than the projected concentrations in commercial reprocessing wastes.1 '2 Reprocessing wastes at the Savannah River Plant will be encapsulated

. in borosilicate glass,28 which is a form appropriate for disposal.

Projected radionuclides concentrations for sludge-sur ernate and sludge-only glass wastes indicate that these wastes would be classified as HLW, ,

because the radionuclides concentrations considerably exceed both the Highly Radioactive and the Permanent Isolation boundaries.

The calcine wastes currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering

32 laboratory apparently would be classified, on average, as TRU waste and 4

equivalent, because the concentrations of 90Sr and 137 Cs do not exceed the Highly Radioactive boundary. Similarly, many of the wastes stored at the Hanford site as liquids, sludges, salt cake, and slurries would be i

classified, on average, as TRU waste and equivalent, due to the low concentrations of 90 Sr and 137 Cs, or even LLU in cases where the concentrations of long-lived TRU radionuclides also are low.

Radionuclides concentrations in defense reprocessing wastes that are not in a form appropriate for disposal could change significantly with further processing and solidification. Furthermore, radionuclides concenerstions often are reported only as averages over many waste storage units,27 and these data may not adequately represent the concentrations in individual units. Therefore, the analysis described above indicates only that a considerable amount of defense waste currently called HLW could be reclassified as TRU waste and equivalent or LLV, but a proper classification would require more detailed data on particular wastes and expected waste forms for disposal.

6.3 Commercial and Defense TRU Wastes TRU waste, which currently contains more than 100 nci/g of long-lived, alpha-es.itting TRU radionuclides but excludes HLV, '

is generated by commercial and defense activities, but current and projected inventories of defense waste constitute by far the larger portion.

Defense TRU waste that can be properly certified' is intended for disposal at the WIPP facility, 'I but no disposal technology or facility has been proposed specifically for commercial TRU waste.

33 6.3.1 Zapacts of Permanent Isolation Boundary

• The potential impacts of the Permanent Isolation boundary on existing commercial and defense TRU wastes arise from (1) the use of radionuclides.

specificClassCconcentratgnlimitsinCi/m 3for long-lived, sipha-emitting TRU radionuclides, rather than the ' single valua of 100 nCi/g for all such radionuclides, and (2) the inclusion of high concentrations of long-lived, non-TRU radionuclides in TRU waste and equivalent.

The use of separate Class-C concentration limits in Ci/m3 for all TRU radionuclides provides a risk based and generally applicable definition of the Permanent Isolation boundary (see Section 3.1.2). In both commercial and defense TRU wastes, 230Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, and 203 Am usually are the most important alpha emittin5 TRU radionuclides. * '

For wastes containing low concentrations of 238 Pu, the Class-C limit in Ci/m3 is essentially equivalent to 100 nCi/g for expected waste densities,6 so the definition of the Permanent Isolation boundary would not significantly affect the volume of existing TRU waste that would be classified as TRU waste and equivalent.

For 238 Pu, however, the Class-C limit in Table II is one to two orders of magnitude greater than 100 nci/g for expected waste densities,6 primarily because of its relatively short half-life of about 88 years.

This difference could impact current definitions and disposal options for 238 Pu wastes. Commercial waste containing concentrations of 238 Pu between 100 nci/g and the class-C limit in Table II, and low concentrations of ,,

other TRU radionuclides, would not be generally acceptable for near.

surface land disposal according to the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61, but would be generally acceptable for such disposal according to our proposed

---=-r--

i 34 definition of LOW. Defense TRU waste containing similar concentrations of -

238 Pu and the other TRU radionuclides would be acceptable for disposal at the WIPP facility,' even though we would not classify the waste as TRU waste and' equivalent. Regarding defense waste, we emphasize that the waste classification system does not preclude the WIPP facility from accepting 238 Pu wastes with concentrations less than the Class-C limit in Table II but greater than 100 nCi/g.

Long lived, non TRU radionuclides (e.g., l'C, 99Tc, and 1291 ) are included in TRU waste and equivalent because these radionuclides in concentrations greater than their Class-C limits would require disposal technologies with waste isolation capabilities equivalent to those required for TRU waste. A change in definition from traditional TRU waste to TRU waste and equivalent would not affect present requirements for disposal of commercial wastes, because neither of these waste classes is generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal. With regard to defense waster, TRU waste and equivalent could contain such low concentrations of TRU radionuclides (i.e., less than 100 nCi/g) that the waste would not be acceptable for disposal at the WIPP facility.' Again, '

however, the waste classification system does not preclude the WIPP facility from maintaining its criterion for the minimum concentration of TRU radionuclides. Vastes classified as TRU waste and equivalent that do

)

, not meet this criterion would require disposal elsewhere.

6.3.2 Impacts of Highly Radioactive Boundary The Highly Radioactive boundary could affect disposal of defense TRU waste at the VIPP facility, since acceptance criteria on external dose-1 1

I l

l

36 elsewhere, e.g. in a repository for spent fuel and HLW.

Second, as indicated in Section 6.2, use of the boundary value of 50 W/m3 in a generally applicable waste classification system could result in reclassification of significant volumes of defense reprocessing wastes as TRU waste and equivalent. Since much of the affected waste probably would contain greater than 100 nCi/g of long-lived, alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides, the volume of waste that could be acceptable for disposal at the WIPP facility might be increased substantially. This volume would be ir. creased even more if the Highly Radioactive boun'dary were increased to 300 V/m3 to agree with the WIPP acceptance criterion. We emphasize, however, that it is not necessary that all such wastes be placed in the WIPP facility if serious distortions of existing agreements or planned 10 operations would result. ,

6.4 Commercial Uranium Mill Tailings Uranium mill tailings are a type of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and, according to the current definition in the LiaWPAA, mill tailings are specifically excluded from LLV. However, if there were no legal restrictions on the classification of byproduct materia h , then data on concentrations of natural uranium, 230Th, and 226

! , Ra in sands, slines, and liquids 27 indicate that commercial uranium mill tailings could be classified as LLW.

Furthermore, most of the wastes could be classified as Class-A LLW ,

according to the criteria in 10 CFR Part 61, '0 because the radionuclides concentrations generally are less than one-tenth of the Class C limits in Table II.

I~

37 Disposal of uranium mill tailings is subject to health protection standards and technical criteria 0,31 that differ considerably from those applicabletonear-surfacelanddisposalofotherradioactivewastes),6

.e If mill tailings could be classified as 1.LW, then the waste classification system would not preclude separate regulations for disposal of mill tailings u d other types of LLW, because the waste classes are not I associated with requirements.for specific disposal technologies.

6.5 Wastes Cor.taining 90 Sr and 137 Cs The important fission products 90Sr and 137 Cs are included in defining both the Highly Radioactive and the Permanent Isolation boundaries. Furthermore, for each radionuclides, the same concentration is used to define both boundaries - namely, the Class C limit for nect-surface land disposal specified by the NRC. '

As discussed in Section 3.2.4, the correspondence between thu Class-C limits and the Highly Radioactive boundary is largely fortuitous, but we believe that the resulting classification of 90 Sr and 137 Cs vastes is reasonable and has desirable consequences. ,

Inclusion of 90 Sr and 137 Cs in defining the Permanent Isolation boundary appears at odds with the historica). precedents for describing reprocessing wastes summarized in Section 2.1, because the attribute

" requires permanent isolation" was associated with high concentrations of longer-lived TRU radionuclides, but not with high concentrations of

• shorter-lived fission products. However, since we have defined this boundary in terms of concentrations of any radionuclides that exceed its 90 Class-C limit, wastes containing Sr and 137 Cs in sufficient

38 concentrations would require permanent isolation, just as wastes with sufficient concentrations of longer-lived radionuclides. In addition, wastes with concentrations of 90 Sr and 137 Cs greater than their Class C limits would be classified as HLU, but not as TRU waste and equivalent, which agrees with the precedent that TRU waste contains considerably lower concentrations of fission products than most reprocessing wastes.

If 90 Sr and 137 Cs were included only in defining the Highly Radioactive boundary, then these radi,onuclides would be classified as LLW in any concentration. However, there exist vastes at the Hanford site in which the concentrations of 90Sr and 137 Cs exceed their Class-C limits by several orders of magnitude. It seems reasonable that such wastes should be called HLW, because they certainly are highly radioactive and, as indicated by the example analysis summarized in Table IV, they may also require disposal in deep geologic repositories or equivalent.

7.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This section summarizes the proposed waste classification system, compares the definitions of waste classes with current definitions of HLU, TRU waste, and LLW, and presents some conclusions from this study.

. 7.1 Summary of Waste classification System This paper has presented a quantitative, generally applicable, and w

risk based classification system for HLW and other radioactive wastes.

HUW has been defined historically as vaste from reprocessing of spent neclear fuel, but the reed for a generally applicable definition arises from a description in the NVPA that HLU is "other highly radioactive

39 material that... requires permanent isolation." In addition, the need for a generally applicable definition of LLW is indicated by the LLRUPAA.

On the basis of the definition of HLW in the NWPA and previous descriptions of the properties of reprocessing wastes including (1) high levels of decay heat and external radiation, due princip .:y to high concentrations of the fission products 90 Sr and 137 Cs, and (2) high concentrations of long-lived, alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides, we proposed the following conceptual definition:

-HLW is any waste that is -

(1) highly radioactive and (2) requires permanent isolation.

Thus, HLW is assumed to have two distinct attributes which are associated with shorter term risks due to high levels of decay heat or external radiation and longer term risks from vaste disposal, respectively.

From the conceptual definition of HLW, similar definitions of two other wastes classes then followed immediately:

- TRU waste and equivalent is any waste that requires permanent isolation but is not highly radioactive; and 1

- LLW is any waste that does not require permanent isolation, without

. reEard to whether or not it is highly radioactive.

l The three waste class.s so defined are intended to encompass all radioactive vastes.

A quantitative definition of the attribute " highly radioactive" was 1

developed from analyses of levels of decay heat (power density) and j external radiation that would require engineered systems or other design i

l 1

_l I-40 i

considerations to limit shorter-term risks in a variety of waste .

management and disposal systems. From these analyses, we proposed the following definition:

" Highly radioactive" means -

, t.

(1) a power density greater than 50 W/m3 or .

(2) an external dose equivalent rate r,reater than 100 rem /h (1 Sv/h) at a distance of 1 m from the waste.

The Highly Radioactive boundary determined by this definition separates HLW from TRU waste and equivalent. Simple models were used to derive concentrations of radionuclides, given in Table III, that correspond to the Highly Radioactive boundary.

Quantification of the attribute " requires permanent isolation" was based on the following definition:

" Requires permanent isolation" means -

- wastes with concentrations of radionuclides greater than the Class C limits that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal, as obtained from the NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 and its

'6,10,11 '

associated methodology.

The Permanent Isolation boundary determined by this definition separates LLW from HLW or TRU waste and equivalent. The concentrations of radionuclides'that correspond to the Permanent Isolation boundary are given in Table II.

The two dimensional waste classification system resulting from the definitions of the Highly Radioactive and Permanent Isolation boundaries is depicted in Fig. 2. The waste classification system is intended primarily for application to expected radionuclides compositions and waste

k i

L

l. 41 forms at the time of final disposal, since disposal is the primary goal of waste management.

The definitions of waste classes are not associated with requirements for particular disposal technologies, in order to encourage flexibility in developing cost-effective systems for waste disposal. At the present time, near-surface land disposal (for LLW) and deep geologic repositories (for HOW or TRU waste and equivalent) are the only disposal technologies for which regulatory standards and technical criteria have been developed.

However, a form of GCD,.which would provide intermediate waste-isolation capabilities, could be acceptable for some wastes that are not generally acceptable for near surface land disposal. We performed an example analysis to estimate maximum concentrations of long-lived radionuclides that would be acceptable for CCD, assuming intermediate depth burial as the disposal technology. The results of this analysis, given in Table IV, demonstrate that it would be reasonable to consider CCD as an alternative to deep geologic repositories for relatively dilute HLW or TRU waste and equivalent. However, the definitions of waste classes do not depend on the development of CCD technologies with their appropriate regulatory ,

I framework.

7.2 Comparison with Present Definitions of Waste Classes

, We have developed a waste classification system that includes only HLM, TRU waste and equivalent, and LLW in order to maintain a desirable ,

consistency with existing law and regulations that have established HLU, TRU waste, and LLW as the principal waste classes. Since the waste .

classification system is based on common considerations of risks from i

I

42 waste management and disposal and all wastes would be positively identified on the basis of known radionuclides concentrations, the proposed definitions of the three vaste classes would emove any ambiguities in the present definitions.

The generally applicable definition of HLW developed in this paper encompasses and quantifies the traditional source-based definition of HLU as waste from fuel reprocessing. In particular, for reprocessing wastes that have been aged for about a decade, the proposed definition of HLW quantifies the term "contains fission products in sufficient concentrations" in the source-based definition in the NUPA essentially as concentrations of 90 Sr and 137 Cs that exceed their Class C limits for near-surface land disposal. The proposed definition also quantifies the concentrations of long-lived, alpha-emitting TkJ radionuclides in reprocessing wastes (i.e., concentrations in excess of their Class-C limits) which, in conjunction with the sufficient concentrations of fission products, would constitute HLW. Vastes from fuel reprocessing with concentrations of 90Sr, 137Cs, and long-lived, alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides less than their Class C limits would not be classified as HLW, but as TRU waste and equivalent or LLU. In addition, the proposed definition of HLW includes waste from any source other than fuel reprocessing in which the radionuclides concentrations exceed both'the Highly Radioactive and the Permanent Isolation boundaries.

The generally applicable definition of TRU waste and equivalent w

encompasses the traditional definition of TRU waste as vaste that contains more than 100 nCi/g of long-lived, alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides, but excluding HLW. But with the proposed quantification of the Highly Radioactive boundary, the ambiguity in distinguishing HLW from TRU waste l

t

43 according to current definitions would be eliminated. In order to provide.

a generally applicable definition, the Permanent Isolation boundary is expressed in terms of radionuclides-specific limits on the concentrations of long-lived, alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides in units of C1/m3, rather than the single limit of 100 nCi/g for all such radionuclides. For many existing wastes, however, the proposed definicion is consistent with the current definition of TRU waste. Finally, the definition of TRU waste and equivalent expands the traditional delinition of TRU waste by including wastes with high concentrations of long lived, non-TRU radionuclides, because both types of radionuclides in concentrations greater than their Class-C limits would require disposal technologies with equivalent vaste-isolation capabilities.

The generally applicable definition of L'W is determined entirely by the Class C limits on concentrations of radionuclides that are generally acceptable for near-surface land disposal, as obtained from the h'RC's 10 CFR Part 61 and its associated methodology. The proposed definition includes fewer wastes than the present definition of LLW in the LLRUPAA, because the latter also includes any wastes except spent fuel, HLW, or byproduct material with concentrations of radionuclides greater than their Class-C limits. In particular, the LLRVFAA implicitly includes TRU waste in greater-than-Class C LLU. In the waste classification system, all greater-than Class-C wastes would be classified as HLW or TRU waste and equivalent. The proposed definition of LLW also could include most byproduct materials, if there were no legal restrictions to such a classification, because different types of LLW still could be subject to different requirements for disposal.

44 7.3 Conclusions We have developed for the first time a quantitative and generally applicable waste classification system that is based primarily on considerations of risks associated with waste disposal. The proposed definitions of waste classes can be applied unambiguously in any waste #

management pro 5 ram.

It is important to recognize that development of the waste classification system involved a number of subjective judgments based essentially on consideration of the consequences of possible choices. The '

need for such judgments arose from important ambiguities inherent in the conceptual definitions of the attributes " highly radioactive" and

" requires permanent isolation," which form the basis for the waste classification system, and important' uncertainties in the technical analyses used to quantify these attributes. However, subjectfve judgments also have been involved in all prior definitions of waste classes.

Therefore, we conclude that any efforts to develop generally applicable definitions of waste classes necessarily will involve judgments that cannot be based entirely on rigorous and objective technical analysis.

In spite of the ambiguities and uncertainties inherent in this. study, we have clearly demonstrated that a quantitative and generally applicable waste classification system based on considerations of health and safety 4

is feasible. Furthermore, we have shown that differences between the waste classification system and current definitions of HLW, TRU waste, and ,

LLW do not result in unnecessary or unreasonable adverse impacts on current waste management and disposal practices for a wide variety commercial and defense wastes.

45 I

An important general conclusion was obtained from consideration of impacts of the waste classification system on defense reprocessing and TRU wastes. Because of the ambiguity in current definitions of HLU and TRU waste and the nature of the acceptance criteria for TRU waste at the WIPP facility, it is evident that any generally applicable and risk based definitions of waste classes necessarily would either conflict to some extent with current definitions of defense HLW and TRU waste (i.e., would result in reclassification of a considerable amount of HLW as either TRU waste and equivalent or LLU) or could significantly affect the quantities of waste that might be acceptable for disposal at the WIPP facility. This general conclusion emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between a generally applicable waste classification system and site-specific waste acceptance criteria as a means of mitigating potentially adverse impacts of the waste classification system on current waste management practices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the direct contributions of a number of individuals to important aspects of this study. C. W, Forsber6 of Oak Ridge National Laboratory performed the analyses, summarized in Section 3.2.1, of levels of power density that would limit design or

, operation in a variety of waste management systems. F. R. O'Donnell of Oak Ridge National Laboratory performed the calculations, described in Section 3.2.4, of external dose-equivalent i tes from a standard waste ,

package containing a unit concentration of 137 Cs. T. L. Gilbert of Argonne National Laboratory performed the calculations, described in Section 3.1.2, of Class C limits for near-surface land disposal based on

..i 46 the NRC's' revised impacts analysis methodology. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the useful contributions to this study from J. O. Blomeke of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, M. H. Campbell and D. E. Wood of Westinghouse Hanford Operations C. C. Marshall of Rockwell International's Joint Integration Office, and J. J. Cohen and C. F. Smith of Science Applications International Corporation.

i I

• 1 w

i 47 REFERENCES

1. D. G. Jacobs, A. T. Szluha, K. A. Galbin, and A. G. Croff, "A Brief Historical Perspective on the Definition of High Level Nuclear Wastes," ORNL/Sub/84-13833/1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1985).

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "10 CFR Part 60 - Definition of ~

'High-Level Radioactive Waste'," Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Fed. Regiser. 52, 5992 (1987).

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Part 191 - Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," Code of Federsi Reguistions, Title 40, Parts 190 to 399, p. 7, U.S. Government Printing Office (1986); see also Fed. Regiser. 50, 38066 (1985).

4. U.S. Department of Energy, " Radioactive Waste Management," Order 5820.2 (1984).

5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Part 61 - Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," Code of Federal Regulations, Tlele 10, Pares O co 199, p. 658, U.S. Government Printing Office (1987); see also Fed. Regiser. 47, 57446 (1982).

6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Impact i i

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61 ' Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal i of Radioactive Waste' ," NUREG-0945, Vol.1-3 (1982) .

7. D. C. Kocher and A. G. Croff, "A Proposed Classification System for , j High-Level and other Radioactive Wastes," ORNL/TM 10289, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1987). 4 l

1

\

l l

48 l^

8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Part 60 - Disposal of High Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts O to 199, p. 627. U.S. Government Printing Office (1987); see also Fed. Regiser. 48, 28194 (1983).

9. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, "TRU Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant," WIPP-DOE 069, key, 2 (1985).

10. O. I. Oztunali and G. W. Roles, " Update of Part Impacts Analysis Methodology - Methodology Report," NUREG/CR-4370, Vol. 1, Envirosphere Company and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1986).

11. O. I. Oztunali, W. D. Pon, R. Eng, and G. W. Roles, " Update of Part 61 Impacts Analysis Methodology - Codes and Example Problems,"

NUREC/CR 4370, Vol. 2, Envirosphere Company and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1986).

12. International Commission on Radiological Protection, "A Compilation of the Major Concepts and Quantities in Use by ICRP," ICRP Publication 42, Ann. ICRP 14, No. 4 (1984).

13. B. F. Campbell, E. Doud, and R. E. Tomlinson, " Current Practice in the Management of High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States of America," Treatment and Storage of High-Level Radioactive Wastes,

p. 23 STI/ PUB /63, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1963).

14 R. E. Tomlinson, "Hanford High-Level Waste Management," Trea.cment and Storage of High-Level L'dioactive Wastes, p. 41, STI/ PUB /63, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1963).

49

15. N. W. Johanson, R. J. Heyer, L. E. Romesberg, and R. B. Pope, "The Transuranic Package Transporter (TRUPACT) System Design Status and Operational Support Equipment," PATRAM '83, 7th International Symposium on Packing and Transportation of Radioactive Materials,

p. 425, CONF-830528, Vol. 1, Sandia National Laboratories and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (198L).

16. U.K. Department of the Environment, " Assessment of Best Practicable Environmental Options (BPEOs) for Management of Low- and Intermediate-Level Solid Radioactive Wastes" (1986).

17. U.S. Department of Energy, " Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant," DOE /EIS-0026 (1980).

18. Vaste Isolation Systems Panel, A Study of the Isolation System for

' Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, National Academy Press, Washington, DC'(1983).

I f 19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Radiation Proteccion Guidance I

to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure," Fed. Registr. 52, 2822 (1987).

j

20. D. C. Kocher, "A Radionuclides Decay Data Base - Index and Summary Table," NUREC/CR-1413, ORNL/NUREG-70, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1980).

21. T. L. Gilbert and C. Luner, " Analysis of Alternative for Creater-l l , Confinement Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Vaste," DOE /LLV-31T, Argonne National Laboratory (1985).

22. T. L. Gilbert, N. K. Meshkov, J. P. Schubert, L. E. Trevorrow, and 1

C. Yu, " Planning for Creater Confinement Disposal. Volume I.

Alternatives and Methods," DOE /LLW 53T, Argonno National Laboratory (1986).

i

-i 50

)

23. R. D. Bennett, W. O. Miller, J. B. Warriner, P. C. Malone, and C. C. McAneny, " Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes - Task 1: Description of Methods and Assessment of Criteria," NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways  ;

Experiment Station (1984).

24 W. E. Kennedy, Jr. , B. A. Napier, and J. K. Soldat, " Advanced 1 Disposal Systems for Transuranic Waste: Preliminary Dicposal Criteria for Plutonium-239 at Hanford," Nucl. Chem. Rasce Manage. 4, 103 (1983).

25. D. J. Fehringer, "An Evaluation of Radionuclides Concentrations in High-Level Radioactive Wastes," NUREG-0946, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1985).

26. U.S. Department of Energy, " Final Envireraental Impact Statement:

Long-Term Management of Liquid High Level Radioactive Wastes Stored at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley,"

DOE /EIS-0081 (1982).

27. U.S. Department of Energy, " Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics," DOE /RW-0006, Rev.1 (1985).

28. R. C. Baxter, " Description of Defense Waste Processing Facility Reference Waste Form and Canister," DP-1606, Rev. 1, savannah River Plant (1983).

29. U.S. Departzunt of Energy, " Recommendations for Management of w

Greater-Than Class-C Low Level Radioactive Waste," DOE /NE-0077 (1987).

L L______-_-__.._____.__. _.

51

)

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Part 192 - Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parcs 190 to 399, p.16,- U.S. Covernment Printing Office (1986); see also Fed. Regiser.

48, 602 (1983) and Fed. Regiser. 48, 45946 (1983).

31. .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Part 40 - Domestic Licensing of Source Material. Appendix A - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parcs O co 199, p. 428, U.S. Covernment Printing Office (1987); see also Fed. Regiscr. 52,

+

43553 (1987).

b m

S h

W f

w ,_____m______.___m. __-__--m_ _ - ---

Et I'

LIST OF TABLES Table I. Listing of acronyms.

Table II. Concentrations of selected radionuclides corresponding 5 to Permanent Isolation boundary in waste classification system. -

Table III. Concentrations of selected radionuclides corresponding to Highly Radioactive boundary in vaste classification system.

Table IV. Estimates of concentration limits of selected radionuclides that are acceptable for greater confinement disposal, assuming intermediate-depth burial and a solid waste drilling scenario for exposure of inadvertent intruders.

l 1

e a

i i l

Table I. Listing of acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH Contact-handled FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement-CCD Greater confinement disposal HLW High-level waste LIRWPAA kw Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act LLW Low-level vaste NRC [U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission NVPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act RH Remote handled TRU Transuranic WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 8

4 4

W i

_ , _ _mu__,_m__.--_-._-------'------"- ' - - - - -

p, Table II.

Concentrations of selected radionuclides corresponding to Permanent Isolation boundary in vaste classification system" Boundary concentration Boundary concentration Nuclide (Ci/m3 ) Nuclide (Ci/m3 )

C-14 8 Th 232 1E-2 C C-14b BE1 Pa-231 3E-2c e Ni-59 b 2E2 U 232 SE-2 C Ni-63 7E2 U 233 4E-1c Ni-63 b 7E3 U 234 SE 1c Sr-90 7E3 U 235 4E-1 Nb-94b 2E-1 U 236 6E 1c Tc 99 3 U 238 SE-1 Ag-108m 3E-2c Np-237 4E-2 Sn 126 1E-2 C Pu 238 7 I 129' 8E-2 Pu 239 1E-1 Cs-135 BE2 Pu-240 1E-1 Cs-137 ~ SE3 Pu 241 f

^

S Pb-210 2E2e ,Pu 242 1E 1 Ra-226 3E-2 d Am 241 1E-1 Ac-227 le Am 243 7E-2 Th 229 SE 2c Cm-243 8E15 Th 230 6E-2c Cm 244 4El h

• Boundary concentration is defined as Class-C limit that is generally acceptable for near surface land disposal, as obtained from NRC's rulemaking 10 CFR Part 61 and associated methodology (refs. 5, 6, 10, 11). Permanent Isolation boundary for wastes containing mixture of radionuclides is determined from boundary concentration for each radionuclides using sum of-fractions rule.

b Radionuclides in activated metals only.

C Value calculated from refs. 10 and 11 is regarded as provisional.

Nalue assumes Pb-210 is in secular equilibrium with Ra-226.

w

'Value assumes Ac-227 is in secular equilibrium with Pa-231.

f Value is 30 times boundary concentration for Am 241.

SValue is 850 times boundary concentration for Pu 239.

h Value is 360 times boundary concentration for Pu-240.

Table III. Concentrations of selected radionuclides corresponding to Highly Radioactive boundary in waste classification rystem*

' Boundary concentration Boundary concentration Nuclide D -(Ci/m3 ) Nuclide b (Ci/m3 )

4 C-14 2E5 U-232 + d 2E2 .

Ni-63 SES Pu 238 2E3 Sr-90 + d 7E3e Pu-239 - 2E3 Cs-137 + d SE3e Pu-240 2E3 Sm-151 4E5 Pu 241 2E6 Pb-210 + d 1E3 Am 241 ,2E3 Ra 226 + d 3E2 Am-243 + d 1E3 Ac-227 + d 2E2 Cm 243 1E3 Th-229 + d 3E2 Cm 244 1E3 Pa-231 2E3 cm 245 2E3 aBoundary concentration for eny radionuclides is based on power density of 50 W/m 3 or external dose-equivalent rate of 100 res/h (1 Sv/h) at distance of 1 m from the waste, whi.chever is more restrictive (see Section 3.2.4); for all radionuclides listed except Cs-137, boundary concentration is based on power density. Highly Radioactive boundary for wastes containing mixture of radionuclides is determined from boundary concentration for each radionuclides using sum of-fractions rule.

b Notation "+ d" means short lived daughtar products are assumed to be in secular equilibrium with parent radionuclides.

C Value is same as Class-C limit for wastes that are generally ac-captable for near-surface land disposal, as specified in NRC's rulemaking 10 CTR Part 61 (ref. 5).

G Y

1

Table IV. Estimr.ces of concentration limits of selected radionuclides that are ac;eptable for greater confinement disposal, assuming intecaediate-depth burial and a solid waste drilling scenario for exposure of inadvertent intrudersa Concentration Ratio to Concentration Ratio to Nuclide (Ci/m3 ) Class-C b Nuclide (C1/m3 ) ' Class-Cb C-14 1El 1 Th-232. 1E 1 1El C-14c 1E3 1El Pa-231 2E 1* 7 Ni-59c 2E5 1E3 U-232 3E1 6E2 Ni 63 3E4 4E1 U-233 2E1 SE1 Ni 63c 3E6 4E2 U 234 2E1 4E1 Sr-90 2E6 3E2 U-235 4 1El Nb 94c 3E1 2E2 U 236 2E1 3E1 Tc-99 9 3 U-238 No limit -

Ag-108m 4 1E2 Np-237 4E-2 1 Sn-126 2E-1 2E1 Pu 238 4E2 6El I 129 9 1E2 Pu-239 8 8E1 Cs-135 2E2 3E 1 ,Pu-240 8 8E1 Cs-137 7E4 1El Pu-241 2El f 8 Pb 210 2E7 1ES Pu-242 8 8El-Ra 226 2E i d 7 Am-241 SE-1 8 Ac-227 3E6 3E6 Am-243 3E 1 4 Th 229 SE-1 2E1 cm-243 SE35 8E1 Th-230 3 SE1 Cm-244 3E3 h 8E1 a

concentration limits define example CCD Permanent Isolation boundary (see Section 5.2). Boundary for wastes containing mixture of radionuclides is determined from boundary concentration for ear.h radionuclides using sum-of-fractions rule.

b Class-C concentration limits for near surface land disposal are given in Table II.

cRadionuclide in activated metals only.

d value assumes Pb-210 is in secular equilibrium with Ra-226. ,

'Value assumes Ac-227 is in secular equilibrium with Pa 231.

f Value is 30 times concentration limit for Am-241.

8Value is 850 times concentration limit for Pu 239. {

h value is 360 times concentration limit for Pu-240.

l .

u_____________. . _ _ _ _ _ - - _.. -

t 1

i LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Qualitative depiction of proposed waste classification system described in Sections 2.1 2.3. The vertical axis is associated with the attribute " highly radioactive" and is determined by levels of power density or external dose-equivalent rate, The horizontal axis is associated with the attribut6 " requires permanent isolation" and is determined by concentrations of long lived radionuclides.

Fig. 2. Depiction of proposed waste classification system. Radionuclides concentrations corresponding to the'two boundaries defining the three waste classes are given in Tables II and III.

Fig. 3. . Depiction of proposed waste classification system including GCD-Permanent ~ Isolation boundary described in Section 5.2. Radionuclides concentrations corresponding to example CCD-Permanent Isolation boundary are given in Table IV, l .

W l

L 1

E___.______._________-._____--__--- - _ - _ - - _ _ - - - ~

O R N L-D W G 8 6 C-116 34 R 2 -

QUALITATIVE DEPICTION OF WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM k

o.

W HIGH-LEVEL WASTE 5

g HIGHLY R ADIO ACTIVE g BOUNDARY zx w 9 * . ^, $ "

>xg <

I21 nxo n 5

a -

wzwr _., - w

$ho< y TRANSURANIC WASTE o ob 3 AND EQUIVALENT Oz- o w to J O .

a o  !.

D z

e-- P E R M A N E N T

$1 I S O L ATIO N BOUNDARY l

1 4

LONG-TERM RISK FROM DISPOSAL l

f(Ci/m 3 0F LONG-LIVED R RADIONUCLIDES)

Fig. 1

j.

i O R N L- D W G 8 6 C - 116 3 5 R o

4 7

QUANTIFICATION OF WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM O

< HIGH-LEVEL WASTE w

$- 50 W/m 3 OR ,

o 100 re m/h J w

< w z m "

e <

• a 3

x a m

w l

1 0 T  !

N 5 l sz S 1

I w TR ANSUR ANIC WASTE l

0 g .-

AND EQUIVALENT '

w 3

.O n.

CLASS-C -*

LI M IT

=

CONCENTR ATIONS OF LONG-LIVED R A DIO N U C LID ES Fig. 2 l

, of n pt.z -):-./ CL l QUANTIFICATION OF WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM INCLUDING GCD  !

. \

l y HIGH-LEVEL WASTE w

$ 50 W/m 3 OR o 10 0 r e m/h

$ U u) "

z ,

e <

ha w w 5 h a

S z TRANSURANIC WASTE AND EQUIVALENT e

w GOD-PER M AN ENT-ct I S O L ATI O N

- CLASS-C + +- BOUNDARY LI M IT ,

CONCENTR ATIONS OF LONG-LIVED R ADl0 N UC LID E S Fig. 3

13 limit for several TRU radionuclides is not appropriate for a generally applicable definition, due to considerable differences in some cases in the dose to an intruder per unit concentration in the disposal facility, but was used by the NRC to represent expected mixtures of TRU radionuclides in commercial wastes.6 In converting the Class C limit for 226 Ra from nci/g to Ci/m3, we assumed a vaste density of 1.6 g/cm 3 , in agreement with the NRC's assumption for TRU radionuclides.

Second, the NRC's revised impacts analysis methodology '

contains models and parameter values that differ in many respects from those used in developing the Class C limits for the Final Rule. In addition, the Class-C limits we obtained om the revised methodology were based on a limit on annual effective dose equivalent 12 to an inadvertent intruder of 0.5 rem (5 mSv), whereas the Class-C limits in the Final Rule were based on similar limits on annual dose equivalent to whole body or the critical

,6 organ. We believe that our choice of retaining the Class-C limits that were developed for the Final Rule, even though they are based on models and data bases that since have been updated by the NRC, but calculating the Class-C limits for the other radionuclides using the revised methodology provides the most reasonable balance between the goals of (1) preserving the limits that are well established in 10 CFR Part 61 and (2) defining the Permanent Isolation boundary using current calculational methods. However, because of the inconsistencies in the results obtained from the NRC's original and re ised methodolo5 ies, which cannot be

~

completely reconciled, the Class C limits that we calculated from the revised methodology are regarded as provisional.

Vastes usually contain mixtures of radionuclides. A determination of whether such vastes require permanent isolation is based on the sum of-l ,

1

14 fractions nale; i.e., wastes require permanent isolation if the ratios of radionuclides concentrations to the corresponding boundary concentrations in Table II, summed over all radionuclides, exceed unity.

Because of the way in which the Permanent Isolation boundary is defined, a separate and explicit quantitative definition of a "long lived" radionuclides is not needed. Instead, it is sufficient to recognize that a radionuclides is "long-lived" only if it can exist in concentrations greater than its Class-C limit; otherwise, the radionuclides will always be classified as LLW. The Class C limit for any radionuclides is based, in part, on an assumption that exposures of inadvertent intruders do not

,6 occur until 500 years after disposal. Therefore, the minimum half-life that would be "long-lived" generally is about 15-20 years, because

, radionuclides with shorter half lives will always decay within 500 years to levels sufficient to meet a dose limit for intruders. The minimum half-life that would be "long lived" is also radionuclides-specific, because the value depends on the transport of radionuclides through environmental pathways and on the dose per unit exposure.6,10 3.2 Quantification of Highly Radioactive Boundary As described in Section 2.1, we associate the attribute " highly radioactive" with shorter term risks from waste management and disposal due to high levels of decay heat (power density) or external radiation.

We quantify the Highly Radioactive boundary on the basis of the concept ,

that, at some level of power density or external radiation, engineered systems or other design considerations are required for heat removal or radiation shielding in order to prevent undesirable occurrences that could l

l 1

- 3 1 1 a

15 l result in unacceptable consequences, i.e., to limit risks to acceptable levels.

3.2.1 Level of Power Density Thac Defines Highly Radioactive Boundary In order' to quantify a level of power density that defines the Highly -

Radioactive boundary, we examined a variety of waste management and disposal systems and estimated the power densities that would limit system design or operation if effective control measures for heat removal were not taken to prevent undesirable occurrences. The results of these analyses are summarized below.

- A limit on power density of about 50 W/m3 would be required to limit the temperature rise to less than 55 *C (100 'F) in a stack of waste containers with a diameter of 5 m, which is a representative stack dimension for waste storage and disposal. The assumed limit on temperature rise should be sufficient to prevent degradation of waste materials or boiling of water that contacts waste containers.

- During storage of liquid wastes in large underground tanks, power i densities above about 10 50 W/m3 require active cooling systems to

'1' prevent self-boiling of the waste.

- The power density in a transport container for contact handled (CH)

+

defense TRU waste' is limited to 40 W/m3 .1 At this power density, w

decay heat is not a principal consideration in design of the transport containers.

- Power densities above about 100 W/m3 require special design

\

i 16 i

considerations for heat dissipation for waste disposal in deep geologic repositories in a variety of environments.16

- At the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility for disposal of defense TRU waste," the limit on power density for CH waste is 15 W/m 3 .' At this power density, close stacking of waste containers is permitted and would not cause unacceptable thermal impacts in the host rock.' For remote handled (RH) waste, which generally has a higher power density than CH waste. the limit on power density for the standard waste package is 300 W/m3 .9 However, this power density is sufficiently high that a a limit on the number of waste containers per unit area is prescribed in order to prevent unacceptable heat loadings.'

The analyses summarized above in'dicate that power densities above about 10-100 W/m3 require special control measures to mitigate potentially unacceptable shorter-term risks in a variety of waste systems. Although the choice of a power density to define the Highly Radioactive boundary thus is somewhat arbitrary, the limiting power densities for the different systems analyzed do not vary by more than an order of magnitude.

From these results, we propose that a power density of 50 W/m3 provides the first part of a quantitative and generally applicable definition of the Highly Radioactive boundary. This choice is based o primarily on the estimated limit on power density that would be reqetred to limit the temperature rise in a stack of vaste containers and the approximate power density that requires special design considerations for heat dissipation in deep geologic repositories, because both of these situations are relevant for limiting shorter-term risks from vaste

17 disposal. A similar' power density is obtained from the analyses on self-boiling of liquid wastes in large storage tanks, but this situation provides a less satisfactory basis for our definition because liquid wastes are not in a form appropriate for disposal.

.3.2.2 Level of External Radiation That Defines Highly Radioactive Boundary 7

While we have shown in Section 3.2.1 that reasonable technical analyses related to limitation of shorter-term risk's from. waste management ^

and disposal can be used to select a level of power density that defines the Highly Radioactive boundary, the choice of a level of external radiation to define this boundary is rather arbitrary. On the one hand.

external radiation generally is less important than power density in limiting shorter-term risks from vaste disposal. For example, the high levels of electron and photon radiation that would occur in borosilicate glass containing commercial reprocessing wastes, e.g., absorbed dose rates of about 1 Mrad /h (10 kGy/h), have little effect on leaching of radionuclides from the waste form and other aspects of waste-package performance; and radiolysis of water often has little effect on leaching of waste forma for photon dose rates in excess of the same value. On the other hand, levels of external radiation that would not require shielding of waste or limits on exposure times to prevent unacceptable O h doses to radiation workers, i.e., annual dose equivalents greater than ,

5 rem (50 mSv),1' are quite low. '

We propose that an external dose-equivalent rate of 100 rem /h (1 Sv/h) at a distance of 1 m from the waste prevides the second part cf a l

l I

Ci_2__________________.._._____.__..__

_ _ l

18 quantitative and generally applicable definition of the Highly Radioactive boundary. The dose rate includes contributions from neutrons as well as photons. This choice is supported by the limit of 100 rem /h at the surface of'a vaste package for RH TRU waste at the WIPP facility;' the WIPP acceptance criterion is relevant because the purpose of the Highly Radioactive boundary is to distinguish TRU waste and equivalent from HLU.

We chose a distance of 1 m instead of the surface of a vaste package for use in the definition, because the former is a more likely location of individuals who could receive accidental exposures.

'3.2.3 Summary of Definition of Highly Radioactive Boundary From the analyses summarized in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, we propose d

the following quantitative and generally applicable definition of wastes that are hi 6hly radioactive:

" Highly radioactive" means -

(1) a power density greater than 50 W/m3 or

. (2) an external dose-equivalent rate greater than 100 rem /h (1 Sv/h) at a distance of 1 m from the waste.

Whether or not a waste is hi 5hly radioactive is determined by the more restrictive of these two criteria.

l I

3.2.4 Radionuclides Concentrations Corres.~onding to Highly Radioactive Boundary A determination of whether waste is highly radioactive at the present time can be based on direct measurements of power density and external l

l I

_ - - - - - - - i

19 1*

dose rate. However, as discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, classification l of wastes for altered waste forms and at future times is important.

l Predictions of power density and external dose rate in such cases require 1

i knowledge of radionuclides concentrations in the waste; i.e., it is necessary to determine concentrations of individual radionuclides that correspond to the Highly Radioactive boundary.

l Although high levels of power density and external dose rate are determined primarily by the presence of shorter-lived radionuclides, the depiction of the waste classification system in Fig. I shows that concentrations of radionuclides that correspond to the Highly Radioactive boundary need to be determined only for those radionuclides that also are sufficiently long lived that they could require permanent isolation. As

. discussed in Section 3.1.2, radionuclides with half-lives shorter than about 15 20 years can be excluded from consideration, because they would be classified as LLW in any concentration. Conversely, radionuclides with half lives greater than a few tens of thousands of years need not be considered, because such radic,nuclides have low specific activities and, thus, cannot occur in sufficient concentrations to be highly radioactive according to our definition.

The calculation of radionuclides concentrations corresponding to a given power density is straightforward. The power density (W/m 3 ) per unit concentration of a radionuclides (Ci/m 3 ) is proportional to the total energy (MeV) per disintegration (dis) of all ionizing radiations emitted in the decay. The radionuclides concentration Cg corresponding to the proposed Highly Radioactive boundary of 50 W/m3 is given in terms of the total er.ergy per disintegration ET by 3

Cg (Ci/m3 ) - (8.45 x 10 )/E (MeV/

T dis) , (1) 5 J

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. .- _ _ . - - _a

--,-.---------,--,-----------------'---~'----~--'--------'WN 20 where the constant has units of MeP-Ci/ dis-m3 .

The calculation of radionuclides concentrations corresponding to a .

given externt1 dose-equivalent rate at a particular distance from the waste is considerably more complex than the calculation for power density described above. The dose rate per unit concentration of a radionuclides

~

depends not only on the particular decay spectrum of photons but also on (1) the size, geometrical configuration, and orier.tation of the waste package and (2) the shielding provided by materials in the waste package and any materials between the waste package and the receptor. Thus, a model is needed to relate external dose rate to concentrations of particular radionuclides in the waste.

In this analysis, we assume that the vaste package is a 55 gallon

, drum in which radionuclides are mixed uniformly with dirt, polyethylene, concrete, or air in order to simulate a variety of filler materials. This type of waste package often is used for near-surface land disposa16 and is acceptable for disposal of CH TRU waste at the WIPP facility.' The waste package is assumed to contain a uniform ; concentration of 137Cs, because this is the only radionuclides of concern that reasonably can exist in concentrations sufficient to exceed the Highly Radioactive boundary for which an external dose-equivalent rate of 100 rem /h (1 Sv/h) at a distance of 1 m from the waste is more restrictive than a power density of 50 W/m3 .

For all other radionuclides, either the half life is too short to be of concern for defining the Highly Radioactive boundary, the power density is more restrictive than external dose rate, expected concentrations in wastes are far below levels that correspond to the Highly Radioactive boundary, or the halfelife is sufficiently long that the radionuclides cannot reasonably occur in concentrations that would give an external

i l

21 dose-equivalent rate of 100 rem /h.

The estimated external dose-equivalent rate t.o a reference adult at a distance of 1 m in air from the assumed waste package is in the range 0.008 0.034 rem /h per Ci/m3 of 137 Cs, depending on the assumed filler material and orientation of the drum relative to the receptor location.

On the basis of these results, we conclude that a 137Cs. concentration of about 5 x 10 3C1/m3 corresponds to an external dose equivalent rate of 100 rem /h (1 Sv/h) at a distance of 1 m from the waste.

The concentrations of selected radionuclides that correspond to the Highly Radioactive boundary, as obtained from the calculations described above, are given in Table III. In calculating the boundary concentration for all radionuclides except 137 Cs from eq. (1) on the basis of a power density of 50 W/m3 , the total decay energy of the radionuclides and any short-lived daughter products was obtained from ref. 20.

We note that use of the sum-of-fractions rule to determine whether wastes containing mixtures of radionuclides are highly radioactive is not strictly correct for wastes containing 137 Cs and other radionuclides,

{

because the boundary concentration is based on external dose rate for 137 Cs but power density otherwise. However, use of the sum of-fractions rule does not lead to serious errors in this case, because the concentration of 137 Cs that corresponds to a power density of 50 W/m3 is only about twice the value in Table III.

We also note that the concentrations of the important fission products 90 Sr and 137 Cs corresponding to the Highly Radioactive boundary are the same as their respective Clasa-C limits for wastes that are generally acceptable for near-surface land crisposal. These results are largely fortuitous, because the Class C limits are not based on

[

l i

22 consideration of shorter term risks due to high levels of power density or ,

genternal radiation.0 This is particularly the case for 137Cs, because of the rather arbitrary choice of an external dose equivalent rate to define the Highly Radioactive boundary. However, we suggest in Section 6.5 that use of the Class-C limits to define both the Highly Radioactive and the Permanent Isolation boundaries for 90Sr and 137 Cs has desirable consequences for the proposed waste classification system.

3.3 Depiction of Quantitative Waste Classification System The quantitative and generally applicable waste classification system that results from the definitions of the Permanent Isolation and Highly Radioactive boundaries given in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 is depicted in Fig. 2. The quantification of these boundaries in terms of che concentrations of individual radionuclides given in Tables II and III permits an unambiguous classification of any radioactive waste.

4 CONSIDERATIONS ON IMP 1.EMENTATION OF WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ,'

This section discusses various considerations on the intended implementation of the proposed waste classification system including (1) the waste forms to which the definitions would apply, (2) the time after generation at which waste would be classified, (3) the volume of waste to which the definitions would apply, (4) the classification of spent nuclear fuel, and (5) the classification of surface. contaminated l wastes. In each case, the principal consideration is that disposal is the primary goal of waste management.

l

I 23 4.1 Role of Waste Form in Waste Classification System We intend that the vaste classification system should be applied to expected radionuclides concentrations in waste forms that are suitable for final disposal. Thus, the classification system would be applied only to specified types of solid wastes. ' '

During processing and storage, many wastes occur as liquids or sludges. WSile such wastes could be classified according to the proposed system, it is important to recognize"that conversion of liquids or sludges to solid forms suitable for disposal could significantly change the radionuclides concentrations and, thus, the waste classification. In addition, concentrations of radionuclides in solid wastes could change significantly during processing for disposal (e.g., via waste compaction).

Therefore, we recommend that any wastes not in a form intended for disposal should be classified on the basis of the radionuclides concentrations in the expected final waste form.

4.2 Role of Time in Waste Classification System i

We intend that the waste classification system should be applied to '

expected radionuclides concentrations at the time of final disposal. Sound waste managemant practices often will involve decontamination.

concentration', solidification, partitioning, or other waste treatments that could change the classification, and defining wastes for the time of final disposal would encourage flexibility in developing such practices.

We do not intend that disposal can be postponed indefinitely in order to change a waste classification by radioactive decay, because expeditious  ;

disposal should be an important goal of waste management. We suggest that

i' 4 lL L

24 a limit of 100 years after waste generation be placed on the assumed time for disposal.. in accordance with the time period currently assumed by j regulatory authorities for active institutional controls over disposal facilities.

A time period of 100 years between generation and disposal would allow significant decay of the important fission products 90 Sr and 137 Cs and corresponding reductions in the level of decay heat that is important for the design of some disposal systems.8,9,16

'4.3 Role of Waste Volume in Waste Classification System We intend that wastes should be classified on the basis of concentrations of radionuclides averaged over the volume of the waste package that will be used for final disposal. It then would be improper in most cases to change a waste classification by placing a relatively small volume of waste in a packi

• that is much la ger than needed for disposal. However, some wastes may be of such small volume but also so highly radioactive that waste packages much larger than the source itself are needed to protect workers during disposal operations. In such cases, we propose that the radionucli6e concentrations can be averaged over a volume not to .ceed 1 m3, which is the volume of a standard package for RH TRU waste at the WIPP facility.'

4.4 Classification of Spent Nuclear Fuel The definition of HLW in the NWPA, given in Section 1, does not include spent nuclear fuel. Since current regulations for disposa' of HLW 3

also apply to speni: fue1 ,8 and, for the foreseeable future, spent fuel from commercial power reactors will not undergo reprocessing prior to

25 disposal, we intend that the waste classification system may be applied to spent fuel. But we also recommend that spent fuel not be classified until the fuel is declared to be waste. Classifying spent fuel only under this condition would permit re-use of fuel in reactors, e.g. , if prior burnups were relatively low, and would encourage development of future policies regarding reprocessing of commercial spent fuel.

4.5 Classification of Surface-Contaminated Wastes The waste classification system assumes implicitly that radionuclides .

are distributed throughout a volume of material. However, many wastes for which activity is reported on a per unit volume (or mass) bas.e are surface-contaminated. For example, in compactible or noncompactible trash and filter cartridges, radionuclides o'ften are deposited on surfaces of glass, metal, glove boxes, etc.6 Similarly, an investigation we performed indicates that about 80% by volume of the defense TRU waste currently in storage probably is surface-contaminated.

A method for applying the waste classification system to surface-contaminated wastes may be needed, but only for large waste forms (e.g.,

glove boxes and large metal forms) that are noncompactible. Othe rwise ,

surface-contaminated wastes will be effectively distributed throughout a

, volume of material at disposal and can be regarded as volume-contaminated waste without further consideration.

We propose that classification of surface-contaminated wastes needing ,

separate treatment be based on the surface area to volume ratio for the waste form; i.e., a given activity of a radionuclides per unit area on the surface would be multiplied by the sutcace area to-volume ratio for the I

l I i

26 1

}.

l particular waste form te give the appropriate activity per unit volume for use in classifying the waste. This approach would be consistent with that i used by the NRC in determining the activity per unit volume for wastes intended for near-surface land disposal.0

5. WASTE CLASSIFICATION AND TECHNO!hGIES FOR DISPOSAL This section discusses (1) the intended relationship between the waste classification system, selection of technologies for waste disposal, and development of waste acceptance criteria for specific disposal facilities and (2) the potential acceptability of greater confinement disposal (GCD) as an alternative to deep geologic repositories for relatively dilute wastes classified as HLV'or TRU waste and equivalent.

5.1 Relationship Between Waste Classes Disposal Technologies, and Waste Acceptance Criteria Prior definitions of HLV, TRU waste, and LLW usually have not associated each type of waste with requirements for use of specific disposal technologies, except the NWPA implies that commercial spent fuel and reprocessing wastes require disposal in deep geologic repositories.

We retain the view that it is neither necessary nor desirable to associate the three waste classes defined in this paper with particular disposal technologies, in order t.s encourage flexibility in developing waste w

disposal systems that protect public health in a cost effective manner.

In particular, although near-surface land disposal and deep geologic repositories are the only disposal technologies currently recognized in law for which regulatory standards and technical criteria have been

27 developed, '

all HLW or TRU waste and equivalent would not necessarily require deep geologic repositories. Rather, as discussed in Section 5.2 below, some of n.hese wastes could be acceptable for CCD. In addition, relatively dilute wastes in any class could be disposed of using technologies developed for more concentrated wastes, even though the ,

waste isolation capabilities would be considerably greater than required for protection of public health.

We also emphasize that the vaste classification system does not provide a substitute for site-specific analyses of the performance of disposal systems to ensure that applicable health protection standards and technical criteria are met; i.e., the waste classification system does not define waste acceptance criteria for specific disposal technologies or facilities. Rather, the waste classification system only indicates disposal technologies that likely would be acceptable for the different classes of waste.

5.2 Role of Greater Confinemer.t Disposal Alternatives to near-surface land disposal and deep geologic repositories or equivalent would involve technologies for CD which are expected to provide intermediate waste-isolation capabilities.21 23 The intended role of CCD in the proposed waste classification system is stated I as follows:

- Relatively dilute wastes classified as HLW or TRU waste and equivalent may be acceptable for greater confinement disposal on a  !

site , waste , and technology specific basis, provided applicable i standards for protection of public health will be met.

- - - - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ .__ \

DOCKET NUMBER '

Umo.x enoeosw8va PR a Etscrkic Gssm miw.cw..

gm .

1901 Gratrot Street St Louis p

crs ! . '

00CKlin i July 14, 1988 BPAN.'

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE FOR DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES AMENDING 10 CFR PART 61 AS NOTICED IN FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 53, NO. 96 PAGES 17709-17711 The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the proposed rule as indicated above. Union Electric Company supports the proposed rule as written and agrees with the Commission that there is no need to develop a technical definition of high-level waste (HLW).

Additionally, we also support the wording which allows an alternative proposal for disposal of greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) waste with approval by the Commission.

The concern does exist as to whether or not the volume of GTCC waste (including possible defense-related waste) will significantly impact current planning and schedules for development of a deep geolcgic repository. This concern should be evaluated and addressed by the Commission prior to final rulemaking.

Potential delays associated with the need for additional

. legislation to authorize disposal or provide for payment of disposal costs for GTCC waste, as indicated in the notice, should be thoroughly evaluated for impact on the current schedule for establishing a deep geologic repository.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

Sincerely,

. / / C , c

n / W Michael C. Williams Principal Health Physicist MCW/plh Mathng Address PO Box 149 St Louis, MO 63166

7--___.---___

cc: R.'J..Irwin A; C. Passwater J. R. Polchow N. G. Slaten E210.01 e

l l

1

- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - _. = - _ _

~

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RUI,E b_. 6 /

G3PK/ Q

p. C ' The American Society of o' - Mechanical Engineers Suite 218 g jl.18 E 3 j 6 ' 1825 K Street N W Washington DC 20006 1202 202 785 3756 OCd ",j s _

July 15, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Board Unshington, D.C. 20555 Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on "Creater than Class C" wastes, 53 FR 17709, May 18, 1988.

Comments prepared jointly by the High level Radioactive Waste Committee and the Risk Analysis Task Force of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ,

i were previously provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the definition of high-level radioactive waste (51 FR 5992). Essentially, our comments urged the NRC to develop a  ;

risk-based definition of high level waste.

The proposed rule on the greater than Class-C waste disregards the significance of risk in distinguishing between greater than Class-C waste and high-level radioactive waste. The comment period for the proposed rule making vas too short for us to prepare a response based on the technical issues involved in the development of a risk-based definition of these two classes of waste. However, we wish to reiterate our previous view that the ultimate goal of regulations dealing with these classes of waste is O protect!.on of human health and the environment; and risk assessment is the correct technical process to assure that this goal is met.  ;

We plan to establish a panel of expe-ts to provide the NRC and the nation with advice on the details of technical aspects of the definition of high- '

level and greater than Class C wastes. This panel will be established quickly and will review the entire issue.

The panel intends to hear f rom representatives of various government agencies, particularly the NRC, industry, professional societies and academia. The panel plans to coordinate its activities to assure the availability of a statement on the subject in a timely manner to the NRC and the general public.

V.

~!

b If you have any questions, please contact Philip W. Hamilton, Director, Federal Government Relations in the Society's Washington, D.C. office. The telephone number is (202) 785 3756.

L Sincerely,

I%!lhum

~

A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D.

Chairman, Risk Analysis Task Force I

e

. STATE OF MICHIGAN

- DOCKEME.SR -

.. . L /

~

'h

'[ PROPuo.,.mE(53FR/W}

[ N.

' "P.*

'kl.If JAMES J BLANCHARo. GCvernor e

DEPARTMENT OF' MANAGEMENT ~ AND BUDGET '88 J1.18 P3117 P O Box 30026 LANSING MtCHIGAN 489Q9 SHELBv P SOLOMON . Director July L13,1988 fodi-',<.<.l-m .-

a Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The Michigan Department of Public Health and the Michigan Low Level Radioactive Waste Authority have reviewed the proposed amendments requiring disposal of greater-than-Class C radioactive waste in a deep geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). We suggest the following additions (in boid print) and deletions (in strikeout print) to the proposed language of 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv):

• . . . In the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in Part 60 of this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a Federally owned disposal site licensed pursuant to this part M":" :: t: Cr .!r!:- f:: gn ! are approved by the Commission."-

The first addition in bold print clarifies the responsibilities of the states and federal government in the disposal of greater-than Class C radioactive waste. Although it is clear that disposal of -

greater than Class-C radioactive waste is a responsibility of the Federal Government, as'is pointed out by the following excerpts from the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Public Law 99 240, readers of the proposed rule are left with the impression that

' the NRC may, after further evaluallon, allow a state 10 CFR 61 low. level. radioactive waste disposal facility to accept the waste.

Section 3 of Public Law 99-240 gives the states the responsibility for the disposal of:

a.

• . . . Iow level radioactive waste generated within the State (other than by the Federal Government) that consists of or contains class A B, or C radioactive waste as defined by section 61.55 of title 10 Code of Feocral Regulations, /s in effect on January 26,1983; . . ."(a)(1)(A)

Section 3 furtner gives the Federal Govemment the responsibility for the disposal of:

. . . any other low level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the Commission for class C radioactive waste, as defined by section 61.55 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 26,1983. . . ."(b)(1)(D)

Es  ;

1

___ _ - - - -.- l

Samuel J. Chilk Page Tm -

July 13,1988 l

Current public perception, especially by those that oppose the development of state low level radioactive waste disposal facilities, is that the NRC will eventually force the states to dispose of greater than-Class C radioactive waste. The suggested language eliminates any chance for this erroneous perception to remain.

Secondly, we perceive that the proposed language may allow a period of time in which a generator of greater-than OMss C waste may avoid having to properly dispose of the waste simply by proposing a #+its of disposal methodologies. The deletion (in strike-out print) and second addition (in cid print) simply requires that greater than-Class C radioactive waste be disposed of in y pologic repository unless the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a disposal option rather than only receiving a proposal for a disposal option.

Thank-you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

/w v ( {% ,

.)

Lee E. Jager, State Liaiso Officer Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health ,

Michigan Department of Public Health 5

ames F. Cleary mmissioner ichigan Low- el Radioactive Waste Authority

c. G.Larson 9

j.

~ Fgrypg  ;

. s, ,

'BB J1.18 PJ:)9

/ OFFI CL . 5 . .,

80CMEiitn 4 - a rrr j B R A N ., *

- V .

j(W .-

h 7b f sm x.rs pu m xw Lc3 t<)&,,

fm m aw w ues ,

Aw v 46

,4 cnsy w y-a sm g AA>'m 4

azzr r~~ -

- _a J

) .g'.e &p

& f-=A'D .

&W""aa y -

n M & _

W W- . .

. Y ,

W  ;

A66 &

Marl:calo,%.d!790 9f L . , e j / /

e f

e

/

l e

)DCKET NUMBER Madison County PROPOSED RULE/.h/ a

~n- 53ro;rga Environmental Defense Lesgue P. O. Box 291 MARS HILL, N. C. 287'N M 18 P3 39 LOliZELLER 6U h :. . . , , Chairman 00CKElo.i4BPAN',".

-' " ' ' ' Phona 656-2773

. _ . r-

, - ,w--

• e -

e.m es e 4

== , 4

~'

, -, , . , . i

' * ' ' ~~ ~

. -,'.. ,.

- '. .L' ' .

• ~

~^

,7 ; .

. 1: '. .. t .,_-

, - . . , j ,,.. .. - .

• l )  % <* l $

.: .- * ' ,, ; -- , ; , f ~ q -~ --.'  ;

-~7,

~ ,~ p .. - ~ _ - . . .: i

.9 -

_-~~' ,

7-. . . . _ ,

_; ' ' ~

- :C*z -

~

e . e ; 1 e

a se

• 9 t Oe

.g =

Q., ::'u.~;.;_ Jul 2 0185 -

.:=w ,'

DOCKETJN' 'm aan, , m cv {f{$

b PROPOL;] fi (o /  :

DOUR wu i U6HPC STATE OF WASHINCTON 3 E8O/d

' \ tail Stop PV-I pe a n 48 e tp r,p J.;u-sh'n b >C ',

July 14,1988 '" " ~ ' ' '

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atta: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Please find enclosed the state of Washington's comments on the May 18,1988 Federal Register Notice regarding a proposed rule to amend 10CFR 61 to require disposal of

' greater than Class C" low level radioactive wastes in a deep geologic repository unless an alternate disposal technology has been approved by the Commission. These comments were developed by the state's Nuclear Waste Board under its authority to develop state policies relating to the management of radioactive wastes and to represent the citizens of Washington State in these issues. These comments have also received the concurrence of the Yskima Indian Nation through consultation with their staff.

Thank you for your consideration of the state's concerns associated with this proposed rulemaking.

Sincerely,

'Wil if Warren A. Bishop, Chair Washington State )

i

' Nuclear Waste Board WAB:js i Enclosure t.

, 1.

1

[

COMMENTS ON THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S PROPOSED RULEMAKING a

DISPOSAL OF R ADIOACTIVE WASTES Introduction The Washingt'on State Nuclear Waste Board developed the following comments on the

-Federal Register Notice dated May 18, 1988. The Federal Register presented a .

proposed rule to amend 10CFR 61 to require disposal of ' greater than Class C" low-level radioactive wastes in a deep geologic repository unless an alternate disposal.

- technology has been approved by the Commission. Washington State legislation gives

' the' Nuclear Waste Board the responsibility for developing state policies related to the management of radioactive wastes, evaluating federal actions, and serving as a spokesman on behalf of Washington State citizens. The Board has also worked closely in the past with the Yakima Indian Nation and through consultation with Yakima Indian Nation Staff.,have received their concurrence with the positions taken in these comments.

The Board's principal focus in these comments is on the potential impacts that this action may have on the disposal of the federal government's reprocessing wastes presently stored at Hanford, and the commercial low level disposal facility also located on the Hanford Reservation.

The' Board supports the Commission's efforts to address the GTCC disposal problem.

The Board also takes a measure of comfort from the fact that this proposal brings in additional wastes under the Commission's authority. However, white the Board supports the concept of requiring GTCC waste disposal to take place in a deep geologic repository, we continue to have concerns over the criteria to'bc used by the Commission in evaluating alternate disposal facilities that may be proposed by the U.S.

l Department of Energy (USDOE), the Commission's involvement in licensing potentially l

" similar reprocessing waste facilities, the timing of the Commi:sfon's involvement in that evaluation, and the opportunity for public comment on any associated licensing l action.

The future of the Hanford tank wastes is of particular concern. These wastes present a unique situation in that they are a complex mixture of chemical and radioactive '

materials resulting from primary and secondary reprocessing cycles,in some cases combined with wastes from other USDOE facilities. There are currently 149 single shell tanks containing about 50 million gallons of waste in place on the Hanford Reservation. Entities with regulatory authority over these wastes include the state of

t Washington along with several federal agencies. The interaction and potential impacts involved with the overlapping regulatory authorities are not clearly identified or addressed by the various agencies. Special considerations as to the ultimate disposal '

ofGTCC wastes may be necessary due to the potential for high toxicity, high activity concentrations and long half lives.

Therefore, because the requirements for disposal of GTCC wastes and the licensing process for alternate disposal technologies may involve similar considerations as those used for the near surface disposal of reprocessing wastes, those requirements should be established in a way that allows for coordinated and timely disposal decisions and involvement of all relevant parties.

Commission Licensine Authority Over GTCC and Defense Wastes Following is a discussion of the essence of relationships as the Board understands them following extensive discussions with cognizant agencies. If the result seems confusing, it is reflective of a situation requiring clarification - with work needing to be done by both the federal legislative and executive branches. l Currently,10CFR 60.2 defines HLW, for purposes of the licensing of a geologic repository as follows:

"High level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means: (1)-irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted.

In the February 27,1988 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) the ,

' Commission observed that if the Department of Energy were to were to pursue the in-place stabilization alternative described in their Draft EIS (DOE /EIS Oll3), most or all of the disposal facilities would need to be licensed by the Commission. The Commission's existing authority to license these facilities is derived from Section 202, Paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 which addresses first cycle reprocessing wastes.

The Ccmmission sad the USDOE have taken the position that neitho the NWPA nor the Commmh::'s 10 CFR60 regulations expressly require that any radioactive >

materials, whether HLW or not, be stored or disposed of in a geologic repository. Due to this interpretation, the Commission felt that their original attempt to redefine HLW would have no impact on the amount of waste that would require disposal there. This point, itself,is confusing inasmuch as the essence of the NWPA is that Congress contemplated disposal of high-level wastes in a deep geologic repository.

- The Hanford single shell tank wastes are a mixture of chemically hazardous and radioactive materials which have not been characterized on a tank to tank basis. In 2

c. t

~

addition to the lack of specific knowledge on waste constituents, there is also a' lack of information on whether individual tanks contain first cycle solvent extraction wastes, subsequent cycle extraction wastes or a mixture.of each. The extent of uncertainty as to waste make up on the part of USDOE also brings uncertainty as to which waste categories these wastes are regulated under. USDOE representatives have stated in the-past that some of the tank wastes could not be classified as HLW because they were -

dilute and resulted from a subsequent extraction cycle. Commission representatives also stated that wastes produced by USDOE, that are not first cycle reprocessing

- wastes, do not come under their authority.

Currently, DOE /EIS Oll3 proposes to divide double shell tank wastes into a low activity and a high activity fraction, with the low activity wastes ,(less than Class C concentrations), placed in a near surface grout facility. All parties involved felt that a similar decision on the single shell tanks was technically premature at this time chiefly because of uncertainties with regard to tank contents.

USDOE is proceeding in accordance with the recent EIS to dispose the bulk of its reprocessing wastes through direct stabilization (grouting) and land disposal within

- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) vaults. USDOE is also moving ahead to manage those reprocessing wastes with a high activity content by separation,

. vitrification of the radioactive phase, and grouting of the remaining high volume, but low activity residual.

In the original ANPRM, the Commission stated that its regulatory licensing authority would not be affected by the current rulemaking process. Thus, as noted above, the Commission asserts that first cycle reprocessing waste.s at Hanford remain under its licensing authority under any in place stabilization proposal.

On that point, previous Commissioner Asselstine raised concerns that licensing authority might be affected by the reclassification of wastes as "Above Class C low-level wastes." Specifically, he requested input on the impact on Commission authority over long term storage or in situ disposal of Hanford tank wastes.

In this regard, the Board is interested in Commission activities to establish standards for GTCC facilities other than deep geologic repositories and how these activities may

- relate to USDOE activities with defense wastc disposal. Currently no standards exist in 10 CFR61 or 10 CFR60 to use in a future licensing process. The Board advocates that any attempt to establish such standards be subject to public review comparabic to that required for rulemaking.

The Board continues to be interested in the Commission's role and schedule for the first cycle reprocessing waste licensing process and the associated impacts of other federallegislation such as RCRA and CERCLA. The Board believes that these wastes should be subject to state and federal hazardous waste management programs as well as to the authorities given to USDOE and the Commission.

3 h_mm___._.m ___m._____m._ __..m_. ..m_.,

The ru!cmaking should discuss the Commission's authority to regulate and license alternative disposal, given that the NWPA does not authorize USDOE to construct or operate facilities for the disposal of HLW by means other than deep geologic. The Board would also be interested in receiving a copy of the Commission's response to former Commissioner Asselstine's questions.

In addition, the rulemaking should review the Commission authority over the long-term storage of these wastes. At what point in the defense waste storage at sites around the nation does the Commission's licensing authority begin? Could these wastes be " stored" for hundreds of years without entering into the licensing process for disposal?

The Board alsv requests an estimate of the volume of USDOE's defense materials production and any other GTCC wastes. This proposal mentioned only the quantity of commercially produced GTCC waste.

Imnacts on Commercial Low-Lesel Waste Facilities The proposal repeatedly states that due to the projected low volumes of commercial GTCC wastes,it may be economically unattractive to construct separate intermediate f acilitiet. Therefore applications for license variances to dispose GTCC wastes at commercial LLW facilities may be anticipated from those entities currently possessing GTCC wastes. In fact, the state has received informal inquiries.in the past concerning the possibility of disposing GTCC wastes at the commercial low level facility. It would be helpful if the Commission would discuss how it will deal with these requests and what the role of the low level waste compacts or states will be. For example, who may submit variance requests? what technical criteria will be used in the evaluation of vrriance requests? what existing sites would be looked upon as the recipient of GTCC wastes? and what would be the role for the agreement state with a commercial

~

LLW facility?

Imnacts on Utilities and Ratenavers The proposed rule does not address the potential cumulative impacts on utilities who have contracted with USDOE for the disposal of their HLW in a deep geologic repository. Adding GTCC waste to the current volume of HLW needing disposal could lead to an increase in Nuclear Waste Fund payments for repository development and operation. Augmenting the Nuclear Waste Fund for the disposal of GTCC wastes could affect electric consumers, since the Nuclear Waste Fund i.s W.imately paid by utility ratepayers.

J If the volumes of GTCC wastes, both defense and commercial, are large enough to l j

present a significant repository funding problem, the question of how costs will be shared between defense and civilian nuclear waste programs still needs to be answered.

The rulemaking should address the potential for this occurrence. ,

l 4

? I l

l l

Sunnested Lannuare Channe On Page 10, the last paragraph was somewhat cumbersome and unclear as to the licensing process being described We understand this paragraph to say that proposals for alternate disposal facilities other than a deep geologic repository for GTCC wastes must be submitted to, and approved by, the Commission prior to beginning facility construction. The Board notes that in 10CFR 61,58 there is authority which appears to us to override the provisions of 10CFR 61.55 (a)(2)(iv). Does the absence of this j language in the proposed revision weaken the Commission's licensing authority?- Are i there any revisions required to the language of 10CFR 61.58?

I J

DOCKET NU"m =

'b ARCONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY PROPOSED m r, 6f_

~ 9K)0 Scx4 CAss Avtu. AReguiros 60439 _ #

$?

LD 3 F R /7 y op

'88 JL 18 P3 :

July 15, 1988 Q. ,, , , . ,

BR W.-

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing & Service Branch

Subject:

Comments to Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 61 Please consider the following comments on the notice of May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17709), proposing the amendment of 10 CFR 61. The main items of that proposal are that: (1) Greater-than-Class-C, low-level, radioactive wastes (GTCC) must be disposed of in a deep geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere has been approved by the Commission, and (2) the current definition for high-level waste (HLW) which.is based on the source of the waste rather than the physical characteristics of the waste be retained.

A source-based definition of HLW effectively prohibits emplacement of non-TRU wastes derived from HLW in a disposal facility other than a geological repository. Recent advances in separations science and engineering enables the fractionation of large volumes of HLW into small volumes of long-lived wastes that would require geologic disposal and large volumes of short-lived

(<40 year half-life) wastes that have only moderate radiological helard (GTCC wastes). A large savings in cost can be realized through the application of such technology, but such applications are prevented by a narrowly-interpreted source-based definition of HLW.

Thepreambletotheproposedagendment(53FR17710)suggeststhat because of the small volume (2000 m ) of commercial GTCC wastes, an intermediate disposal fagility may be economically unattractive. However, it should be recognized that extrapolation of present volume-production rates would seriously underestimate future volume accumulations should fractionation be put into practice. Application of fractionation of reprocessing wastes would result in the generation of large volumes of GTCC wastes. At present, u- ,

it is unknown whether connercial GTCC wastes and 00E wastes would be emplaced '

in the same " intermediate" disposal facility. If they were combined, and if fractionation was utilized, the economics of an " intermediate" disposal l

faiclity would inevitably be favorable, for example, it is estimated that fractiongtion of the glW3 stored at Hanford alore could result in volumes ofThis waste 3.9 x 10 to 1.3 x 10 m of solid, non-TR!! waste.

l high content of Cs-137 and/or Sr-90 would exceed the Class C limits, l Opound ty h tkvtRsITy d OecAcp foR h LNud Sims Dqwns d Enqy

2 I suggest that we should be careful to avoid ruling out the application of recent and future developments of safer and more economic methods of cisposal and to preserve the opportunity for utilizing alternatives for lessening the economic burden of HLW disposal. In the interest of these goals 1 encourage the Comission to reconsider defining HLW on the basis of its physical characteristics. Barring that, I suggest that any statement that the current definition of HLW will be retained should be accompanied by the statement that the classification and disposal of non-TRU wastes derived from HLW will be determined by the Comission on a case-by-case basis, according to the results of performance assessment.

Sincerely.

, e Stanley S. Borys, Manager Office of Waste Management Programs SSB/ksi i

j I

l 1

'^ 2ET NUMBER -

MCSED RULE $6 /

pn-WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ' hggy P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington H av

• Richland. Washington 9 2 p y July 14, 1988 'j 0[('g ,, , ,, ,

BPas-Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Car:lission Washington, D. C. 20$55 Attention: Docketing & Service Branch

Subject:

PROPOSED RULE ON DISPOSAL OF

" GREATER THAN CLASS C" WASTES

References:

(1) Federal Register, V. 53, N.96, pp. 17709-17711 (2) Federal Register, V. 52, N.39, pp. 5992-6001 The ' subject proposed rule would require radioactive wastes which are classified as " greater than Class C" (GTCC) to be disposed of in a geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere is approved by the Commission. Although the Supply System is generally supportive of the proposal, we offer the following brief coments for your consideration.

The advanced notice on the definition of high-level radioactive wastes (Reference 2) acknowledged that it may be possible to dispose of several categories of GTCC waste materials in low-level ~or intermediate disposal facilities (52 FR 5990'. Activated metal from reactor decommissioning is an example. The pre.osed revision to Section 61.55 is intended to allow an alternative to disposal in a geologic repository. We believe, however, that the proposal is unnecessarily restrictive by inferring that only al ternatives licensed pursuant to Part 61 would be considered.

Since the intent of the Comission is to perform a case-by-case review of alternative disposal schemes for GTCC wastes, we recomend the following wording for the second sentence in Section 61.55(a)(2)(iv): " . . . of this chapter unless proposals for alternative methods of disposal are submitted to the Comission for approval."

A broader issue is how the requirement that GTCC wastes (commercial and

. defense) be sent to a geologic repository will affect the design and

, capacity of the repository planned under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The projection of need for a second repository will depend on good.

estimates of the GTCC volumes. Insti tutional issues. will include the '

allocation of costs for the different classes and sources of wastes.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rL e.

Very trul ours, 0 s' &

G. C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs

DOCKET i':J:.13ER 9 PROPOSE 0 ROLE

' b/

+

l Department of Energy fe3PK/ 770)9,

. Washington, DC 20585 ,;,, "yl. . .

74 6 JUL ; . ..

118 JL 18 P3 52 Secretary fohlh . ; , . 7,n j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission BP a hu j Washington, DC 20555 i

Dear Sir:

The Department of Energy (DOE)'is preparing comments on the Commission's proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 61, published at 53 FR 17709 on May 18, 1988. This proposed rule change has the ,

potential for major impacts of importance to three offices within the Department and the relatively short comment period of only 60 ]

l days has required preparation and coordination of comments to take place on an extremely compressed time schedule.

Comments are, however, now in draft form ready to enter the final concurrence process. The comments will be closely coordinated among the concerned offices within the Department and we expect to have comments to the Commission no later than July 25th. i If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Regnier of the Licensing Branch on 586-4590.

Sine rely, q Charles E. Kay Acting Director office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management i

e rc - .y -

s . ~. :. , )

/ ,' , e' 9/ I a

l

<a e  !

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE N bI

~

@~

LORING E MILLS Vice Pres.oe-t 1

)

t Udlh[IC[

\

J "

EDISON ELECTRIC I N STIT U T E ** " **' " ' **"" * *** se att i, ei :37 m1 +9+ 59eet N W -

Aasegt:n D C 20C36 3691 ..

Te! (202) 7784430 hrs o c ,gg: .;;; , ;. , , ,

p rW July 18, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemmission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Disposal of Radioactive Wastes (53 Fed. Rec. 17709)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On May 18, 1988, the NRC published in the Federal Reaister a notice.of proposed rulemaking (53 fad. Eng. 17709) to amend 10 CFR Part 61 to require disposal of greater than Class C (GTCC) waste in a geologic repository, absent either specific requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 regarding such disposal, or a proposal for disposal of such waste at a site licensed unb r Part 61. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) are pleased to comment on this notice of proposed rule-making. EEI is the association of the nation's investor-owned electric utilities. UNWMG is a group of 45 electric utilities providing active oversight of the implementation of the federal statutes and regulations related to radioactive waste management.

Last year, by letter dated June 29, 1987, EEI/UNWMG commented in favor of adopting the definition of high-level wastes (HLW) presented in the Commission's February 27, 1987 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (52 fad. Eng. 5992). The effect of adopting that definition would have been to expand the meaning of the term HLW to encompass certain material currently classified as GTCC wastes.

The approach reflected in the current notice, however, is quite different. Instead of changing the definition of high-level waste, the proposed rule would -- in essence -- simply require disposal of GTCC waste in a geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere is otherwise approved by the Commission. EEI/UNWMG do not object to the basic approach to GTCC waste disposal reflected in the proposed rule. While the approach is different than that of l the ANPR, it is generally a more straight-forward means of addressing GTCC disposal. We have two specific comments on the proposal, however.

I

l

'if DW. Samuel J. Chilk- +

July 18, 1988 Page Two-First, proposed 10 CFR 61.55(a) (2) (iv) provides:

Waste that is: not generally acceptable for.

near-surface disposal is waste for which waste form and disposal methods must be.different, and in general more stringent, than those speci-

-fied for Class C waste.. In the absence'of spwei-fic requirements in this part, waste must be disposed of in a' geologic repository as defined

'in Part 60 of'this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed oursuant to this cart are submitted to the Commission for approval. (53 Ead. Eag. 17711'(emphasis added).)

l There is no reason, however, to impose Part 61 requirements 1212 l facto on alternative methods of disposal (i.e. other than in a repository). Further,;as noted in the supplementary Information, I the' proposed ruleHis intended to leave "open the prospect that an

intermediate disposal facility may prove attractive at some time in the-future." (53 Zad. Rag. 17710.) Depending on the nature'of an intermediate disposal facility, however, the appropriate site suitability, waste characteristics, and other' requirements might

' differ considerably from those contained in~10 CFR Part 61.

Accordingly, the words " licensed pursuant to this part" should be eliminated from proposed. section 61.55 (a) (2) (iv) . This modifica-tion would better reflect the flexibility the Commission appro-priately. intends be available for future decisions on disposal _of GTcc waste. .At the same time, the clear notice in the section concerning the need for " Commission . . . approval" of alternative disposal methods would be preserved.

Second, had the approach originally supported,by EEI/UNWMG in the 1987 ANPR been adopted in the proposed rule, not all GTCC would

.be presumed to require permanent isolation.in a geologic reposi-tory. In particular, certain defense materials that are GTCC wastes would have gone to a geologic repository purely at DOE's

< option. Under the proposed amendment to Part 61, such wastes must be disposed of in a geologic repository unless: (1) DOE makes an affirmative decision to, and presents a proposal for, disposing of them elsewhere; and (2) the commission approves DOE's proposal under Part 61.

This change in approach has subtle ramifications insofar as achieving the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are con-carned. By essentially reauirina the disposal of many kinds of wastes in a geologic repository, the proposed amendment has the potential for increasing the complexity and cost of the geologic repository program. This is especially true given the limited data available on these wastes.

l Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 18, 1988 Page Three j

. There is currently little reliable information concerning the

! amount of GTCC wastes that would be major candidates for repository disposal under the proposed rule. This is true for all waste, especially defense-related material. Nonetheless, it is clear that the dispose.1 of such wastes in a geologic repository could signifi-cantly complicate the analysis of repository performance, and substantially increase the need for disposal capacity; possibly even to the point of necessitating a second repository. Although EEI/UNWMG are of 'the view that the fundamental issue of whether or not defense waste should be disposed of in a commercial repository is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, we believe it is important that -- in evalue ting the proposed rule -- the NRC consider the ramifications of its adoption in terms of potential impacts on the current repository program.

We appreciate this opportunity to respond to the commission's-notice of proposed rulemaking, and hope that our comments are helpful. We woulc ce pleased to respond to any questions or otherwise be of assistance to the Commission as it addresses this matter.

Sincerely yours, 2.,

ring . Mills Vice-Pre ident LEM:bfm

_.---_m___________ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _

00cra uuuBEa PROPOSED RULE $ lo /

W Tel$0hong 16179 072 8100 53 Ff f TWx 710-380 7619 b1 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTMC COMPAN #Q8-1)10 FYC M

1671 Worcester Road, Framingham. Massachusetts 576SL 10 Vb 59 0Frq , .

00CG' % ; i e!

July 14, 1988 N OCH Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Disposal of Radioactive Wastes (53FR17709)

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking regarding disposal of radioactive wastes. YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee and Seabrook.

The EEI Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) is filing a detailed response to the subject NRC proposed rule. YAEC is an active member of UNWMG and, in general, endorses its comments.

On February 27, 1987, the Commission published for comment an advance notice of proposed rulemaking ragarding the definition of high level radioactive  !

waste (HLW). YAEC submitted comments in response to that notice (June 19, 1987). In light of the Commission's most recent decision to take a different approach to classifying radioactive wastes than initially proposed, we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate and add to several of our earlier comments.

We supported the Commission's inital proposal to classify HLW ts that which is highly radioactive and requires permanent isolation. In theory, such an approach had sound, technical merit. However, such an approach would have automatically created an intermediate class of radioactive vastes, thus demanding an alternative disposal facility and regulatory regime. '", '#

Because the economic feasibility of developing such e'abitati'o n%ithin"'a reasonable time frame is questionable, we endorse the Commission's decision l to classify greater than Class C waste for disposal in a geologic repository, l

i absent an approved " intermediate" disposal facility. However, we do not support the use of the current Class C limits of 10 CFR Part 61 as the appropriate threshold for that classification.

~

{

e e

e D L

t L

i Page Two July 14, 1988 d

The Commission's proposal to place all greater than Class C wastes in the geologic repository results in an increase in the volume and kinds of waste originally conceived for the repository. Such a change has the potential for complicating the design and operation of the repository and for using limited expensive space for waste that really does not require such an extreme degree of isolation. Cleerly, the definition of what constitutes Class C must be very carefully considered and justified.

The Class C limits of 10 CFR Part 61 were developed using extremely conservative assumptions. The migration pathway and other pathways resulting from more likely, natural events, such as wind or water erosion, were demonstrated to be of little consequence. In most cases, the limiting cc.iditions were controlled by the " intruder" pathway scenario involving an individual digging into a waste site after the facility ceases operation and institutional control is lost. As a result, the relatively low concentration limits are overly conservative. Use of such conservative limits forces those wastes that are only marginally greater than Class C (and not in need of extreme isolation) into the " geologic repository" category.

We believe that assumptions more realistic than those incorporated in current Class C limits should be used in determining upper concentration limits, thereby increasing the threshold for greater than Class C wastes. We suggest that by doing so, those wastes which truly require the degree of isolation afforded by the geologic repository will be identified. We are convinced that Class C limits can be increased without jeopardy to the radiological health and safety of the public and environment. At the same time, the Commission will be acting to minimize the programmatic and financial impacts of the proposed rulemaking.

Finally, although the economic feasibility of an " intermediate" disposal facility is questionable at the present time, we support the Commission's proposal to give DOE the latitude to develop such a facility in the future.

However, we urge the Commission to adopt a similar provision for its own use should it determine through future findings (absent a DOE proposal),

that less stringent requirements are appropriate.

'incerely, John DeVincentis Vice President JMG/amd l

9 w-- ---_-________n__ _ - - - . _ _ - _ _ - _ _

PROPOSED RULE PL n lW$9

.~. . ..

i.n

• 6p f

'88 al.18 P3 59 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Bureau of Environment T.E.R.R.A. BUILDING OU 'L :. .

150 NINTH AVENUE NORTH 00Cet's . . - v r.!

N ASHVilLE. TENNESSEE 37219 5404 BP & htM July 14, 1988 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Having reviewed your proposal dated Wednesday, May 18, 1988, FR Vol. 53 No.

-96, concerning " greater-than-Class-C" low-level waste I have the following comments:

1. In the definition of HLW the phrase "in sufficient concentration" must be defined.

2. The " primary reprocessing wasta streams at DOE facilities" must be defined.

3. Define " commercially generated greater-than Class C".

All three of the above items involve terminology that is vague. In the case of items 1 & 2 that vagueness has been utilized by the DOE to make what appears to be HLW, LLW. It is not clear what a " commercial waste stream" is at DOE facilities. What makes it necessary for the NRC to regulate this

" commercial waste stream" but not other DOE waste streams? Does the radioactive material-in those streams not present the same hazard?

It is very interesting to note that the NRC states explicitly there is no adequate technical basis to distinguish between HLW and non-HLW. This certainly supports the contention that some LLW actually represents a much greater hasard than some MLW since they are not now defined on a technical assessment of hazard potential. With the originally proposed redefinition of HLW the NRC missed an excellent opportunity to establish a technical basis.

Lastly the FR could use some good proofreaders.

Sincerely, Michael H. Mobley Cousnissioner, Southeast Low-Level West t Compact Director, Division of Radiological Hea.th Tennessee State Liasion to the Nuclear ?egulatory Commission MHM/E5038196

DOCKET NUMBER (f_.E

, PROPOSED RULE O lm /

55Ri77op 2 y= w

=

n 9=- - '88 JUL 21 P2 :15 Nuclear Information and Resource Service 142416th Street, N.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-0002 00W'( ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proposed Rula: 10 CFR 61 ) July 18, 1988

)

Disposal of Radioactive )

Wastes )

) =

gp-53 Ig_4. Eng. 96:17709 ) . n_ __

May 18, 1988 ) g g Nuclear Information a Commi Diane D'Arrigo The Nuclear Information and Resou to learn that the Nuclear Regulat 142416th Street, NW, Suite 601 proposed rule on the redefinition up, 36 N 3 M waste" (10 CFR 60, 52 I.ed. Eng. B .

there js a portion of the so-called " low-level radioactive waste" stream that should be afforded the isolation intended for high level waste, however.

Of the options outlined in the Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed Part 61 Amendments in Lieu of Revision of the HLW (High Level Waste) Definition, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service would support Alternative 3: DEFINE HLW AS ALL REPROCESSING WASTE, AND ALL NON-REPROCESSING WASTE ABOVE CLASS C, BUT RETAINING FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE RECLASSIFICATION.

More accurately, our position is support for consideration of Greater than Class C (and other) radioactive waste as high level waste. It is not essential to define it as such as long ac it is dealt with as such. Allowing the option for such waste to go to regional and state " low-level" radioactive facilities is not acceptable.

NIliS' position is that waste hazardous longer than the institutional control period of " low-level" radioactive waste dumps should be excluded from those facilities. Since NRC's institutional control period is 100 years (10 CFR 61.59 (b)),

this would exclude a relatively small volume but large percentage of curies of radioactive waste from " low-level" waste facilities.

(Percentage volume and curie estimate was made from analysis of dedicated to a sound non nuclear energy policy.

NIRS 10CFR61 Consnants i i

i NUREG/CR-4730 and Rogers and Associates, Conceptual Design J Report, Alternative Concepts for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management ,

Program, June 1987.) I l

The remainder, Greater than Class C (GTCC) and those portions of Classes A, B and C that contain radionuclides that are hazardous for longer than 100 years, should be stored in a facility designed to isolata the waste for as long as it remains hazardous.

Hazardous Life There has been some discussion about the hazardous life of wastes. Should we accept 10 or 20 half lives of the longest lived radionuclides as the hazardous life? Or should we use those as a rule of thumb followed by a measurement after that time to make sure the level is well below the NRC or EPA allowable release level? This would seem the prudent course of action but for the very long lived radionuclides such a procedure, although preferred is not realistic. Especially in those cases, the waste should be isolated in the most restrictive, highly regulated way possible. It should also be bourne in mind that there is growing discontent at the procedus is and decisions being made by both NRC and EPA on what is "accepcable" exposure level, release level, and acceptable concentrations in air and water. (See NIRS comments, May 1, 1986 and October 27, 1986, on the Proposed Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 10 CFR 19, 20 et al.

and NIRS comments March 2, 1987 on Advance Notice of Proposed .

Rulemaking on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern, 10 CFR l 2 and 20.) '

NIRS advocates zero-release and at minimum, a design goal of zero-release. The intent should be to isolate nuclear waste completely from the environment.

Since NRC prohibits dependance on institutional controls for longer than 100 years at " low-level" warte sites (10CFR61.5f(b)],

and the public, by and large, does not necept the (thus far, baseless) assurances that the form of the waste and the earth itself will isolate for long time periods after that, one logical conclusion would be to prohibit waste that will be hazardous longer the institutional control of the site from being stored (or " disposed") at the site.

NIRS questions the NRC's high level waste disposal regulations but supports inclusion of Greater than Class C (GTCC) and Classes A,B and C wastes with longer than 100 year hazardous lives in the ongoing discussions and debates on high level waste disposal.

Economic and other considerations must be made for waste other than the commercial irradiated fuel and the defense waste destined for a high level waste repository, along with a complete reevaluation of the adequacy of the criteria for high level waste 2

NIRS 10CFR61 Commtnts disposal.

In the interim, until a final technology and location for permanent isolation of GTCC and other long-lived " low-level" wastes and high level wastes is accepted, it will be necessary to store the waste at NRC-licensed facilities.

Greater than Class C (GTCC) Characteristics j I

DOE'r report on GTCC (DOE /NE-0077 Recommendations for Management i of Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Report to I Congress in Response to Public Law 99-240, US Department of I Energy, February 1987) lists the type of waste included in the Greater than Class C waste stream along with the generators of such waste.

It appears from the DOE report that a large percentage of GTCC waste is mixed waste--a mixture of both radioactive and hazardous materials. This presents a problem for any radioactive waste storage or " disposal" facility because of the potential chemical destruction of facility integrity. Such material should not be allowed into a state or regional agreement state facility.

Further, there is a high degree of uncertainty in predicting the volume and curies that will be generated in GTCC waste in the years to come. No large nuclear power plant has ever been dismantled and despite efforts to deregulate the bulk of the decommissioning waste as "Below Regulatory Concern," there will be GTCC waste, unless it is somehow diluted to meet class C concentration limits. This is if nuclear plants ever are dismantled.

Other Points It would be a waste of money and an environmentally irresponsible step to attempt to set up another series of radioactive waste centers for GTCC waste. There are already too many sites being proposed for so-called " low-level" waste and a lack of acknowledgement that decommissioning nuclear power plants may not be technically or economically feasable. NRC should accept that even with the best design there is no way to guarantee isolation

, for the entire hazardous life of the waste and plan to use the maximum protection for all waste that cannot be institutionally monitored and maintained for as long as it is hazardous.

Thus we agree with NPc not to develop new sites for GTCC waste but disagree with the u, aion of putting such waste at " low-level" radioactive waste facili,ics operated by the states. The states have an incentive to take more waste at their facilities because of the economy of scales, even though the technology has not been found that can isolate GTCC waste.

We further agree that GTCC commercial waste should not go to 3

1 ,

1

NIRS 10CFR61 Commints Department of Energy sites for either storage or disposal. We oppose the unnecessary transport of any nuclear waste, unless the community to which it is going, the communities through which it travels and all affected communities are in approval. In addition, transportation casks should exceed the federal criteria. ,

and the necessity of the shipment should be fully explored and '

determined by democratic processes prior to shipment.

Respectfully submitted, D

Diane D' Arrigo V

~

4

}

'.. u HUMBER N0?GSio RULE SE(al DuxE POWER GOMPANY.c',14 53F4 /77op)

P.O. BOX 33189 CHARLOTrE. N.C. 28242

' : Pet-f ]

. HAI. B. TUCKER TetzP9tO,rE i m....... = = => j

-...._" '88 n a P2 :28 3 July 18, 1988 hy3dd H' " , . ,r~

The Secretary of the Commission l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch i

Subject:

NRC Proposed Rule Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Duke Power Company Comments

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Register (53FR17709) date May 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed rule which requires disposal of

" greater-than-class-C" low-level radioactive vastes in a deep geologic repository unless disposal elsewhere has been approved by the Commission.

Duke Power Company feels the proposed rule unnecessarily broadens the scope of radioactive vaste required to be disposed of in a geologic repository by imposing Part 61 requirements on: 1) alternative methods of disposal (i.e.

other than in a repository), and 2) DOE facilities vaste. We fac t that this additional scope could significantly complicate geologic repository capacity requirements resulting in the need for a second repository.

Very truly yours,

/

Hal B. Tucker DM/232/ bhp l

I

v.ARVIM LEWIS DOCKET NUMBER l 7801 ROOSEVELT B'.VD # 63 PROPOSED RULE s !

i

• * ' ^ " .. (o3FR/?7ej

, j +, 7, Sacretary U.S.N.R.C. M R 22 2038 Uashington,-D. C. 20555 hff ; 4 ,, , ,, ' , ,

Dear Mr. Secretary,

~

s%

Federal Register Notice 10 CFR part 61 invited comments to a proposed Rule on the Disposal of Radioactive Uaste. ]

Thert. are a lot of words in the Background published ]

with the rule..These words do not carry the weight of regulation '

or lau. The only part that is truly significant is the neu 10CFR I61.55(2)(iv.) Tnis new part allous the Commission to place the waste whersever the Commission so desires.

Essentially tne Commission need not uorry abuut anyt.iiing, and could place very dangerous Greater'tnan Class C wastes in a lou level vaste site or dump. The LLU sites are part of Compact agreements and were negotiated uitn the underst:anding that they would be used only for low level waste.

The rule gives the Commission power to endanger State prerogatives, and does not provide that the GTCC uill not endanger the public health and asfety and abrogate State Compacts.

Respectfully submitted, L- .

grnw trv is 4

7sel ROOSEVEli MVD. * . -

PH't.A. P A I P S 2 ,

(215)624 1574

" U MARVEL LEWIS .

7801 ROOLLVE'T . BLVD. # 62 PHILA., PA 19152

. ....,6 sh S

t a e

.. 9 9

e

P ' W' .i EUMBER q b/ 4 l ENVIRONMENTAL CSALITISN CN NUCLEAR POWER

• .p- $ Y WW21976 Co Directore: Ms. Phyllis Zitzer-Box 761, Pottstown, Ps. 19464 215 326-9122 N(,WM  !

Dr. Judith Johrtarud-433 Orlando Avenue, State Collegf % 568Q/814 237 3900 3  !

I July 18, 1989  !

88 WL 22 All'44 -1 Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Docketing and Fervice .n i J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RE: 53 FR 17709 hocedn e. . -

Washington, D.C. 20555 Redefinition of HighileWe1 Waste and Greater Than Class C Waste

Dear Sir or Madar:

Due to illness of this commenter since early May, our organization has not submitted full comment on the Federal Register notice referenced above. I l have, however, discussed the issues with Ms. Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), on more than one occasion and am fam!!!ar with her draft comments. ,

l The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP), with this filing, concurs with N!RS' positions on redefinition of high-level radioactive waste and the disposition of Greater Than Class C wastes and wishes to join its comments with those of NIRS en the matters addressed in 53 FR 17709.

As a member of Pennsylvania's legislatively sandated Advisory Connittee on Low-Level Radioactive] Vaste -- although I want to make very clear that I do not in any manner speak for that committee in these comments -- I have assist 9d in the development and review of the criteria for the siting, design, and

!! censing of the Appalachian States Regional Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRn)

Disposa1 faci!!ty which is to be developed in Pennsylvania. The Consonwealth is now in process of becoming an Agreement State for certain related purposes.

Draft regulations to govern the LLRW regional facility have just been published for public comments, and the Request for Proposal for a private operator has  !

recently been re published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Pennsylvania is proceeding to meet the milestones in the Federal law in good faith on the assumption that Greater Than Class C (GTCC) wastes will be a Federal, not a state, responsibility in accordance with the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments. Our state law and proposed design and siting criteria do not take into account the possibility that the LLRW facility night contain GTCC wastes, in terms of either their longevity or radioactivity.

Whether or not the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Radiation Protection has chosen to comment on this Federal Register j Notice, there are persons In the public-interest sector here in Pennsylvania  !

. who have joined ECNP in closely following the progress of radioactive waste  !

disposal. They share cur concern that NRC any propose to permit or require .

Agreement States to take responsibility for the disposal of GTCC wastes, or that Congress will mandate that Agreement States do so, or that GTCC wastes any be allowed to be diluted or mixed with lower activity wastes and thereby be i ande eligible for disposal in this regional facility. We therefore urge that l the Consission take no action which will have the effect of shifting the burden l of management and disposal of GTCC wastes from the Federal government to the .....

states. To do so would, in our opinion, violate the legislative intent of the ,

1985 Amendments and place an undue burden on those Agreement States that will have LLRW disposal sites.

W 1

1

__.___j

p. 2 All rt.dioactive wastes that have a hazardous life in excess of the 100-year control period specified in 10 CFR 61 shoeld be considered to be a Federal responsibility. NRC regulations should prohibit the use of dilution, mixing, dispersal, recycle, or deregulation as acceptable methods of altering waste categories. All GTCC wastes -- and, as Pennsylvania had earlier proposed, all Class C low-level wastes -- should be treated as high-level wastes and be the responsibility of the Federal government, which, by its preemptive authority over the licensing of nuclear power facilities, is ultimately responsible for permitting the vast majority of such wastes to be generated in the first place.

The need for conservatf,m and prudence in the disposal of radioactive wastes to assure their cory :e te isolation f rom the biosystem for the full hazardous life of the wasto: is all the more important in view of recent information that confirms the non-conservatism of existing and proposed NRC radiation protection standards.

• Recent re-evaluation by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) of data on the survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima indicates that doses had been markedly over-estimated and that therefore cancer risks have been under-estimated. U.S. radiation protection standards are based on the Hiroshima-Nagasaki data gathered and analyzed many years ago by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, predecessor of the RERF. On the basis of these findings, the British National Radiological Protection Board has reportedly recommended drastic reductions in worker exposure limits and reduction by half of public exposures.

e The distinguished British epideatologist and medical doctor, A.M. Stewart, and her colleagues have found a strong positive correlation between the incidence of childhood cancer deaths in the British Isles and the levels of terrestrial gamma background radiation seasured by the British government. Analyzing data from the massive Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer, Stewart, gt gl., suggest that early embryonic exposure to terrestrial gamma radiation appears to be the one common factor in the patterns of childhood cancer occurrence. They reason that the early fetal exposure results in immune system incompetence from birth onward, which in the past would have made those children more susceptible to infectious diseases. Removal of those ccepeting causes of death in childhood -- now largely conquered by administration of vaccines and antibiotics -- allows us to observe the underlying incidence of childhood cancer and leukeata deaths following expiration of the latency period.

This study shouing the correlation of cancer deaths with background radiation levels, whici, have only about a four-fold variation in the area surveyed, raises very serious questions about our understanding of the effects of low levels of radiation exposure previously thought to be harmless. Obviously, releases to air and water of radioactivity from all san-made sources are additive and cumulative above naturally occurring levels of background radiation. The conclusions: the higher background  ;

radiation levels become, the higher the risks of cancer, leukemia, and  ;

other radiation-related health or genetic consequences and the greater I the need for excess conservatism in estimating the long-tera health effects of radioactive vastes and for treating long-lived and highly active wastes as high-level radioactive waste requiring deep geologic disposal.

y.

p. 3 -

I e The NRC Commission staff and the nuclear industry have suggested recently that background radiation levels in the U.S. appear to have risen dramatically. (Commission meeting on gg sinisLE and Below Regulatory Concern wastes. Transcript, March 14, 1988.) At the earlier background radiation levels, several thousand premature deaths from spontaneous cancers, plus genetic defects, were estimated to have occurred each year.

Any increases in background radiation levels from whatever sources may be expects to result also in increases in deleterious somatic and genetic effects.

e An additional source of emissions and releases of radioactivity to the environment without restriction exists in the categories of ge afniets and Below Resulatory Concern low-activity radioactive wastes, which, with NRC approval, may be disposed of without regard for their radioactive content. Each such source constitutes a small, but unsonitored, increment to total background radiation; nuclear industry sources now state that they expect as such as 30-40% of all low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in these categories. Such cumulative additive quantitles of' radioactive wastes in the biosphere from the lower activity end of the body of wastes add further to the need for conservatism in the disposal of GTCC wastes and argue for their inclusion with high-level wastes in permanent deep geologic disposal.

For all of the above reasons, combined with those cited in the N!RS comments, ECNP urges the Commission to adopt the most prudent stance with respect to both high-level and GTCC radioactive wastes, defining High-Level Waste to include all reprocessing and non-reprocessing wastes above Class C and disposing of these wastes in the most conservative mode of deep disposal. No arguments of heavy economic burden attendant upon this approach should be allowed to alter the NRC's decision to require that GTCC wastes be handled and disposed of as high-level radioactive wastes.

Thank you for giving consideration to these consents.

Respectfully submitted,

/thhl Judith H. Johnsrud, Ph.D.

Director O

i mm_m_.________________ _ _ _ _

u ,

DOCKET N'JMBER atL b/-

. v ...

. w.r g

PROP 0au iOJLE p ' FA / 77D 'I se a 22 A11:46 July 1E, liCf-ort:.. ..- J

• L.'

00CHL' Vi '-

BRANta l

re; 53FRE6:177c9 i

1 der.T i*Gople; ]

1 c.~. vrfting to infor~. you'cf my pocition on tv:o jte:.c; 1.'I csk that you delete the option for statea to take creater than class C waste

2. & include a requirement for any via te that' takes more than 100. years to reach decay to be a continuing federal responsibility Thank you for your consideration of these items.

Sincerely, l

Donna Munro 626 Parkwood NE //1

. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 776-1108 - l 1

1 i

l-

)

C__:---___-__--_------_

3#

FOOD and WATER, INC. 1 3 Whitman Drive

• Denville, NJ 07834 * (718) 783-2146 / (301) 625 3111 Mi rt -

L*:%

July 19, 1988 25 P3:13 )

On ,. . -

1 00Mh"?  %~ .h Secretary of the Commission g Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

N b' Washington, D.C. 20555 PROPOSED RULE r O

M

Dear Madam or Sir:

M M /770 I have been asked by the President of Food and Water, Inc., to submit a ecmment concerning 53 FR 17709, redefinition of high-level radioactive waste and the disposal of Class C+, or Greater Than Class C, radioactive wastes.

Fced and Water, Inc., which is a public-interest organization concerned abor:

the safety of foods and water supplies with headquarters in New York and Neo Jersey, wishes to add its support to the comments on these matters previour.y submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Envirer. mental Ccalition on Nuclear Power.

Ve believe that Class C+ wastes, with concentrations of isotopes greater than the maximum concentrations permitted in the Class C low-level radioactive wastes, must 'oe treated as high-level radioactive waste f or which the Federal government bears responsibility, and that such wastes must be disposed of in the sate canne: as high-level spent f uel wastes and other high-activity war.es which the C.:mmission declares to be high-level radioactive wastes.

Car parti alar interest in this issue derives from the Congressional directive to the Department of Energy to demonstrate the economic feasibility and efficacy of utilizing cesium-137, as well as cobalt-60, as the source material for the commercial irradiation of food. The food irradiation process for use on many kinds of whole foods was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March, 1986, but has not yet come into general practice.

Facilities for irradiation of food and possession of nuclear materials for that purpose are licensed by the NRC or Agreement States. DOE staff, in 1985 Congressione: testimony, has stated that each commercial food irradiation facility may be expected to maintain a source material inventory of between one and ten million curies of cesium-137 or cobalt-60.

. It is, however, the disposal of the radioactive wastes that may be "

generated thereby, including the potentially large numbers of curies of radioactive cesium or cobalt, that gives rise to this response to 53 FR 17709.

Shauld widespread commercialization of food irradiation result in the operation I of a large number of such facilities, as DOE projects to be the case within the next two decades, it seems likely that the spent cesium or cobalt, other than that to be supplied by DOE for proposed demonstration food irradiation I facilities, would become eligible for dispesal at state and regional low-level ra.!!aa:tive waste disposal sites.

1 I

i l

1 At present, it appears that NRC's Part 61 regulati:ns would permit the j_ disposal of cesium and cobalt in quantities governed by con:entration limits l exprersed in 10 CFR 61.55. Permitting Class C+ radioactive wastes to be l disp: sed Of in any. manner other than as high-level waste in a permanent deep l .- geologic repository would not provide adequate protection of the public health I and safety. Moreover, it appears probable that such wastes with activity concentrations greater than Class C could be dispered of in state and regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities if the NRC makes-the proposed regulatory change that would permit Greater Than Class C wastes to enter Agreement State low-level waste facilities.

For these reasons, we recommend that the Commission determine that Greater than Class C radioactive wastes be treated as high-level radioactive wastes for purposes of stcrage and disposal and tha't they be clearly prohibited from being d!!uted sr mi>sd with other wastes for the purpose of reclassification to a 1 :n. e : categcry of pir.tection.

Thank you for giving consideration to these consents submitted on behalf cf Fced and t'ater, Inc.

SincereIy,

'u,4'$b'llbn

• l Judith H. Johnsrud, Ph.D.

4

External Af fa.rs iA 100AE, 00C"fii F "J. "'

UnitId States Invironmcntal Protection Washington DC 20460 p gg"cr, -

h.[.._k Agsncy ($3pg;g7

1. h Federai Activit.es .

Q '). 3. . . .

'88 AUG -4 A10:38

n .

Mr. Samuel Chilk 00CM :

Secretary of the Commission N U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act the U.S. ~

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule for the disposal of Radioactive Waste (53 FR 17709).

The proposed rule would modify 10 CFR 61 to require that all radioactive wastes with radionuclides concentrations " greater-than-Class-C" be disposed of in geologic repositories, unless the Commission determines that such isolation is not needed in specific cases. By taking this approach, the Comission has chosen to not develop a quantitative definition for "high level wastes" (HLW) in this rulemaking.

EPA is sympathetic with the Commission's reasons for not developing a quantitative HLW definition at this time. Enough information about the effectiveness of various disposal methods does not now exist to defend a numerical definition. However,

'the approach taken by NRC raises two problems that may ultimately call for a numerical approach to be taken:

1. This action by the Commission does nothing to resolve uncertainties regarding the disposition of large volumes of defense radioactive wastes that are derived from reprocessing of spent-fuel, but that have relatively low concentrations of radionuclides.

2. By directing disposal of " greater than Class C" wastes in geologic repositories, without defining them as high level wastes, the Commission may create a situation where the different wastes disposed of in the same repository may be subject to different EPA standards (i.e., 40 CFR parts 191 and 193, when both are promulgated). This may complicate implementation and, in any case, will require careful examination of the possible duplication and/or conflict of technical, administrative and regulatory requirements. In addition the same dichotomy may exist relative to NRC's own rules (i.e.,10 CFR Parts 60 and 61).

Because of these remaining problems, a quantitative definition of "high-level" waste may be needed in the long run. Since the Commission has not been able to develop one yet, EPA may consider this issue when determining the applicability of 40 CFR Parts 191 and 193 through our rulemaking processes.

We will, of course, continue consultation with the NRC in these rulemakings.

AUS 10 1968 mnowl*dtet1 hv card. t

t i

1 1

Finally, these wastes may contain a hazardous waste component, as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). If these wastes contain-such a. hazardous component, that component is subject to RCRA controls as well as NRC regulations. In addition, where wastes with a hazardous component subject to RCRA are in question. EPA probably would be involved in any-decision about. alternative disposal standards. General language to this' effect should be included in the final rule.

If you have any questions concerning EPA's comments, please contact Dr. W. Alexander Williams (382-5909) of my staff.

Sincerely, Ri ard E. Sanderson Director

-Office of Federal Activities e

___ __ __ _ ____ __ ggy ggy 7-_-_-____.

"9 .d (a } }

Dsp rtmsnt of Ensrgy '"(S3FrR/77oj 00 i Washington, DC 20585 g {7 c AUG 30 C38

'E8 AUG 31 R2 :00 -

Secretary n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, DC 20555

-Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

-The' Department of Energy (Department) has reviewed and offers its comments on the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 61, published on May 18, 1988, .concerning the definition of high-level waste (HLW) and disposal of greater-than-Class-C waste (GTCC). The Department notes that there was a substantial change from the earlier Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to the proposed rule. The Department's first objection is that the proposed rule fails to acknowledge the comprehensive scheme for developing a policy for disposal of GTCC. wastes which was created by Congress in the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Public Law 99-240, (LLWPAA). This statute confers on the Department a long-range responsibility to identify disposal options, financing mechanisms, and the legislation needed to implement them, and further provides that no disposal shall be undertaken until the Department's recommendations have been submitted to Congress.

If this proposed rule is misinterpreted as a premature designation that all GTCC wastes shall be disposed of in a geologic repository (unless placed in some other licensed facility), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) will disturb the deliberative process mandated by Congress before that process can be completed.

This interferes with the Department's ability to perform an objective study unbiased by other regulatory initiatives.

By' suggesting that the Department obtain legislation to implement the Commission's policy choice, the Commission is asking the Department to act without first having complied with its own responsibility under the LLWPAA. The Department believes that the proposed rule should be abandoned, and that the Commission should

. resume the course announced in the ANPR of developing a definition for HLW. This would be of great assistance to the Department in defining GTCC wastes--a prerequisite for evaluating policy options-

-and would be consisteht with more conventional regulatory procedures. If this course is followed, then, once the Department has developed appropriate disposal options and has advised Congress of needed legislation, and Congress has acted on those recommendations, the Department will be in a position to work with the Commission regarding technical matters and licensing procedures.

1 i

cz1_ _--____-_-_-_ _ _ l

2 This would be a far better approach to the problem of disposal of GTCC wastes in that it would not foreclose deliberations intended by Congress to be the responsibility of the Department.

If' however, the Commission doer. not accept the Department's recommendation concerning this matter, then, in the alternative, the Department recommends that the proposed rule be amended to preserve the Department's policy-making responsibility under the LLWPAA. In  !

either case, the Department urges the Commission to proceed with developing an appropriate risk-based definition of waste streams, as initially proposed in the ANPR.

Also, in the alternative, the Department offers comments on the proposed rule in four areas: first, the proposed wording of section 61.55; second, the need for new legislative authority; third, the lack of criteria and guidance from the Commission; and, fourth, the lack of a risk-based definition for high-level waste.

The proposed wording for section 61.55(a) (2) (iv) states, in part, that "In the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository . . . unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are subnitted to the Commission for approval."

The wording of the preamble and the proposed rule create confusion and might be misinterpreted to imply that the Commission is expressing a preference for disposal in a repository. GTCC wastes need better definition to determine whether, or which, GTCC wastes require the isolation of a geologic repository. Disposal in a geologic repository may be an unnecessarily expensive alternative for some GTCC wastes and for some low-activity wastes that may be considered HLW under a source-based definition while it may be the only appropriate alternative for others. The activity levels of the various forms of GTCC wastes and low activity HLW should be considered to assure an appropriately safe form of disposal without .

excessive costs to the generators and the public. Further, the addition of a new waste form for disposal in a geologic repository may well impact the design of such a repository and/or necessitate special treatment of the new waste form. Licensing and permitting of the repository may also be complicated by the inclusion of another form of waste.

The Department suggests that the wording of the rule be modified to allow the Department the clearest opportunity for maximum flexibility by changing the last sentence of 61.55(a) (2) (iv) to read as follows: "Such waste must be disposed of either in a disposal site or sites licensed pursuant to this Part or in a facility licensed pursuant to Part 60 of this Chapter."

The preamble further states that additional legislation may be needed by the Department to provide for payment of disposal costs of GTCC wastes or to authorize receipt of such wastes for disposal at a repository. Unless the Commission makes a determination under

3 section 2 (12) (B) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) that GTCC waste requires permanent isolation, the Department agrees that such legislation would be required. The Department has no authority to dispose of wastas other than high-level (as defined in the NWPA) and spent fuel in a repository authorized by the NWPA.1/

The Commission states that " Technical criteria to implement the performance objectives of [10 CFR 61) and [the Environmental Protection Agency) environmental standards would be developed by the Commission after the DOE [the Department) had completed its conceptual design and selected a site for a specific type of facility." The Department would like the opportunity to discuss the applicability of the existing repository technical criteria for spent nuclear fuel and HLW to the disposal of GTCC wastes in a repository.

While the Department appreciates the flexibility the Commission is making available in the proposed rule, the Department is concerned that the effort to define high level waste has been discontinued by the Commission. A risk-based definition of high-level waste, which is tied to adequate protection of public health and safety, is needed. The Department would like to see this effort resumed and is willing to assume a more active role in the effort, if requested by the Commission.

The Department has a number of other comments which are contained in the enclosure. However, we wished to bring these particular concerns to your special attention. Please feel free to contact Mr. Edward P. Regnier (586-4590) of my staff about any questions.

Sincerely,

.Y Charles E. Kay, ting Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Enclosure 1/ It should be noted that "high-level radioactive waste" under section 2 (12) (B) of the NWPA includes "other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing l law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation."

1 l

l ENCLOSURE Department of Energy Comments On the Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR Part 61

' General Comments l

l 1. Nowhere in the proposed rule has the Nuclear Regulatory

, Commission (Commission) attempted to insure that its policy l objectives are consistent with the Low-Level Waste Policy L

Amendments Act of 1985 (LLWPAA), Public Law 99-240, which at section 3(b)(3)-(4) provides that:

"(3) Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive report setting forth the recommendations of the Secretary for ensuring the safe disposal of all radioactive waste designated a Federal responsibility pursuant to subparagraph (b) (1) (D) [GTCC wastes). Such report shall include--

"(A) an identification of the radioactive waste. involved, including the source of such waste, and the volume, concentration, and other relevant characteristics of such waste;

" (B) an identification of the Federal and non-Federal options for disposal of such radioactive waste;

"(C) a description of the actions proposed to ensure the

' safe disposal of such radioactive waste;

"(D) a description of the projected costs of undertaking such actions;

"(E) an identification of the options for ensuring that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive wastes bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such wastes; and

. "(F) an identification of any statutory authority required for disposal of such waste.

"(4) The Secretary may not dispose of any radioactive waste designated a Federal responsibility pursuant to paragraph (b) (1) (D) [GTCC waste] that becomes a Federal responsibility for the first time pursuant to such paragraph until ninety days after the report prepared pursuant to paragraph (3) has been submitted to the Congress.

2 Under this provision, the Department submitted a report to Congress in February 1987, DOE /NE-0077, " Recommendations for I Management of Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Radioactive Waste."

The report did not, at that time, contain a comprehensive ,

assessment of disposal policy options because, to a large l degree, the Department was hampered by the lack of a definition {

of greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) wastes. The Department urged the {

Commission to provide such a definition so that a disposal j policy could be formulated, and, in the interim, the Department I offered to store GTCC wastes until a more comprehensive f recommendation could be developed. The Department fully intends I to formulate these policies within the next 2 years, and to submit them to Congress for consideration. While the  !

Department's efforts would be measurably advanced if the i Commission resumed the initiative announced in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the Commission policy initiative towards disposal in a geologic repository only )

complicates the Department's efforts to provide a thorough review of all available options.

2. The Department of Energy believes it is inappropriate for the Commission to require that a particular type of waste be disposed of in a specified facility. The Commission snould be concerned with disposal of radioactive waste without undue risk ,

to the health and safety of the public.

3. As noted in the preamble, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, would need to be amended in order for the Department to comply with the requirement of the proposed rule that GTCC waste be disposed of in a geologic repository, unless I.

the Commission determines that GTCC waste requires permanent isolation in accordance with section 2 (12) (B) of the NWPA.

4. The proposed change that would require commercial GTCC waste to be disposed of in a geologic repository unless a licensed intermediate disposal facility is available may still necessitate long-term storage of GTCC wastes by the Department.

Specific Comments

5. Pending the outcome of further evaluation of competing methodologies for GTCC low-level waste (LLW) disposal, the Department does not have a predisposition for or against competing disposal options. Technical analysis or institutional circumstances must be considered to justify one disposal method over another. Our concern with the proposed rule is that its interpretation and effect are unclear. 1 The provision requires geologic repository disposal, "unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the l

1

)

3 Commission for approval." Taken literally, the~ rule would allow submission of proposals only for disposal of GTCC wastes at facilities that already had a disposal license.

This wording should be clarified, or.the Commission's interpretation explained in the commentary accompanying the rule.

Although the intent of the proposed rule is obvious, the wording indicates that alternative methods of disposal would be allowed at the time the request is," submitted" to the commission, not once it is " approved." The proposed rule refers to a process by which the Commission would give its

" approval" to methods of GTCC LLW disposal other than in a geologic repository. The timing of the approval process in relation to the site development process is unclear. The commentary in the Notice indicates that if the Department chose to develop a disposal site other than a repository, the Commission would evaluate the acceptability of such facility "in light of the particular circumstances, considering for example the existing performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61 and any generally applicable environmental radiation protection standards . . . . "

There are at least two ways to interpret the proposed rule.

Under the first, the rule has a significant impact on planning for GTCC LLW disposal; under the second the rule has no effect.

-A. ln defending a categorical exclusion of the proposed rule from the need to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, the preamble indicates that the approval process for disposal' methodologies other than a geologic repository would be the same as the approval process already in place. The Notice ptates that, " . . . as before, proposals for other methods of disposal may still be submitted to the Commission for approval. No substantial modification of existing regulations is involved."

If this refers to the existing process described in 10 CFR Part 61.58, which we believe has been cited in the past as the Commission's authority to grant case-by-case approval for disposal of GTCC LLW, then the process is much more restrictive than the description in the commentary section of the Notice. Such requests for disposal apparently must be site-specific, methodology-specific and waste scream-specific. Part 61.58 allows the Commission to--

" authorize other provisions for the classification and characteristics of waste on a specific basis, if, after evaluation of the specific characteristics of the waste, l

\

r 4

, disposal. site, and method of disposal, it finds reasonable assurance of compliance with the performance objectives in '

s subpart C.of this part."

Moreover, the decision as to whether to exercise the approval authority.at all under Part 61.58 is completely discretionary j on the part of the Commission. This differs from the-evaluation of a disposal license application, which the Commission would perform.as a matter of course upon submission of an application. Because the Commission's decision whether to 2xercise the approval authority is not limited in any way, the decision could be based on policies 1 and issues that would more properly rest with the Department, I which has been charged under Federal law with investigating and recommending disposal options that meet the technical requirements for Commission licensing.

Therefore, the proposed rule, if it is to be coupled with the existing approval process in Part 61.58, could effectively foreclose serious investigation of disposal options other than a geologic repository.

B. Alternatively., the process for Commission approval of disposal methods other.than a geologic repository may be .

intended by the Commission to be the licensing process itself.- The Notice states that once,the Department has proposed a disposal concept and selected a site, the Commission will develop applicable-technical criteria for GTCC LLW to implement performance objectives in Part 61.

However, because technical criteria for disposal of GTCC wastes would be required even if the disposal facility were a geologic repository, the proposed rule " requiring" GTCC LLW dispcsal in a geologic repository would provide no procedural preference at all for geologic disposal. The rule would have no practical effect and, therefore, would be unnecessary.

Absent a fuller description of the Commission's intent, preferably in the rule, we believe that the potential for changing interpretations of the rule over time may disrupt progress in developing new disposal capacity for GTCC LLW.

, 6. The proposed use of geologic repository space for GTCC waste deserves more thorough evaluation and consideration including the following:

(a) Risk basis; (b) Systems analysis of alternative GTCC disposal methods versus deep geologic repository for safety and cost; (c) Accurate forecast of GTCC waste volume for repository planning;

4 i

1 (d) High unit disposal cost; and l

1 (e) Suitable waste forms and canisters for GTCC that are )

amenable to the proposed repository design.

]

7. The Department strongly encourages the Commission to clarify the performance objectives to be used for the GTCC waste, whether it J is to be disposed of in a geologic repository or in another-facility, so as to facilitate the Department's decision on how to dispose of the GTCC wastes.

Placing GTCC waste in a geologic repository under the NWPA has impacts on repository design, cost, schedule, performance,'and licensing. It is difficult for the Department to assess these impacts accurately without a realistic estimate of the composition and quantity of the waste and of the technical criteria and the performance objectives to be imposed on the waste. Consequently, the Department's decision whether to seek amendments to the NWPA to permit disposal of GTCC waste in a geologic repository under the NWPA or to propose another facility becomes even more difficult. Illustrative examples are described below.

(a) Character of GTCC Wastes

_The largest uncertainty barring an assessment of the

~ potential impacts of disposal of GTCC. wastes in the repository concerns the character and quantities of the wastes involved. This includes the potential that these wastes might be clessified as mixed wastes, therefore introducing permitting requirements under the Resource Conservation *and Recovery Act (RCRA). Evaporator bottoms, spent resins, control rod shrouds, and portions of core barrels (from reactor decommissioning) have bee'n mentioned as possible sources of GTCC wastes. In most cases, it is obvious that these wastes would be unsuitable for disposal of any kind without some processing to immobilize the wastes, reduce volumes, and provide desirable waste form .

characteristics. The definitions of processing requirements, I locations where processing is to be performed, and how the costs of processing are to be borne are all large uncertainties which cannot be addressed until the nature of )

the wastes themselves is adequately defined, and waste i acceptance criteria are developed by the repository.

(b) Waste Package Criteria for Geologic Repository Disposal Criteria for the waste package and its components are l contained in section 60.125. Specific criteria for waste j other than high-level waste (HLW) are not provided and j i

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ l

i f

l 6 section 60.135(d) states that " Design criteria for waste types other than HLW will be addressed on an individual basis l if and when they are proposed for disposal in a geologic I repository."

overall, the requirements for disposal of GTCC wastes are not well defined, and no serious evaluation of the issues raised has been done. The regulations appear ~to permit proposal of waste packaging for GTCC wastes which is different from that for other wastes, but the acceptance by the Commission of such a proposal is not assured. However, for large quantities of GTCC wastes, there would appear to be a strong economic incentive to pursue a less elaborate packaging concept for these wastes.

(c) Repository Surface Facility If waste packages other than those currently proposed for the disposal of HLW were acceptable to the Commission, the surface facilities could receive wastes directly in the hot cell areas and transfer them to the emplacement areas by means of shielded transport devices. However, supplemental shielding, greater than that needed for spent fuel and high-level wastes, may be required for certain types of GTCC wastes. Additionally, receipt of wastes in other configurations may require other arrangements and more elaborate processing. This could include additional hot cell handling operations, decontamination and inspection

~ functions, which have the potential for increasing individual hot cell utilization ratios.

Alternatively, if waste packages similar to those currently proposed for the disposal of HLW are required, it will be necessary to provide hot cell facilities to process and package the vaste to meet disposal requirements. The attendant increases in handling, decontamination, inspection and disposal container closure and nondestructive examination operations would significantly impact the hot cell utilization ratios, as presently designed. Additionally, if volume reduction for these GTCC wastes were performed at the repository, this would introduce further complexity into the

. hot cell equipment operations and future decommissioning.

(d) Repository Subsurface Facility The design impact of emplacing GTCC wastes in the subsurface repository facility depends, in part, on which alternative i subsurface design being considered. For the vertical emplacement mode, the lower heat output of GTCC wastes as compared to spent nuclear fuel could allow additional j boreholes to be drilled between the 15 foot spacing of boreholes in those drifts which only contain spent fuel.

1

l-l l

l 7

For the long horizontal emplacement alternative, GTCC wastes, l in appropriately designed containers and appropriate I radiation shielding, could be substituted for " dummy" l containers to give the required standoff distance and to push

the spent fuel containers into the borehole. This would, however, introduce complications into possible retrieval operations.

The short horizontal emplacement alternative is not yet sufficiently developed to allow the Department to suggest a possible solution for compatible GTCC emplacement.

Should a dedicated emplacement area be required for GTCC wastes, additional panels and emplacement rooms would be required. This could restrict what flexibility there presently exists to lay out the repository within the primary area.

(e) Testing From the testing perspective of emplacement of GTCC wastes, the geochemical and waste package development. programs could increase in scope in response to the Commission proposed reclassification However, pending definition of disporal requirements, waste characterization, and processing requirements, it is not possible to estimate the scale of the change. Since planning for Commission licensing is presently occurring, the Department may find it difficult to incorporate studies or tests to characterize the waste, assess the waste form performance, and mode.1 waste form / environment interactions for the GTCC wastes in time to support the scheduled license application.

d i

r Em Comments on the Preamble

i 8.- Footnote 1, page 5993 ~ (ANPR) (51'FR 5992) from the February 27,

-1987, proposed rule should have been included in the Background section of.'he c Supplementary Information provided in the preamble at p. 17709. This footnote clarified that the waste .

. generated in further treatment'of HLW,.such as decontaminated salt, at the Savannah River Plant was considtred incidental wastes and not within the Appendix F definition.

9. 'The Department is concerned that the Commission has changed its longstanding plans to define radioactive material based on its hazardous characteristics rather than its source. We believe tnat a risk-based definition which distinguishes HLW from LLW is the most reasonable, technically sound, and appropriate basis for management of such materia,1. We further believe that a waste strean should not be classified into a particular waste category until it is prepared for long-term storage and/or Until such time, it is more appropriately considered disposal.

material in. process-which may produce several particular' waste categories for long-term storage and/or disposal.

' The Department continues to favor the concept of classifying radioactive wastes on.the basis'of those characteristics of the material which pose hazards to humans and to their environment, thereby facilitating a close link between such waste and its cost-effective isolation. The Department urges the Commission to continue to develop the risk-based approach to defining HLW, an approach which was strongly endorsed by many agencies, organizations, and individuals who offered comments on the ANPR.

A single risk-based definition of HLW based on radioactive concentrations is needed; the disparity of definitions among the 4WPA of 1982, 40 CFR Part 191, 10 CFR Part 60, and DOE Crder 5820.2A'could lead to substantial difficulties. The Department recommends that'an interagency task' force be formed

• ,o develop a recommended HLW definition.

10. The responsible agencies should take steps to resolve questions i regarding the appropriate definition of HLW for both the Energy 4 Reorganization Act of 1974 and the NWPA. l l,

4 b- -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___1____ . - -_ _ _

4%

Midwast Intarstato Low Laval Radioactive Weste Commission Room 588

• 350 N. Robert Street

• St. Paul, MN 5510$ * (612) 293 0126 db Rt W N 6 *

September 9, 1988

[CSin-Hinte Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary DOCKET tl0MBER sROPOSED RULE u -

4tz')R -

n. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

did f /770 Washington, D.C. 20$55

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission reviewed the proposed rule notice on " Disposal of Radioactive Wasdes" (Federal Register, May 18, 1988, p. 17709) and submitted comments to the NRC on July 8, 1988. We were recently informed that the proposed rule is still under consideration and that additional comments would be accepted.

In the comments submitted on July 8, the Midwest Compact Commission requested that the proposed rule be amended so that the only exception to disposal of greater-than-class C waste n a deep geologic repository would be a " Department of Energy intermediate" disposal site. We coa.tinue to advocate this limitation, but now request that the language in the proposed rule be amended to read as follows (' insert underlined):

Waste that is not generally acceptable for near surface disposal is waste for which waste form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent, than those specified for Class C waste. In the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in Part 60 of this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a federal intermediate disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval.

Our reasons for requesting the amendment, as set forth in our July 8 letter, are unchanged. The Midwest Compact Commission continues to believe that Nuclear Regulatory Commission discretionary authority to approve such proposals should be limited to federal facilities.

Si erely, Dr. Te i Vierima Chair Indiana lowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri Ohio Wisconsin

me  !

00CKE.T ,.. - NUMBER

,,,, c pq gj ,

( 55FK.e/ 7707) . x COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ""  !

- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES -

PE N N 5YLVA Ni A Post Office Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 88 SEP 19 P12:20 September 15, 1988, Bureau of Radiatiori Protection '[0CN' T. i .: <h.!.

tiP. t N L

(717) 787-2163 Secretary Samuel J. Chilk

- Secretary of the Commission -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTEN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protection wishes to offer the following comments pursuant to the proposed rule making on " greater-than-class-C" low-level radioactive waste.

These comments are in addition to those sent to you in our letter of February 27, 1987, on the definition of "high-level radioactive waste". We still consider those comments germane.

We feel it would be unreasonable to consider disposal of the small volume of greater-than-class-C waste in any facility other than the deep geologic repository. Therefore, we would strongly recommend the modification of S 61.55 (a)(2)(iv) Waste Classification. The final sentence of this subsection concludes with "--- unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are submitted to the Commission for approval". We recommend the deletion of this text in recognition of the simple logic of deep geologic disposal for greater-than-class-C waste.

Additionally, members of the public have expressed concern to us about siting a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility

' near their communities that could someday become the disposal site for greater-than-class-C waste. It would greatly enhance our ability to site a disposal facility and thus comply with the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would amend Part 61 as we have suggested.

We hope you will take our comments into consideration.

Sincerely, 0% f D&

William P. Dornsife, Chief Division of Nuclear Safety

p-9  !

\ )

J g .

J J ,,<, A l'+'-

lh i n-qu , ,

t

! +'

r O. -

e a:. t f,4 I - > /

y 1, ~-  ; pr

\y t

I 4 -'

.3 f

I 9

1 1

ENCLOSURE H.

. g Ik.p L

1 m

'O t*^

l

'i.

..p -

- .-_a -.-_- - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - mm___

- yr.

bcd4 ne+we idasie h,jpp{

c .

l- ,

i

. l AN EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR MANAGING GREATER-THAN-CLASS-C LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Background Paper C

Octob 1988 9

~_ p 1 '

3  !

o F-O 9

l -

1:. .r .

Congress of the United States g Office of Technology Assessment v Washington, D.C. 20510-8025 h i 1

-t.

l

OfEce of Technology Ass:ssment Congressional Board of the 100th Congress MOIUUS K. UDALL, Arisosa, Chairimaa TED STEVENS, Afanks Vier Chainnam

. Roses Seaste GdORGE E. BROWN JR.

ORALNG. HATCH cawornia veak JOHN D. DINGELL CHARLLS L GRASSLEY unsspa to-a CLARENCE L MILLER EDWARD M. K.LNNEDY chie Manendussers DON SUNDQUIST ERNEST F. HOLUNG5 Teasemese Saud Casolina AMO HOUGHTON CLAIBORNE PELL New Yad Rhode Laland JOHN H. C3 BONS (Namvanag)

Advisory Council S. DAVID FREEMAN JOSHUA LEDERBERC WILLIAM J. PERRY, Chainaam Rodefeiler Uninrary Lawer Cdorado River Authonity NhQ Teckadegy Fanaere CHAst N. PETERSON MICHEL T. HALBOUTY Usinisity of Utah DAVID 5. POTTER, Vier Chainaam Midel T. Halboury Enessy Co.

Gearsal Moreen Ca% Ret.) SALLY RIDE NEIL L HARL Stamfeed Univerary EARL BEISTLINE lawa Sener Univemry Caanukant JOSEPH L ROSS JAMES C. HUPrr Cm.-__ - " Reesarch Service CHARLES A. BOW 5HER Uniwsuiry of Teasemese Ceneral Aeoouanag OdRee Director JOHN IL CIBBON5 Ceumsil, or indivuluel rnambers thervef.

'I%e views espnesed la sis hemberomad paper are men nessencily those of se Board, OTA AsMme 9

___.-_______._.__________.__.____a_________________--___.-___________________-__._____._______--...__._____..__.m_ -

_ _ _____ . - _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._____________--____.._m

AN EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR MANAGING GREATER-THAN-CLASS-C LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Background Paper October 1988 s

Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment Washington, D.C. 20510-8025

._ . _ _ _ __ __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

h -

j -;

L.

1 l

l Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An Evaluation of Oetions for Manacine

. Gmw-Then-C1 men-C Low-Level Radiaartive Waste. OTA-BP-O-50 October 1988. i Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600589 11 i

i l

l

- 1

Foreword This evaluation of management options for greater-than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radict4dve waste was undertaken at the request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Committee asked that OTA evaluate existing Federal and non-Federal options for GTCC waste storage and disposal. From its analysis, OTA was to develop an integrated management approach to protect public health and safety in the short- and long-term.

The most significant finding of this study deals with the storage of GTCC waste.

Since a disposal facility for GTCC waste will not be available for at least fifteen to twenty years, GTCC waste will have to remain in storage in the meantime. This period of extended storage could be extremely difficult for many OTCC material users and waste generators. OTA has developed a possible approach for addressing these problems.

Other OTA documents covering radioactive waste issues are the reports, Manamine the Nation's Commerein! Minh-Level Radioactive Waste. (1985), Transeorturion of Hanedous Materials. (1986), sad a staff paper, Suhw Disan==l of Hish-Level Rndinactive Waste.

(1986).

This Background Paper on GTCC waste was prepared as part of a broader study on the disposal of Class A, B, and C low-level radioactive waste that will be completed next year.

This latter report will also deal with the disposal of mixed wastes that contain both low-level radioactive and hazardous wastes. The management of hazardous wastes has been addressed in

~

. several OTA_ reports, including Technologies and Man =aament Stratenies for Hn=rdous Waste Control. (1983) and Serious Reduction of Hanedous___ Waste. (1986).

OTA is grateful for the input from the many reviewers of'this report; their comments were invaluable. As with all OTA studies, the content of this report is the sole responsibility of OTA.

h ^

4. Gibbour for l

l iii i

• -o

a-a .

4 OTA Project Staff John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

. Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager 1

Gretchen Head McCabe, Project Director William D. Barnard, Senior Analyst Adelaistratin Staff

~

~

Kathleen A. Bell Sally Van Aller IV

r-i l

I Report Reviewers Written comments were received from the following technical 2xperts:

Karl Amlauer. Holmes Brown Isotope Products Laboratories Afton Associates Dennis Dumas Brian Farrell Dupont, New England Nuclear Edison Electric Institute Joanna Hoelscher Edward Jonarich Citizens for a Better Environment Rogers and Associates Engineering Corp.

Margaret Knecht Donald MacKenzie EGAG Idaho, Inc. Brookhaven National Laboratory William Newberry Alan Rodgers EGAG Idaho, Inc. EG&G Idaho, Inc.

. Gary Roles _ Barry Siskind U.ScNuclear Regulatory Commission Brookhaven National Laboratory NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by all the reviewers of this Background Paper. The reviewers do not, however.

necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this Background Paper. OTA assumes full responsibility for the Background Paper and the accuracy of its contents.

e v

i l

l 1

Contents East Chap ter 1: Seasnary of Fladiass ....... ...... .. ... .. ... . .. . .. . .. .. .... ..... ....................... 1 Background . . . .... ... . . .. . . . . .. . . ... ..._. ...... ...... . .............. I Step 1 - Extended S torage ...................... ... .... ... ... . .. ...... ................ .. ..................... 1 Step 2 - Limited- Access Storage. ........ ........ . . . .. .. .... .......... ... .......... 2 Step 3-Disposal...........................................................................................................2 ]

Issues Requiring Federal Consideration............ .. .. . .. . .. . ... .................... 3 Chapter 2: Bac kgroemd ........ ... . ........ . _ . . .......... .. ................... . 4 Purpose of the S tudy...... .. . .. .. ... .. .. .... - ....... ..... .... . ................. 4 What is GTCC Low- Level Radioactive Waste? ... ... ... .... . .... ... ......................... 4 GTCC Waste Types and Generato rs.... ........ ............. ......... ............................ ... ................... 5 Nuclear utili ties ... . . ..... .. . .... .. .......... .. .. .. .... ................. ..... ......... ........ 5 Fuel manufacture and test facilities . .. .. .. . .. . . ......... .. ................... 5 GTCC sealed source manufacturers and distributors ....... ... ................................. 5 GTCC sealed source users ... .... _. . . . . ........ ....... .... ..... 6 Other generators .. .. .. .. ..... ..... . ... ..... ......... ..................... 6 GTCC Waste Volumes and Radioactivity.. . . ........... .......... ........................... 6 Risks Associated with GTCC Waste . ._........ .. . . ........ . .... ................... 8 Present Problems Associated with GTCC Waste Management .............................................. . .15 Chapter 3: Masasemos t Op tioss............. .... .. .. . ... .... ... . ... .. ........... . .................... I 6 An Evaluation of Storage Options for GTCC Waste . .. ...... .................................................. I 7

-. Daription of storage technologies . . . .... . . . .. .......... ............................... ! 7 .

' Optioiial sto ra g e s i tes .............. ..... ....... ... ....... . ...... ................................................... I 8 An Evaluation of Disposal Options for GTCC Waste ... . .. ... .. ............... ...................... 22 Description of disposal technologies ... .. .......... . . . . ....... ............ ...................... 22 Technical companson of disposal technologies.. . ... ........ .... .... .... ................... 24 Preliminary economic companson of disposal options _.... .................................................. 25 Institutional considerations in choosing a disposal option.. ..... . . ........................................ 28 Summary...............................................................................................29 Chapter 4: A Managessent Approach for GTCC Waste .. .... ........... .............. ....... 3 i Limited- A ccess Storage.... ...... .... .............. ..... . ... ... ................ .. ............... ... 3 2 Extended Storage. ........................................32 Disposal .................................................................................32 Funding Mechan in=n ................... .. .......... . .. ... ._ ... .................. 3 2 References .................................................................................34 A ppendix A. Types of Radioactive Waste . ..... .... . .. .. . .. ..... .. .............................. 3 8 A ppendix B. De fini tio ns ................................... .... ....._..... .......... . ........................................ 3 9 Appendix C. Decommissioning 3 of Nuclear Power Plants............ .................. ........ .............~.... 40 Appendix D. Possible Schedule for Manasing GTCC Waste........................................................... 41 1

i e

1 i

)

Tables and Figures l I

Tables Tabis 1. Approximate Limits for Radionuclides in GTCC Wasto .. . . ........ ............ ..... 9 Table 2. Qualitative Description of Protective Measures for Managing Lo w- Level Radioscrive Waste ..... .............. ... . ..... . .. ................... ............. ......... 1 I Teble 3. Relative Risks from Different Types of Radioactive Waste .............................. ............13 Table 4.. Primary Factors for Comparing Waste Management Options....... ................... .. .........17 Table 5. Preliminary Estimetes of GTCC Waste Disposal Costs.. ....... ... ........ ..... ......... 28 Table 6. Effects of Delayed Decommissioning on the LLW Generated by Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ...... ... ...... . .. ... . ......... ................. ....... 40 Figures Figure 1. Qualitative Comparison of Risks from Different Types of Radioactive Waste .. . . ... ... . ....................... 14 Fiskre 2. Near-Surface Disposal Costs for a Range of LLW Volumes ... ..................... ...... 27 Figure 3. A Manngement Approach for GTCC Wasto...... . . ............ .......... .......................... 31

.uD T .-

I 1

h

• vii

9.

• l l

E_-_-_________________________ _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _. _

1

- CHAPTER 1 j

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS l

l BACKGAOUND I Most commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in the United States is classified as j A, B, or C, with Class C being the most radioactive. Universities, hospitals, nuclear utilities, and various industries generate a small amount of LLW that is more radioactive than Class C ,

weste, termed greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) waste. Several thessand GTCC material users and i waste generators, most of which are small, such as academic laboratories and small radiography firms, are carrently forced to store this waste on-site because se options are available for off-site storage or disposal. Many generators argue that their on-site storage capacity is shnnking and that over the next decade or so they will have no capacity remaining. Although no deaths have been reported from accidents involving GTCC waste in this country, the relatively high levels of its radioactivity demand that management options is made available to ensure that public health and safety are protected.

In the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), the Federal Government (presumably the Department of Energy (DOE)) is directed to develop a disposal plan for GTCC waste. No such plan, however, has been developed. In response to this legislative mandate, DOE issued a report in 1987 focusing pnmarily on GTCC waste characteristics, including present and projected volumes. DOE decided to defer proposing a disposal plan until it had completed analyzing various disposal options.

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has evaluated options for managing GTCC waste and concludes that so disposal facility, regardless of the technology used, is expected to be available for GTCC waste for at least fifteen to twenty years. During this time, problems could arise if an off-site storage option is not usade available for some GTCC waste generators that have limited on-site storage capacity.

In its 1987 report, DOE tentatively committed the Federal Government to accept GTCC waste for storate by 1939, presumably at an existing DOE facility. There are questions, however, about the propriety of storing commercial GTCC waste at an unlicensed DOE facility i used primarily for defense waste. With few exceptions, commercial radioactive waste has been stored at facilities that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Comminion (NRC) or Agreement States. Legally, commercial GTCC waste must also be disposed of in an NRC-licensed facility.

DOE is presently awaiting guidance from Congress on this licensing issue.

Congress has drafted some legislation dealing with the management of GTCC waste, but no hearings have been held. The following 3-step management approach was developed by OTA to supplement these efforts.

STEP 1 - EXTENDED STORAGE Since a disposal facility for GTCC waste will require at least 15 to 20 years to develop, GTCC waste will have to remain in storage until at least 2010 and potentially much longer.

The NRC may need to update its packaging and storage guidance for GTCC waste considering the likelihood of a few decades of extended storage.

It is likely that off-site storage capacity will be needed, especially for small and/or financially unstable GTCC waste generators. Given the open-ended period during which GTCC waste will have to be stored, it is unlikely that States (which under the LLRWPAA of 1985 are 1

not responsible for GTCC waste disposal) or private companies would be anxious to independently accept the liabilities associated with storing this waste. They would have to charge sufficiently high storage fees which may not be affordable to many generators.

Therefore, the Federal Government (presumably DOE) will probably need to provide this off-site storage capacity for GTCC waste generators.

During the next three decades, between 10,000 and 20,000 cubic feet of packaged waste

-- a volume equivalent to four to eight tractor trailers -- is projected to need off-site storage.

OTA estimates that several years would be required to develop a storage facility for this waste, assamlag that it would be NRC-licensed.

STEP 2 -- LfMITED-ACEM STORAGE Some generators of GTCC waste, especially small compaales, may need access to a small assomat of off-site storage capacity before se estesdad-storage fac!!!ty could be available.

Sufficient capecity may need to be only a few thousand cubic feet.

GTCC radioactive sealed sources pose a particular concern. Sealed sources are small radiation sources containing granulu of radioactive material that are sealed inside capsules ranging from 0.3 inches to 20 inches long. Several thesanad GTCC sealed soareas are now belas used in a wide variety of tools (e.g., gauges used to check pipe welds) and machines (e.g.,

cancer therapy machines) throssboet the United States. Over the last 25 years the theft and improper handilag of sealed sources has been responsible for about IS deaths la foreign constries and several serloes radiation burns la the United States.

Once a sealed source becomes obsolete, a user may try and return it to the manufacturer.

The manufacturer will generally refuse to accept the sealed source unless it can be recycled economically. Many sealed source users, however, may not have appropriate facilities for extended, on-site storage. Furthermore, some companies possessing GTCC material and/or waste may gTLout of business before an extended storage or a disposal facility is available.

To reduce the potential for GTCC accidents is the United States, the Federal Government could provide liasited access to existlag storage capacity such as se unlicensed, DOE storage fac!!!ty. Some accidents could also be avoided by adding a deposit-return fee to the price of sealed sources. For example, some portion of this fee would be returned to a user when it returned its obsolete sealed source to the manufacturer. The remainder of the fee would be kept by the manufacturer to fund its recycling or storage and eventual disposal of the sealed source.

Although it is impossible to predict whether a GTCC waste accident might occur in this country, the political repercussions of such an accident for the Federal Government could be especially significant if the accident were linked to the Government's inability to accept GTCC waste for storage or disposal.

STFP 3 - DISPOSAL The losgevity of risk and the radioactivity associated with most GTCC waste is siellar to that of defense high-level waste (HLW). Furthermore, once utilities begin to refurbish or decommission their nuclear plants, more than half of GTCC wastes' activity will be contributed by radionuclides (primarily nickel-63) with half-lives 100 years or longer. The Federal Governament is currently plasslag to use a deep-geologic repository for the disposal of defense HLW.

If a decision about the disposal of GTCC waste were required today, a conserystive approach would be to permanently isolate the waste la a deep-geologic repository, as has been 2

.l

1 l

proposed for commercial spent feel and defense HLW. It is posible, however, that further j research'and analysis could demonstrate that other disposal alternatives would be acceptable. I such as deep-angered holes or an intennediate-depth repository. Near-surface disposal alternatives, such as buried concrete vaults, would probably provide waste isolation for periods of a few hundred years but probably not for the few thousand years needed for much GTCC .j waste.

The volume of GTCC waste is probably set large eseash to justify the ecosomic or lastitutiemal costs associated with devoleplas a separata disposal facility, regardless of the techselegy used. The projected volume of GTCC waste that will be generated through the year 2020 wouM probably occupy much less than 1 percent of the proposed repository for commercial spent fuel and defense HLW. Preliminary calculations also indicate that the costs associated with using this large repository for GTCC wasts would Se comparable to, or perhaps even less than, costs associated with daveloping a small disposal facility only for GTCC waste.

The proposed repository for commercial spent fuel and defense KLW could be operationsa

> in fifteen to twenty years if the site now being lavestiested ag Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is found suitable and no unforeseen legal or procedural delays are encountered. This time estimate could be extended by another t*o decades if the Yucca Mountain site is found unsuitable and another repository site must be located. Even if another technology were chosen for GTCC waste disposal, history indicates that it would still require about five years to select that technology, and another ten to fifteen years to design, site, and license a separate facility.

Although a decision to use the Yucca Mountain repository for GTCC waste disposal could be made now, DOE must still determine whetht:r such use of the repository would have unacceptable environmental or institutional impacts on the repository's overall operation and performance. DOE could concentrate its efforts on this analysis over the next year or two. If

~

it appears that no such impacts would occur, DOE could decide to use the repository for GTCC waste. In contrast, if it appears that unacceptable impacts would occur or repository disposal would be more expensive than other disposal alternatives, DOE could then evaluate o'aer disposal options for GTCC waste disposal. In weighing the advantages and disadvantages associated with using the Yucca Mountain repository, it is important to consider the institutional and political difficulties associated with siting a separate GTCC waste disposal facility, regardless of its size or type.

ISSUES REOUIRING CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION There are several issues that will need to be addressed by Congress. The first five issues l

may best be addressed through hearings and oversight; the last may require legislation. These issues involve:

o Ensuring institutional control over sealed sources.

o Ensuring the adequacy of packaging and storage guidance for extended storage at GTCC l - wasts generation sites, o Verifying and reviewing the need for limited access to Federal storagt, apacity for GTCC waste, and clarifying DOE's role in providing such storage.

o Verifying and reviewing the need for extended Federal storage for GTCC waste, and i

clarifying DOE's role in providing such storage.

I o Developing technical and non-technical criteria and specifications on the use of Federal storage capacity for GTCC waste, o Determining the need for NRC-licensing of any Federal facilities used to store commercial GTCC waste.

The sequence and possible activities involving GTCC waste management are presented in Appendix D.

3 L _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - b

1 1

Chapter 2 BACKGROUND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY No disposal facility is present!'

y available for greater-than-cms-C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and some waste generators claim to be rug:.ing out of on-si:e storage capacity. Through the Low-Level Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), the Federal Government (i.e., the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) was made responsible for disposing of GTCC waste. In accordance with this legislation, DOE published a report in February 1937 entitled Recommendations for Mannaement of Greater-Than-Class-C l Low-Level Radioactive Wasta. This report focused primarily on the types and quantities of l GTCC waste and regulatory needs; there was little analysis of disposal options for this waste. l DOE plans to select a disposal technology within the neat several years after evaluating disposal )

alternatives.

Without knowing disposal requirements or when a disposi facility will be available,  !

GTCC waste generators have difficulty estimating their storage needs and designing waste packages for both storage and disposal Congress therwfore asked OTA to analyse different management options and to develop an integrated management approach for GTCC waste.

Before presenting this analysis, we provide some background information on GTCC waste and the factors that are most important in safely managing it. Finally, we present an analysis of different management options by comparing them to technologies that are or will be used to store and dispose of other types of radioactive waste.

Since cancerns about managivg GTCC waste have been raised only within the last few years,1 very little information on this type of LLW has been published. DOE's February 19E7 report, cited above, is the only report published on the subject. A few papers on GTCC waste have also been presented at conferences on radioactive waste management. Additional information used in this analysis was obtained from reports and papers that deal with all types of radioactive waste, letters and memos from Federal agencies, and communications with personnel working in this and other related areas of radioactive waste management.

WHAT IS GTCC LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 7 Low-level radacective waste is defined in the LLRWPAA of 1985 by what it is not, rather than by what it is. LLW includes radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste (HLW) from reprocessing spent fuel or uranium mill tailings. These types of radioactive waste are defined generally in Appendix A; special terms relating to radioactive

. waste are defined generally in Appendix B.

The NRC has developed a classification system for commercial LLW based on its relative danger to human health and safety. This system establishes three classes of LLW -- A, B, and .

C -- with Class C being generally the most radioactive and/or long-lived of these three classes.

Tables and procedures for classifying LLW are provided in Title 10 of the Code of Feders!

1 GTCC waste has only existed since 1983 when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's classification system was established (10 CFR 61).  !

4 1

4 p -

I Regulations Part 61 (10 CFR 61). LLW that is more radioactive and/or long-lived than Class C is called greater-than-class C (GTCC) waste.

GTCC WASTE TYPES AND GENERATORS l GTCC waste comes from the full range of typical LLW generators including: nuclear utilities, hospitals, universities, and various industries (e.g., pharmaceutical manufacturers and .

radiography firms). The GTCC wasta produced by these generators is briefly described below.

A. Nuclear Utilitian GTCC wasta can be generated during reactor operations and during reactor dismantling, called decommissioning. Operational waste can include non-fuel reactor core components (e.g.,

control rods), neutron sources required for reactor start-up, fission chambers, and spent ion-exchange resins and sludges containing high levels of radioactivity from coolant and fuel pool cleanup activities. When nuclear power plants wear out or become uneconomical to operate, they will be refurbished or shut down and eventually decommissioned. Most GTCC waste from refurbishing and deco ==imianing will be activated metals, such a sainless steel core shrouds that separate the reactor core from the reactor vessel (Knecht,1988 and NRC,1934a).

B. Fuel Manufacture and Test Facilities In the past, fuel fabrication facilities used plutonium in advanced fuel research and ,

development. All of theos facilities have either been deco ==imianed or are in the process of )

being decommissioned. Since the Federal Government frequently sponsors the activities at these '

facilities, most facility operators have contractual arrangements to transfer much of their GTCC wastes to DOE for storage and disposal (NRC,1984a).

Three companies currently operate test facilities that sample and enrnine reactor fuels. I q

- The wastaa.from these facilities consist of solidified aqueous waste; activated metals in the form J of contaminated equipment, cladding, and metal cuttings; and other solid wastes such as glassware and resins (Knecht,1938). Much of these wastes contain enough transuranic radionuclides to exceed Class C Limits and, therefore, would be classified as GTCC. In addition, some GTCC wastes are likely to contain hazardous chemicals (NRC,1984a; DOE, 1987a).

C. GTCC Sealed Source Manufacturers and Distributors GTCC sealed sources are small radiation sources containing granules cf radioactive material that are sealed inside capsules. Sealed sources are physically small; they range from 0.3 inches to 20 inches long. These sources ue used in density and moisture gauges, well-logging equipment, radiography devices, X-ray fluorescence tubes, and static eliminators. For example, radiography firms check the integrity of pipe welds unang instruments containing sealed sources.

The activity of GTCC sealed sources can range from a few curies to several thousand curies.

, Common radionuclides used in GTCC sealed sources are americium-241; cesium-137, strontium-90, plutonium-238, and plutonium-239 (Knecht,1988 and NRC 1984a).

Some GTCC sealed sources can be recycled by their original manufacturer, especially if the user is willing to purchase a replacement source. A whole sealed source that was of high-activity can sometimes be reused in an instrument requiring a lower-activity source, or the  :

material inside a sealed source can sometimes be recycled by repackaging it in a new source.  !

3 See 47 Federal Renister 248 (Dec. 27,1982).

3 Sealed sources can also contain radium-226 -- a radionuclides that is not regulated by the Federal Government.

5

1 Lower-activity sources are generally more difficult to recycle. The 40 or so manufacturers of '

sealed sources in this country are unlikely to accept obsolete sealed sources from their customers . -

if recycling is uneconomical (DOE,1987a).

Manufacturers of sealed sources often possess contaminated equipment resulting from processing sealed sources. This equipment, which can exceed Class C limits, is often bulky and j difficult for manufacturers to store.'

D. GTCC Sealed Source Users GTCC sealed sources are used by industries, universities, colleges, hospitals, and other medical institutions conducting research and development. For example, GTCC sealed sources are used both to diagnose and to treat certain diseases, such as cancer. A NRC or Agreement State licenses is required to manufacture, distribute, possess, and use GTCC sealed sources, but individual sources are not licensed.

The NRC estimates that there may be 25,000 to 30,000 GTCC sealed sources now in use in the United States (NRC,1988b). Most of these sealed sources will be recycled rather than disposed. The NRC estimates that by the year 2020 there may be about 4,000 GTCC sealed

' sources being held for disposal by u many as 3 000 licensees (NRC,1988b).'

E. Other Generators Some companies use carbon-14 as a tracer in manufacturing specialty chemicals for biological and chemical research. Some waste from these processes is GTCC waste. GTCC waste can also result from decontaminating out-dated facilities from other commercial operations. Such clean-up activities can generate contanunated soil, trash, and ion-exchange resins.

GTCC WASTE VOLUMM AND RADIOACITVTTY i (At the end of 1985, about 14,000 cubic feet of packaged GTCC waste had been generated; l this waste is isow in on-site storage.7 For comparison, this volume is equivalent to about 6 i tractor trailers. The present rate of GTCC waste production is about 1.400 cubic feet of packaged GTCC waste per year.s For comparnon, about 1.8 million cubic feet of Class A, B, and C LLW was shipped for disposal to Barnwell, South Carolina; Richland, Washington; and  !

Beatty, Nevada in 1987. This annual volume of A, B, and C waste is over 100 times greater than GTCC waste's annual volume.

By 2020, the total volume of packaged, untreated GTCC waste is projected to be about 170,000 cube feet.' About 60 percent of this volume -- 105,000 cubic feet, which is equivalent to 40 tractor trailers -- is projected to be produced when nuclear power plants are

• ' K. Amlauer, President of Isotope Products Laboratories (a small radioisotope producer in Burbank, California), personal communication, Sept.1988.

s A State that wishes to regulate the radioactive material licensees in its state can apply to the NRC for Agreement State status. Such States have to demonstrate that their regulations are equivalent to or more restrictive than the NRC's regulations. There are 29 States that have received Agreement State status, a About one-third are NRC licensees; about two-thirds are licensed by Agreement States.

7 These are.the most recent data on waste volumes from M. Knecht, EGAG (DOE contractor),

l personal communication, September 1988. '

8 M. Knecht, EG&G (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988. -

' M. Knecht, EG&G (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988.

6 l

m

--- --_-_-_--.__m_ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

shut down and decommissioned or refurbished for use beyond their licensed operation period."

Reactor refurbishing will probably generate about the same amount of GTCC waste as decommissioning. The remaining 40 percent of the total volume -- about 65,000 cubic feet, which is equivalent to 25 tractor trailers -- will be generated by all activities other than the

- refurbishing or decomminianing of nuclear reactors.

According to DOE's 1937 GTCC report, decomminianing or refurbishing of reactors will begin around 2000 and increase significantly within the following decade (DOE,1937a). For those reactors that are shut down, rather than refurbished, decommissioalas may be delayed, perhaps until the middle of the 21st century (see Appendix C). Putting a reactor in storage for s 30 to 50 years -- commonly referred to u SAFESTOR -- will significantly decrease both the volume and the radioactivity of LLW produced. GTCC wasm generation, therefore, may peak around 2015, but the peak may not be as large as predicted by DOE (1937a). Furthermore, the GTCC waste volumes from decommimioning and/or refurbishing may be spread over a considerable period after 2015 (EPRI,1937).

There is some uncertainty associated with GTCC waste volume projections. Due to packaging and treatment procedures, waste volumes can both increase and decrease. Waste generators, for example, could decide to melt down certain contaminated metals which would decrease voids in packaging containers and reduce volumes. Furthermore, some generators (e.g.,

utilities) may package a small volume of GTCC waste with very low-activity LLW, thus reducing the average activity of a package's volume to Class C, Class B, or even Class A limits.

This technique greatly increases wasta volumes, but may make it possible to generate very little GTCC waste during decommissioning or refurbishing of some nuclear power plants.

Given the expected long-term storage period, GTCC waste may need to be repackaged for further storage and/or disposal Such repackaging may increase waste volumes significantly, but it is'not clear. It is assumed in this report that packaging will generally increase waste volumes by about 7 for wastes generated by decommissioning or refurbishing nuclear power plants and by about 5 times for all other GTCC waste.

Even though the volume of GTCC waste that will be generated in the United States is small, its radioactivity is very high relative to other classes of LLW. By the end of 1985, the radioactivity of all GTCC waste in storage was about 4.5 million curies.11 For comparison, this is more than three times the radioactivity of ali other commercial LLW that was disposed of by the end of 1935.

Much radioactivity in GTCC waste is contributed by cobalt-60 which has a 5.3 year half-life. Cobal:-60, by itself, is never GTCC because of its short half-life. When cobalt-60 is associated with enough longer-lived radionuclides, the wasta has to be classified as GTCC.

Cobalte60 cannot normally be separated out of this wasts. The overall radioactivity of GTCC waste containing significant quantities of cobalt-60 will decay substantially in about 50-60 years.

The cumulative radioactivity of all GTCC waste generated by 2020 is projected to rise to 80 million curies. Over 99 percent of this activity (and the heat output from the waste) will be produced by nuclear power plants.ts ,

MM. Knecht, EG&G Idaho, Inc. (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988.

11 M. Knecht, EG&G Idaho, Inc. (DOE contractor), personnal communication, September 1988. i is M. Knecht EG&G (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988.

7

--a__ --____----,----_-------_-------__a- _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - , - - - - - -

l RISKS ASSOCIATED WrTH GTCC WASTE To safely manage GTCC waste, it is essential to understand the risks associated with the waste. These risks can be significant because of the thousands of potential GTCC waste generators and the waste's high concentrations of radioactivity. In deterraining whether a )

particular type of radioactive waste will pose significant risks to humans and the environment, a '!

variety of interrelated factors can be considered: the overall concentration of the radionuclides per unit of waste relative to their concentration in the environment, the half-lives of the radionuclides in the waste, the types of radiation emitted, the best generated by the waste, and potential pathways to human exposure.

Exposure pathways can be short-term or long-term; each affects humans differently.

' There is a great deal of uncertainty about the biological damage caused by a particular exposure to radiation, especially from long-term, low-level exposures (National Research Council,1980).

Short term exposure of workers can occur during weste generation, processing, transportation, or disposal. Short-term exposure of the public can occur if there is an accident during any one of these management stages. Long-term exposure of the public can occur if there is any release and off-site migration of radionuclides from buried radioactive waste by ground water to a j drinking water source. Inadvertent intruders of a disposal site could also suffer from short- or long-term exposure.

The NRC weighed all the interrelated factors mentioned above in establishing three classes of LLW (A, B, and C). Because of the different risks posed by various radionuclides, each of the three classes of LLW has different concentration limits for different radionuclides.

Generally speaking, if the concentrations of radionuclides in a commercial generator's waste exceed the limits listed in Table 1 and the waste is not spent fuel, the waste is considered GTCC.ta If waste contains alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides that have half-lives exceeding 5-years and are in concentrations exceeding 100 nanocuries per gram, the waste is also considered GTCC.14 There are no defined upper limits on the concentration of radionuclides for GTCC waste.

l l

L . 1 1:

If there are two or more radionuclides in a waste, the sum of fraction rule [10 CFR 14 61.55(s)(7)) must be used to determine the class of the waste.

Transt,ranic radionuclides with concentrations less than 100 nanocuries per gram are considered Class A or Class C LLW, depending on the radionuclides's concentration.

8

I 1

1 I

Table 1. Approximate Limits for Radionuclides la GTCC Waste Radionuclides Minimum Concentration Half-Life (cunes per cubic foot) (years)

Nn-lived Strontium-90 200 30 Cesium-137 130 30 Nickel-63 20 100 Nickel-63 in activated metal 200 100

)

Lons-lived Carbon-14 0.2 5,800 Carbon-14 in activated metal 2 5,800 Nickel-59 in activated metal 6 75,000 Niobium-94 in activated metal 0.006 20,000 Technetium-99 0.08 210,000 Iodine-129 0.002 16,000,000 l l

Alohn emitrine transuranic nuclides

}

with hair-life arenter than 5 venrs 100 nanocuries per gram

~

P!htonium-741 3,500 nanocuries per gram Curium-242 20,000 nanocuries per gram Source: Adapted from Tables 1 and 2 from 10 CFR 61.55 GTCC waste can be extremely dangerous, even lethal, if not handled properly. Although l low. radiation doses usually produce few if any short-term effects, the following examples i illustrate the potential danger associated with higher radiation doses from radioactive material.

(1) In 1987, a sealed source -- the size of a paint can and containing 1400 curies of cesium-137 -- was stolen from a cancer therapy machine located in an abandoned clinic in Brar.il. Within one month, four people had died and 54 others were hospitalized for varying

, lengths of time. People known to be contaminated wers shunned by their communities.

Conenminated buildings, vehicles, and furniture had to be decontaminated or taken into custody (Anderson,1987 and Roberts,1987).

(2) In 1962, a boy living in Mexico found an abandoned, pencil-sized radiography gauge containing a highly radioactive, broken, sealed source. The boy played with the gauge and took it home. The boy's mother then found the gauge and placed it on the kitchen shelf for several more weeks. The boy died shortly thereafter and over the next few months three coher members of his family also died (Marshall,1984 and West,1984).

(3) A California man unknowingly exposed himself to excessive levels of radiation in 1979 l when he placed a 29-curie sealed source in his back pocket for about 45 minutes. An initial l 9 i

i .,

)

l 1

reddening of the skin under the pocket eventually became an open wound about 4 inches in~ l diameter and almost an inch deep. Despite two subsequent skin grafts, the wound had still not healed compassely nineteen months after the accident. In a similar accident in the 1970s, both less of an Argentine man had to be amputated after receiving excessive doses of radiation from a sealed source he had been carrying in his front pant's pocket (NRC,1936a), j In this country, protective measures (listed in Table 2), requ' ired to prevent such exposure to radioactive material over the short- and long-term are esablished by the EPA, NRC, and the UJ. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the form of sandards, regulations, and guidance.

Short-term risks are addressed through standards and regulations for worker exposure, packaging, storage, and transportation. For example, it is estimated that about 60 to 75 percent of all GTCC waste emits levels of radiation that warrant remote rather than contact handling by workers (Knecht,1983).

Long-term risks are addressed through EPA standards and NRC disposal facility regulations that address environmental considerations, waste sability, and facility design. Table 2 lists some of these protective measures. Due to the magnitude and longevity of the risks l associated with most GTCC waste, near-surface disposal used for Class A, B, and C LLW is generally not acceptable for GTCC waste.18 i

l I

i Is 10 CFR 61.55(aX4Xiv) 10

Table 2. Qualitative Description of Protective Measures for Managing Low-Level Radioactive Wute Anninst short-term naks Amminst lona-term risks nnor to disnosal after disnosal

1. Worker regulations cad standards 1. Environmental considerations:

- limited exposure - minimi= water infiltration

- film badges for measuring (ground water depth & flow, exposure amount of rainfall)

- geologic sability

2. Packaging regulations 2. Waste sability A facility design '!

- labels - packaging requirements

- protective shielding if needed - barriers to environment (e.g., depth of disposal,

3. Storage guidelines an intruder barrier, and a stable cap on the facility)

4. Transportation regulations and - environmental monitoring program standards - buffer zone

. 3 packaging design (e.g., labeling and ,

~ stat illtf and shielding if needed) 3. Institutional control factors

- manatest forms for tracking waste (e.g., fences, signs, and a packages site closure plan)

- trucking and train transport - Government ownership of regulations and standards (e.g., sites for routing and driver training)

Sources: Adapted from:

10 CRF 20 (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) 10 CFR 61 (Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste) 49 CFR 171,172,173,177 (Radioactive Materials; Routing and Driver Training Requirements)

I1

- _m. ___m _. _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . .

1 To evalunas the management of GTCC waste, as compared to other types of radioactive -

waste, two primary factors were used: 1) the concentration of radioactivity in the waste, and 2) the length of time that the waste poses a significant risk to humans, or the longevity of risk.

~

l These two femors help policy makers to qualitatively undersand the relationships between the various typc 2 radioactive waste. Table 3 and Figure 1 are based on this analysis. 1 Table 3 illustrates that the average concentration of radioactivity in GTCC waste is closest to that of defense HLW and higher than any type of commercial mdioactive waste except spent

! fuel. As of 1985, the average concentration of radioactivity in GTCC waste was 300 curies per cubic foot. If the activity from all short-lived radionuclides (e.g., cobalt-60) was ignored, this concentration would drop to about 50 curies per cubic foot. By 2020, GTCC waste's average concentration is projected to increase significantly to about 2500 curies per cubic foot. If all short-lived radionuclides were again ignored, this concentration would drop to about 1500 curies. This concentration of radioactivity will be much higher than it is today because by 2020 more than half of GTCC waste activity will be contributed by radionuclides (primarily nickel-

63) with half-lives of 100 years or longer.18 i 1

i l

l 18 M. Knecht, EG&G Idaho, Inc. (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988.

12 4

i ena+

.. ._.-____-_-_m._.m_ _._ _m.____. __ _

I l

Table 3. Relative Risks from Different Types of Radioactive Wate Average Concentration *

(C1/ cubic foot)

Waste tyne End of 1985 2Q2R Relative lonnevity of risk Spent fuel 200,000(1) 100,000(1) Ten thousand years h High-level waste 100(1) 100(1) Hundreds to few (defense) thousand yearst

)

Transuranic waste 0.2(1) 1(1) Few to several (defense) thousand years' Greater-than- 300(8) 2,500(8) Hasdreds to few Class-C waste

• themanad years' Low-level waste Total commercial 0.l(1) 0.1(1)

Class C 7 (tas) Few 100 to 500 years d Class B 2 (tes) Few 100 years d Class A - 0.l(tes) Less than 100 years'

• Much of the initial radioactivity associated with GTCC waste is due to short-lived radionucildes (e.g., cobalt-60). By 2020, more than half of its radioactivity will be contributed by long-lived radionuclides (e.g.,

nickel-63).

• Average concentrations for waste in storage or shipped for disposal.

b Semi-quantitat ve approximation of longevity of risk based on the half-life of the radionuclides in the waste, and EPA standards for radioactive waste disposal.

• Semi-quantitative approvi==tian of longevity of risk based on the half-life of radionuclides in the waste relative to EPA standards for radioactive waste disposal.

d Semi-qualitative approximation of longevity of risk based on NRC 10 CFR 61 regulations for LLW.

Sources:

1) U.S. Department of Energy, Inteersted Darm Base for 1987 Soent Fuel and Radionetive Waste Inventories. Projections mad Charsetaristian DOE /RW-0006, Rev. 3 (Washington, D.C.: September 1987).

2) Knecht, M., EG&G (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988.

3) U.S. Department of Energy, The 1986 State-by-State Aewament of the Low-Level Radionetive Waste Received at Commercial Disnosal Sites. National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE /LLW 66T, December 1987.

13

4 I

Figure i shows a qualitative plot of Table 3. The average concentration of radioactivity is )

plotted agaiset the average longevity of risk associated with different categories of radioactive I waste. With regards to these two factors. GTCC waste shares characteristics that are most similar to defense HLW. One important difference between these two wastes is that much of GTCC waste activity will be from long-lived nickel-63, which is slow to migrate because it will be costalaed in activated metals, while defense HLW activity is from shorter-lived radionuclides (e.g., cesium-137 and strontium-90), which are generally more snobile.

Figure 1. Qualitative Comparison of Relative Riska from Different Types of Radioactive Waste Relative Average Concentration of Radioactivity Low High

=

One Hundred Class A LLW Class B LLW (commercial)

Class C LLW I Relative -

HLW GTCC Longevity (defense) (commercial) of Risk (years)

Ten Transuranic waste Spent fuel thousand (defense (commercial)

. U l Source: OTA l

1 14

_ _ - _ ~ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - -

l l

)

PRESENT PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH GTCC WASTE MANAGEMENT The DOE has deferred a decision about GTCC waste disposal pending further analysis of various disposal technologies. The NRC suff has published a proposed amendment to 10 CFR 61 that would require the disposal of GTCC waste in a deep-seologic repository, unless the DOE develops another licensable option (Federal Reaister. May 1938). The deep-geologic repository for comunercial spent fuel and defense HLW will not be available, however, for fifteen to twenty years. If another disposal technology were chosen, it would require a similar i length of time to develop a separate facility for GTCC waste disposal The major concera is the storage of this waste until a disposal facility can be made available. Specifically, potential storage problems include: 1) the management of sealed sources, '

2) GTCC material users phasing out operations that use this material and needing off-site storage capacity,3) the increasing number of GTCC waste generators that expect to exhaust their on-site storage capacity during this period,4) the potential for waste packages to degrade during this period.

In its 1987 report on GTCC waste, DOE tentatively committed the Federal Government to accept GTCC waste within the next two years for storage at an u yet unspecified facility.

Considering this time frame, this facility would presumably be an existing, DOE storage facility, all of which are galiggaand to ensure national security of defense operations. There is some question in Congress whether an unlicensed facility would be appropriate for commercial GTCC waste.

These problems and options for managing GTCC waste are discussed in the following section.

5 ~

O G

h O

e 15 Amm _.-. _ ____m__ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

q Chapter 3 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 9 ace sonne GTCC waste remains potentially dangerous for a few thousand years, it must be s ely disposed of in a mannar that protects future populations and the environment. The analysis provided in this section indicates that an approprmte disposal facility for GTCC waste will not be available for at least 15 to 20 years. Furthermore, GTCC waste generators cannot prepare their waste for disposal bonuse no disposal technology has been chosen. Instead, they must prepare their waste for storage, and may have to repackage it later for disposal Until a disposal facility is available, GTCC waste must be safety stored to avoid n=- y worker exposure and h==dling accidents that could subsequently contaminate the environment and harm the armeral patud=*iaa Sinos GTCC waste storate is the most immediate problem now fac:sg waste gererators and policy makers, several storage opttons are analyzed to determine their ability to acco==adata GTCC wests over the next two decades. Disposal options for GTCC waste are then analynod by comparing them with the disposal technologies chosen for o*ber types of radioactive waste. Finay, an integrated approach for managing GTCC westr. over the short-and long-term is presented.

The *mehnical and institutional factors listed in Table 4 are used to compare various storage and disposal options in a qualitative manner. The factors within each of the two categories are generally ranked according to their relative importance, but no attempt was made to weight them. These factors are ,used in somewhat different ways for storage and disposal.

STORAGE: The analysis in the storage discussion indicates that GTCC waste can be safely stored for several decedes if it is safely packaged and stored under appropriate cceditions. Thus, the major haue for the Federal Government does not involve

]

determining what technologies to use, but which sites to use: a facility constructed and maintained on-site by the waste genierator or sons other off-site facility. The J technical and institutions'. factors listed in Table 4 are used to qualitatively compare on- and off-site storage facil' ties.

DISPOSAL: Since the long-term safety associated with GTCC waste disposal depends l

largely on the disposal technology choser., technical factors are giveu primary emphasis and used to evalaans three generic disposal technologiac near-surface disposal, int.. '-^^ f+?th disposal, and disposal in a deep-geologic repository. Economic and fami'm*=aa=1 factors are then used to evaluate disposal of GTCC waste either at a ampaman facility for GTCC waste or at a currently proposed facility (e.g., the deep-geologic repcsitory for spent fuel and defense HLW).

l .

16 m.

L- _ :'a----_-_-.--- . _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - . - .

\

Table 4. Primary Factors for Comparing Waste Management Options TECHNICAL FACTORS:

• Pubile health and safety risks

• Worker safety risks

• Environmental risks

• Transportation risks INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS:

• Timeliness in meeting the general intent of LLRWPAA -- having the Federal Government responsible for finding a safe disposal option for all GTCC waste

• Availability of adequate funding and institutional stability to ensure safe storage and disposs!

• Ease of facility siting (e.g., acquiring land and finding local support)

• Cost Source: OTA AN EVALUATION OF STORAGE OPTIONS FOR GTCC WASTE nere is a rather wide spectrum of facilities having varying levels of protection that can be used to store GTCC waste. The most appropriate storage technology depends primarily on the type and radioactivity of GTCC waste, and the expected storage time.

A. Desertation of Stornae Technologies 5 The ~most basic storage facilities for radioactive wasts are unshielded prefabricated-fabricated structures or fenced-in outdoor concrete or asphalt pads, which are sometimes covered to shed precipitation. Some companies simply store their GTCC material and waste in the basements of their buildings. Shielded coacrets storage modules or bunkers with removable covers may slao be located on company property at a distance from workers. The most elaborate storage facilities are permanent steel frame buildings or reinforced concrete structures.

To prevent corrosion of the waste containers, some of these facilities are equipped to monitor and strictly control the indoor storage conditions, such as temperature and humidity (Siskind, 1935; Siskind,1936).

To ensure public health and safety GTCC waste must be properly prepared for extended storage. In chocains packaging matcrials, for example, a generator needs to assume thra the waste may remain in storage for at least two decades. Like other types of packaged LLW, GTCC waste conuiners may corrode externally if indoor clin.atic conditions are not controlled during extended storage.- Chemical reactions within the waste can produce liquids that could internally corrode containers; degrading organic wastes can scnerate pressurized gases, and cause unvented containers to breech or explode. If individual unvented containers are breached, stacked containers could collapse (Siskind,1985; Siskind,1936).

While GTCC waste is in extended storage, an adequate monitoring system will be needed to detect packages that may be deteriorating. Once degradati6n occurs, the GTCC waste will need to be repackaged, which could elevate worker exposures and contaminate the environment.

Inadequate administrative practices during extended storage can also result in contamination problems. For example, a combination of poor record keeping, illegible packaging labels and r>ersonnel changes, can result in loss of control over GTCC waste.

17

1 Since the controls required for radiation protection and accident prevention tend to increase as the intended storage periods increase, the storage condideas, and meeltories and -

ad=latatradve procedares new used for most GTCC waste may have to be sparaded to accommodate estended storage. To ensure public health and safety in light of current uncertainties over the availability of a disposal facility the NRC and Agreennest States may need to update their packaging guidance and storage regulations ass == lag several decades of extended storage.

j B. Ontional Storman Sitas 4 Ontions for providing on-site extended storage, off-site extended storage, and limited-access to off-site storage are analyzed in the following discussion. The techascal and institutional factors listed in Table 4 are used in this analysis.

l

1. GTCC wasta sternae at its maneration sitan )

At present, GTCC materials and wastes are being stored on-site by a few thousand asers I and generators, the majority of wklek are smau companies. On-site storage places the fbancial burden and liability fer waste storage on the mers and waste generators. The main concerns about on-site storage involve human health and safety and the potential for environmental con +==ia=*= if storage is not conducted properly. This is especiaHy true for the seau GTCC material users and waste generators that poseses sealed sources.

Surveys mailed to some 14,000 potential GTCC waste generators by a DOE-contractor and l an informal telephone survey by OTA indicate that GTCC waste generators will have lacrosslag l problems developlag es-site storage capaalty ever the sent few decades. Some generators, especially small companies, argue that their present on-site storage capacity cannot be expanded j because of costs and limitations on the physical size of their property. Although such claims by I waste generators seem reasonable, they are difficult to verify. Some generators may have overestimated their storage problems with the hope that more attention would be focused on  ;

their need for a disposal facility. Nonetheless, the availability of unused on-site storage capacity for GTCC waste wiu decrease as the length of time required to develop a digmul facility increases. i The problem of <llainiehias on-site storage capacity for GTCC waste may also be much worse than it now appears for several reasons. First, thousands of users of GTCC material and sealed-source were not included in the DOE-contractor survey. Second, some generators that may be nearing the limits of their material licenses may have underreported their projected inventories. Third, some generators, especiauy small companies, may go out of business over the next few decades before a disposal facility is available to accept their waste. In such a situation, the Federal Goversunent could be left responsible for storing the watte and protecting public health and safety and the environment i

2. Off-site extended storane Over the next 30 years about 65,000 cu%ic feet -- equivalent te about 25 tractor trailers ]

-- of GTCC waste is projected to be generated.17 The DOE-contracer survey indicated that by 2020 generators will posses about 14,000 cubic feet -- eguivalent to about 5 tractor trailers --

of packaged GTCC waste that cannot be stored on-site. Since not all generstbr: responded to I the survey, and the survey did not include sealmi source users, this figure may be low. OTA estimates that the volums of waste that may require off-site storage could be as much as 20,000 )

17 M. Knecht, EG&G (DOE contractor), personal communication, September 1988. j 18 M. Knecht, EG&G (DOE contractor), personal communication September 1988. 1 1

18

)

cubic feet of packaged waste.8

' For several reasons, it is unlikely that a State or private company would be willing to ladspendently develop an extended-storage facility for GTCC waste. First, given the uncertainty about the availability and timing of the Yucca Mountain repository or an alternative disposal facility for GTCC waste, it is unlikely that any State or private company would be willing to accept tae open-ended liability associated with GTCC waste storage. Second, because no deci:lon has been made on which disposal cption will be chosen or how much it will cost, no Sate or private company would know what to charge for ssorage and the eventual disposal of the waste.# nird, if a State or private company decides to wait and charge a second fee when a disposal decision is made, a company whose waste it is holding may 30 out of business in the meantime, placing all liability on the State or private company hosting the storage facility.

Fourth, siting a storage facility for G"ITC waste would und6ubtedly involve many political difficulties, in addition to current State problems siting facilities for Class A, B, and C wastes.

Fifth, the large uncertainties about the needed amount of storage capacity may make such a storage facility a risky investment. Through a notict in the Federal Remister. DOE plans to solicit comments on the willingness of any non-Federal entity to provide storage carecity for GTCC waste.

Considering the situation described above, it may be secasary to provide extended storage capacity for some GTCC waste at a Federal facility,81 In its GTCC waste report (1987a), DOE tentadvely essmaltted the Federal Government to assept GTCC waste for storage by 1989. Centrally storing GTCC waste at a well-designed facility would likely enable a more effective and efficient monitoring and enforcement program and minimi= the potential for )

accidents and conminer failure at scattered GTCC waste generating sites. In the absence of political or legal intervention, the Federal Governmost, in particular DOE, could quhkly expand an existing facility or construct a new facility at one of its national laboratories.

~

Political resistance toward a Federal extended-storage facility is likely to come from any State in which the DOE storage facility is located. States have consistently expressed concerns about the added risk of any new radioactive waste management sctivity to its citizens and the environment. States would be worried that if activities to develop the Yucca Mountain repository or an alternative disposal option were to stall, any storage facility could evolve into a de facto disposal facility. Public trust in DOE programs has been severely eroded during past Federal efforts to site a deep-geologic repository. Thess Smu concerns may be tempered by appropriate Federal legislation (e.g., mandating that the facility only be used for GTCC storage and limiting the volume and duration of stored waste).

There is some question as to whether a Federal extended-storage facility would have to be

" This figure assumes that most decommissioned nuclear power plants will be placed in storage for 30 to 50 years. Under this scenario, decommissioning waste will not be generated until the middle of the 21st century. (See Appendix C.)

I so A commercial waste service company accepts GTCC sealed sources for extended storage. If it accepts the responsibility of eventually disposing of the waste, the company charges rates f

i generally above those for Class C waste disposal. For . example, one-half curie of americium-241 would cost S23,000 for storage and disposal. This company receives many inquiries about GTCC waste disposal, but few customers because of the high costs.

s1 To ensure that such a facility would be used by generators with on-site storage problems, the i Federal Government may need to decide whether such storage should be in some way subsidized.

19 t ,-

) -

L- _____ _-____

h 6'

licensed by the NRC.ss All storage and disposal facilities for commercial LLW are today licensed by NRC or Agreement States. Furthermore, the LLRWPAA of 1935 already requires licensing of any disposal (not storage) facility for GTCC wasta. The Sonste passed a bill during the 100th Congress -- that would require any storage facility for GTCC waste to be NRC- '

licensed.as To allay some State concerns and to bolster public confidence, Congress may decide to regstre that any Federal extended-storage facility for commercial GTCC waste be licensed

. by NRC.

To ease potential probleau associated with develooing a licensed storage facility, DOE could parcel off a site adjacent to or within one of its national laboratories, such that the activities occurring at the licensed facility would not interfere with unlicensed defense-related activities. Two of the three commercial LLW disposal facilities are located in such a fashion.84 Even if this made siting easier, it would still require probably several years to select a site, to

' conduct the required environmental assessments, and to construct a licensed storage facility for GTCC waste.

Due to economics, it is unlikely that all GTCC waste generators would choose to use the extended-surage facility. Generators who have adequate on-site storage capacity (e.g., utilities) would likely not want to pay for off-site storage. Some generators may wish to defer paying disposal costs for their GTCC weste as long as possible. This facility would, therefore, have to be designed in a modular fashion with a great deal of flexibility in its capacity and use storage technologies that would provide several decades of safe isolation. This facility would also have to accommodate a wide variety of GTCC wastes -- 60 to 75 percent of which must be handled remotely even after packagits (Knecht,1988).

3. Limited access to an off-site storane facility Before an extended-storage facility is available, some generators of GTCC waste'may need limited access to an existing commercial or Federal storage facility. Of particular concern is the fata.of the.3everal thousand sealed sources now being used in a wide variety of tools and machines throughout the United States. Some portion of these will become obsolete and will not be returnable to their manufacturers during the period before an extended-storage facility I

88 DOE can legally accept and store commercial radioactive material generated by health and safety emergencies (e.g., accidents) at its unlicensed facilities. In addition, DOE can accept sealed sources containing plutonium, if the plutonium concentrations are economically recoverable. Users of such sources (e.g., universities and the military) pay for packaging and tmnsportation (but not disposal) of the tources, which are donated to DOE. DOE also has accepted transuranic waste from the decommienianing of facilities operated by Monsanto I (Dayton, Ohio), Nuclear Fuel Services (Erwin, Tennessee), and Babcox and Wilcox (Lynchberg, Virginia) under research and development contracts. Negotiations have stalled on a fourth contract with Exxon on a fuel fabrication facility in Richland, Washington. It has not been decided where this transuranic waste will be disposed.

See Section 303, Title III, entitled the Nuclear Regulation Reorganizatica and Reform Act of 1988 (H.R.1315), reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation on February.22,1988. The Committee feels that this requirement is a logical extension from the LLRWPAA language that requires any GTCC disposal facility to be NRC-licensed. As of September 1988, The House of Representatives had not acted on this amended bill.

8' The commercial facility at Barnwell, South Carolina is adjacent to the DOE Savannah River Laboratory. The commercial site near Richland, Washington, is inside the DOE Hanford Reservation.

20 I

l would become available.

The theft and improper handtlas of sealed sources have been respenalble for four major accidents and 14 deaths la foreign cesstries over the last 25 years. In the United States the 40 or so sealed source manufacturers and the thousands of sealed sources usets are regulated, but individuel sealed sources are not registered. Institutional controls tend to diminish as equipment containing sealed sources is transferred to other users over time.

The impacts associated with sealed source accidents often so well beyond any immediate deaths and can be difficult to detect. For example, in 1933, a stored radiotherapy machine containing a large sealed source was illegally sold as scrap to a junkyard in Juarez, Mexico.

Con ==iamad scrap metal was subsequently sold to two Mexican foundries, where it was melted down, asde into tat:le less and reinforcing steel, and shipped to the United States. This accident was discovered five weeks later when a truck carrying contaminated reinforcing steel made a wrong turn at the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico and tripped a radiation sensor. By this time, contaminated steel had been shipped to 40 states throughout the United States, and about 200 Mexicans were exposed to very high levels of radiation (West,1984; Marshall,1984; Stengel,1984).

1 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held a meeting in June 1933 on the l problems associated with regulating sealed sources. The IAEA acknowledges the potential for I accidents occurring if sealed sources are poorly regulated (IAEA,1933). l l

Although fatal accidents involving sealed sources have not been recorded in the United States, they would be more likely to occur if tight regulatory control of licensed material and sealed sources is not maintained, especially whos on-site storage is unfessible. Even though the aniount of7adioactive material in many sealed sources is small, some are highly radioactive.

Moreover, there are several thousands in use or in storage. In response to recent accidents  !

involving sealed sources and mishandling of radioactive materials, the NRC issued a Notice in March 1983 to material licensees, alerting them of the need to control the bandlias and trsnsfer of their lic ased material to reduce the risk of an accident or its loss. Specifically, licensees are to periodically inventory and test for leaks in their sealed sources. Furthermore, the NRC l

encourages licensees to avoid long-term storage of surplus radioactive material.

Until an off-site storate option is available, generators have no choice but to store their GTCC waste on site. The political reperessalons for the Federal Government if a GTCC waste accident wer2 to eccer seald be especially sismificant if the accident were ilsked to the Federal Goversuseet's lambility to accept this waste for disposal or toeg-term storage.

It is possible that a private company would be interested in storing a limited amount of

. GTCC weses at an existing commercial facility until a Federal extended-storage facility or disposal facility is available. Such a company would most likely only store GTCC waste if acceptance fees were sufficiently high to cover its potential liabilities, which are several. First, the period that GTCC waste would need to remain in storage is presently open-ended. There is no assurance when or if an extended-storage facility will be developed. Second, the availability of a disposal facility for GTCC waste is fsr from guaranteed. Third, it is unclear do would pay fot extended-storage and disposal if a company were to go out of business wh% its waste was being held at private company's limited-access storage facility. DOE's planned Federal Remister notice on the availability of non-Federal storage facility may also solicit comments on limited access to such a facility.

It appears that the most effective optics for reduelas the potential for GTCC accidents and ensuring adequate storage capacity for GTCC waste is to provide limited access to am 21

existing, antleensed DOE storage facility. To ensure that such a facility were used only when necessary, accepance criteria may need to be developed. Determinations of need would probably be made on a case-by-case basis by the DOE or NRC. OTA estimates that the total storage capacity needed would probably be a few thousand cubic feet -- less than 2 tractor trailers. Amy GTCC weste la limited access storage could be transferred to the lleensed, extended-storage facility, once it is available.as To minimina the amount of GTCC waste requiring limited-access storage, manufacturers of new sealed sources could be required to repossess obsokte sources. Several mechanisms could be emplaced to further help the management of sealed sources. (See sectica on Funding Mechanma Waias on page 32.)

AN EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR GTCC WASTE The goal of disposal is to isolate GTCC waste during the few hundred to few thousand years when its radioactivity poses a risk to humans and the environment. The technology chosen for GTCC waste disposal is critical to ensure long-term safety. The technical factors listed in Table 4 are used to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability of the following disposal technologies:

• near-surface disposal

• latermediate-depth disposal

• disposal in a deep-soologic repository After this analysis, the economic and institutional factors listed in Table 4 are used to qualitatively evaluate GTCC waste disposal.

A. Description of Discosal Technologies

1. Near-surface disnosal

,Near-s_urface disposal is the technology that is presently used for the disposal of Classes A, B, and C LLW. Waste packages are disposed of in near-surface earthen trenches that are generally 20 to 30 feet deep 20 to 100 feet wide, and several hundred to 1,000 feet long. As the waste is emplaced, the trench is backfilled with dirt and then covered with a compressed earthen cap. To reduce subsidence of the cap, Class B and C LLW must be packaged to remain structurally stable for at least 300 years. Class B and Class C waste are segregated from -

structurally unstable Class A waste. In addition. Class C waste must be disposed of at least 16 feet below ground or covered with a barrier (usually made of concrete) that will last at least 500 years.88 The purpose of this barrier - called an intruder barrier -- is to prevent people from digging into the waste once the site is closed and the lastitutional period has ended. During the institutional period, monitoring and surveillance of the site must be maintained for at least 100 years. This period begins after a site has closed and its license has been transferred to the State or a Federal Custodial agency.

as According to Knecht (1988), the unpackaged volume of obsolete sealed sources that is expected to accumulate by the year 2020 is less than 35 cubic feet. In the several years or so j before an extended-storage facility could become available, there will likely be signif" scantly I less than 35 cubic feet. How these sources are packaged will determine how mut:h storage  !

capacity will be needed. It is also likely that during the period before an extended-storage facility could become available, some small companies that possess GTCC material could go out of business, requiring their facilities to be decontamir.ated and decommissioned. This waste could also require limited storage.

8' 10 CFR 61.52(a)(2) .

, -e e

nres near-surface disposal sites which were used in the 1960s and 1970s experienced '

significant problems with subsidence and failure of overlying caps, infiltration of water, and the subsequent migration of radionuclides from the trenches. These sites have subsequently been closed. Although the more stringent 1983 NRC regulations (10 CFR 61) on near-surfee disposal have thus far eliminnead these kinds of problems, many States and Compact regions are very interested in using structurally enhanced near surface disposal alternatives for their future LLW disposal sites (DOE,1987c and NRC,1984b).

Among the most discussed enhanced disposal alternatives are: concreto-lined trenches, above- and below-ground concrets vaults, and earth-mounded concrete bunkers (which combine several LLW disposal technonosies). Concrete would be used in the construction of all of these enhanced facilities. Many other features (e.g., waterproof coatings, internal and external drainage, etc.) can be incorporated into facility designs to minimi= the infiltration of surface l water and to keep the wasts as dry as possible. ]

It is possible to increase the degree to which GTCC waste can be isolated beyond that provided by near-surface facilities, by disposing of the waste at an intermediate depth of a few hundred feet. At such a depth, there is greater assurance that humans will not inadvertently come into contact with the waste. If concrete were used at this depth it would have to withstand the pressures of deep burial over the long-term and resist degradation due to the disposal environment. The primary risk of radionuclides migration at this depth would stem from unforeseen ground water movement. Such risks would be minimi=d if waste were far '

removed from potential ground water.

2. Intermedine.-deeth disonemi Sevent different technologies could be used to place wasm at an intermediate depth of between 100 and 500 feet below the earth's surface. The use of ange ed holes is one such technology it involves boring a hole, typict.!!y messaring 8 or more feet in d:ameter, into the ground and pouring a concrete foundation in the bottom of the hele. A smaller diameter steel or fiberglass linet is then lowered into the hole until it ress on the concrete foundation. This liner is then surrounded on the outside with a lapr of concrete or coment grout, typically measuring about one-foot thick. After the liner has been f'dled with waste, grout is poured around the waste to form a solid cement-waste matrix inside the liner. A concrete cap is then placed on top of the hole, and any remaining part of the hole is backf" died with soil (Cook, 1987).

Augered holes with depths of 20 to over 100 feet have been used over the last several years at DOE's national it.boratories for the disposal of some defense LLW similar in radioactivity to Class B, C, and some GTCC waste. For example, unpackaged reactor fuel cledding and well-packaged tritium have 5een disposed of at the Nevada Test Site in a few unlined ausered holes measuring about 120 feet deep.87 These holes are unlined because the yearly precipitation is low and ground water is about 800 feet deep.

Another technology that could be used at an intermediate depth (100 to 500 feet deep) is a geologic repository. Repositories are described in the following section, with respect to deep disposal, but could also be constructed at an intermediate depth. Sweden has developed an intermediate-depth repository under the Baltic Sea, about half a mile offshore and 200 feet below the ses floor. The facility, which has been operating since April 1988, is excavated into 87 R. Dodge, Reynolds Electric Company (DOE contractor at the Nevada Test Site), personal communication, June 1988.

23

granite. It is designed with 4 large rooms to hold LLW and a concrete silo, a'mut 200 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, to contain intermediate-level waste.

3. Dimensat in a_ deen-nealonic renonitory Deep-geologic repositories, located at depths of 2,000 to 3,000 feet, are viewed by the )

scientific community worldwide u gen nlly the most favored technology for disposing of '

highly radioactive waste. The geologic formations surrounding a repository will provide major natural barriers to the migration of radionuclides by ground water over the long-term.

Engineered barriers, such a the waste form and surrounding package, enhance the isolation of the waste during the first few thousand years. During this time, heat from the waste could increase the migration of radionuclides if the waste were to contact with any flowing water j (OTA,1985). ]

According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and subsequent studies by DOE (1985d and b,1937d, and 1938), all spent fuel and defense HLW will be permanently isolated in one deep-seologic repository. Yucca Mountain in Nevada is now being evaluated to determine i its suitability for such a facility. If this site found to be suitable, waste canisters will be  !

emplaced along a widely spaced grid within the repository beginning in about 20 years. Wastc {

emplacement will continue for about 50 years (DOE,1987d). The repository may remain accessible for a few decades after the waste has been emplaced to allow for monitoring and continued cooling of the waste. The repository will then be backfilled. About 67 percent of the repository's volume is projected to be used for coaunercial spent fuel and 33 percent for defense HLW.88 Another deep-geologic repository will be used for the disposal of transuranic waste generated by defense activities. Over the last decade DOE has been developing such a facility, called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This repository is situated at a depth of about 2,200 feet in a bedded salt formation near Carlsbad, New Mexico. DOE plans to dispose of some defense transuranic waste in WIPP on a demonstration basis in late 1988.8' If this 5-year demonstration is successful, much of DOE's remaining transuranic waste will be disposed of in this repository over the next 20 yean.

Although there are as yet no licensed deep-geologic repositories for radioactive waste in the United States, or elsewhere in the world, decades of extensive scieintific study have revealed no insurmountable technical obstacles for developing such repositories, provided suitable sites are found (OTA,1985).

B. Technical Comnarison of Discosal Technologies Near-surface disposal facilities, which are licensed by NRC (under 10 CFR 61) or by Agreement States, can be used for the disposal of Class C LLW which requires isolation for periods of about 500 years. Since the longevity of risk for OTCC waste greatly exceeds this time period, near-surface disposal technologies would generally not be appropriate. Such a position is sated in NRC's Part 61 regulation.

Reinforced concrete is widely used in enhanced near-surface disposal technologies for l long-term structural integrity. To evaltate the suitability of concrece for near-surface

• enhancements, DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory conducted an in-depth analysis for the e

l ss M. Komar DOE, personal communication, June 1988. l 8' C. Fankey, DOE, personal communication, May 1988. As of September 1988, it appe,ared that this demonstration phase would not begin until 1989.

24

NRC on h'istorical and recent experience with concretes throughout the world (NRC,1986b).

This study found that some ancient concretes have performed adequately for 2,000 years or more. Although modern concretes have not been in use for much more than a century, there are many examples of excellent performance for periods of several decades and a few for periods on the order of 100 years (MacKenzie,1987).

~

Considering the lack of deterioration of ancient concretes that have been subjected to harsh conditions and the relatively benign conditions expected at near-surface LLW disposal facilities, it should be possible to formulate concrete with enough durability to perform satisfactorily as a structural material for a few hundred years (MacKenzie,1987). It is unclear, however, that enhanced near-surface disposal alternatives using concrete woulu prove adequate for the few thousand years necessary to isolate most GTCC waste.

As mentioned in the background section of this report, GTCC waste characteristics are most similar to defense HLW. Furthermore, by the year 2020 more than half of the activity of GTCC waste v'n be contributed by radionuclides (primarily nickel-63) with half-lives of 100 years or longe. In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its 1987 amendments, defense HLW is planned for disposal in the Yucca Mountain repository; defense transuranic waste is planned for disposal in WIPP. If a decision about the disposal of GTCC waste were required today, its permaseet isolation is a deep-geologie repository would be technically aseeptable.

The NRC staff, in a letter response to DOE's report to Congress on GTCC waste (NRC, 1987), recommended that GTCC waste be disposed of in a deep-geologic repository. In this letter the NRC estimated that roughly 85 percent of GTCC waste had enough long-lived radionuclides to require permanent isolation in a deep-geologic repository (NRC,1987). As mentioned earlier, the NRC has also published a proposed amendment to 10 CFR 61 in the Federal Remister (May 18,19tG that would require all GTCC waste to be disposed of in a deep-geologic repository, "unieri disposal elsewhere hu been approved by the Commission."

It is possible that further research and analysis over the next several years could demonstrate the acceptability of non-repository disposal alternatives, such as intermediate-depth augered holes or an intermediate-depth repository. These technologies, if used in areas of low rainf ll and deep ground water, might be found acceptable for some GTCC waste, especially the portion of waste composed of short-lived radionuclides. It is unclear, however, whether any disposal alternatives other thas a deep-geologic repository would be acceptable for isolating the long-lived radionuclides portion of GTCC waste.

C. Preliminary Economic Comnarison of Discosal Ootions ,

Due to significant economies of scale associated with constructing large facilities, it is I possible that waste disposal in a large repository may be less expensive than using a smaller facility only for GTCC waste. In the following discussion, the costs of GTCC waste disposal in the Yucca Mountain repository are analyzed, to the extent possible, before examining possible costs for a smaller, separate disposal facility for GTCC waste only. It must be emphasized that these calculations are preliminary and will have to be verified when more accurate estimates become available.

Disposal costs are calculated below in terms of the volume of disposed waste n.iner than considering the various factors used for commercial near-surface disposal facilities. Among  ;

others, these factors include: concentration of radioactivity (i.e., curie content per unit volume),

the half-life of the waste's radionuclides, and the type of radiation emitted by the waste. Site operators use these factors to determine the waste package's longevity of risk and whether it  :

must be handled remotely. Since repository disposal costs will probably be based on waste l .

25 i i

i 1

l

__ __ _____m_____ _ _ . _ _ m______m_.___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ . . _ . __ __ _

volumes, the following analysis asas esty waste volumes to estimate disposal costs.

1. Laras. doen-neolonic renonitory The approximate cost of GTCC waste disposal in a repository is highly dependent on the mode of wasa emplacement. One potential mode involves stacking the packaged waste from floor to ceiling in dedicated rooms excavated specifically for GTCC waste. If waste packages could be packed tightly together", the total volume of GTCC waste generated by 2020 would fill a room approximately 15 feet wide,20 feet high, and 570 feet long. This volume -- about 170,000 cubic feet -- would occupy about 0.1 percent of the 115 miles of tunnels and waste emplacement rooms at now planned for the Yucca Mountain repository. According to very j

prelimiury DOE estimates, constructing the Yucca Mountain repository is now projected to cost l about $15 billion.ss Constructing 0.1 percent of the repository for GTCC waste would cost about 515 million (not including waste repackaging and loading costs), or about 590 per cubic foot of GTCC waste.sa .

A potentially less expensive disposal mode Lavolves using GTCC waste as backfill material when the repository rooms and/or connecting tunnels are sealed off and the repository is closed.

This mode would eliminate the cost of excavating dedicated rooms. If this second mode were used, GTCC wasta disposal would probably not begin for at least a decade after :he first (and presumably the coolest) spent fuel was emplaced. In other words, the emplacement of some GTCC waste could begin around 2020.

Although the backfill option is likely to be less expensive than GTCC waste disposal in dedicated rooms, the backfill option has a couple diendvantages. First, if the small section of repository containing GTCC waste were ever reexcavated, the waste in the backfill material

~

could make this operation significantly more difficult due to worker exposure. Second, if the entire repository were left open for about 50 years to allow further cooling and continued monitoring of the spent fuel, disposal of GTCC waste as backfill could not begin until after the middle of the_21st century.

2. Senarate GTCC waste diseosal facility The costs associated with developing a separate facility for GTCC waste using intermediate-depth disposal facilities have not been calculated. Cost estimates, however, have been made by DOE for several near-surface disposal technologies for LLW, with near-surface disposal being the least expensive and earth-mounded concrete bunkers being the most (DOE, i

se The majority of non-utility GTCC waste and a great deal of utility GTCC waste could be tightly packed into repository rooms. Some utility waste (e.g., c' ore shrouds) may have to be emplaced along a widely spaced grid, like spent fuel, or further cooled by storing the waste for two or three more decades. NRC staff believe that the overall packaging requirements for most GTCC waste need not be more stringent than those provided in 10 CFR Section 61.55 for ,

300-year stability of Class B and C LLW (NRC,1988b).  !

81 M. Komar, DOE, personal communication, June 1988.

88 C. Conner, DOE, personal communication, May 1988. DOE has already spent several tens of millions of dollars screening sites for a HLW repository and an additional Si to 52 billion will be required to characterize the presently proposed site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

sa This assumes that the cost of space occupied by GTCC waste would includi a proportion of the overall cost of siting and developing the repository. Some people would argue that the repository must be developed anyway, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and that GTCC costs should be based only on the incremental cost of adding the space used for GTCC waste disposal.

26 9

1987c). Disposal costs for a near-surface facility accepting about 60,000 cubic feet of waste per year, witick was the smallest facility evaluated, were estimated to averase 5120 per cubic foot (DOE,1987c). The projected annual rate of GTCC weste generation around the year 2020 is only about 6,000 cubic feet per year." As suggested in Figure 2, the disposal costs for a near- )

surface facility with a capacity of only 6,000 cubic feet per year could be significantly more

]

than 5120 per cubic foot due to its smaller size. These prelianimary cost figures are summarized 1 in Table 5. l J

Figure 2.-Near-Surf ace Olesesel Coste for a Range of LLA Volumes (calculated using the EG&G economic model for a 30-year facility)

Olscossi cost (3 per cucic foot) 220 -

200 -- i 180 -

160 -

140 -

120 -

~

100 -

80 - ',

to - ',

4o - * ....,,,******.

20 -

0 i . . . 4 . .

0 30 00 90 12 0 15 0 18 0 210 240 270 Weste volume (tnousana cuoic feet)

- Ear t n-mouncec - Shallow-1anc concrete eunker discoast

" This figure is substantially higher than the generation rate today because of waste that will come from decommissioning and refurbishing Of nuclear power reactors.

27

1 I

4 Table 5. Preliminary Estimates of GTCC Waste Disposal Costs Disnomal technolony Estimated cost

• Yucca Mountain repository S 90/fts.

(assuming tight packing of waste)

Separate near-surface facility S 120/ftsb

• The disposal costs for both of these options will probably be higher than those indicated above. Repository disposal costs, which are still being developed by DOE, probably do not include the full range of operating costs. Unit disposal cosa for using a separate facility for GTCC waste could be significantly higher due to is intermediate depth, its small size, and other additional operational cosa for handling highly radioactive GTCC waste.

~

Source:

• C. Conner. DOE, personal communication, May 1933. l h EGAG Idaho, Inc., *Cosa and Consequences of Site Proliferation: Per Unit Disposal Costs," )

Low-Level Radioactive Weste Forum. Toronto, July 1983, unpublished conference notes; 1

The preliminary calculations provided above indicate that the cosa of GTCC waste disposal in the Yucca Mountain repository could be comparable to, or perhaps even less than, costs associated with developing a smaller, separate disposal facility only for GTCC waste. The level of long-term isolation provided by the Yucca Mountain repository would also presumably be as great or greater than the isolation provided by an intermediate-depth facility.

D. Institutional Considerations in choosinn a Disaa==8 Ootion A disposal facility for GTCC waste could, theoretically, either be developed and operated ,

by a non-Federal entity or by the Federal Government. For several reasons, it does not appear likely that a non-Federal entity would be interested in developing and operating such a facility.

As mentioned earlier, DOE plans to issue a notice in the Federal Renister to determine whether any such non-Federal interest exists. ,

[ It is possible, though unlikely, that a State or regional Compact would accept GTCC waste for disposal.ss During the passage of the LLRWPAA, States argued that the Federal Government should take responsibility for GTCC waste because of the long-term risks associated with much of the waste. In fact, one State opposed taking responsibility for Class C LLW.88 Thus, States would probably not be interested in developing a separate disposal facility 88 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1930 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 encouraged States to form multi-state Compacts with each ,

Compact region hosting one disposal facility. States that have not joined a Compact may be planning to host a facility only for waste generated in their State. Economically, some States  !

and Compacts may have difficulty supporting their facilities, given the 50 percent decrease in '

volume of LLW shipped for disposal over the last 7 years. It is, however, unclear whether the economic gain from disposing of such a small amount of waste would outweigh the added risks.

88 Representative Kostmeyer from Pennsylvania introduced an amendment to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 to transfer the responsibility of Class C 28 l

s

for GTCC waste. It is unlikely that they would be interested in accepting GTCC waste at an existing or planned near-surface LLW disposal facility, which would probably not provide adequate long-term isolation for much GTCC waste. .

Private companies are also unlikely to be laterested in independently developing and operating a GTCC waste disposal facility without Federal sponsorship. In addition to the ineviable political difficulties associated with siting and potential delays with licensing such a

- facility, private ladustry may have considerable concerns about potential long-term liability of holding title to waste that remaine hazardous for a few thousand years. The fact that a i commercial waste disposal facility for GTCC waste has never been constructed or licensed '

would make such a bnainame venture extremely risky.

Given the increasing difficulty in siting nuclear waste facilities s7 , it is unlikely that the Federal Government, presumably DOE, would chooes to develop a new, separate facility for GTCC waste. At this due, the most likely disposal option appears to be the Yucca Meestala repository. Congress, the DOE, and the State of New Mexico have agreed that the WIPP facility will be only for defense waste, and defense facilities are not licensed by the NRC. The LLRWPAA of 1985 explicitly requires GTCC wasta, which is commercial waste, to be disposed  !

of in a NRC-licensed facility. l If DOE decides to dispose of GTCC waste in the Yucca Mountain repository, the State of Nevada will likely object to GTCC waste being funneled into this disposal facility.

Furthermore, if fees for GTCC waste disposal in the Yucca Moantain repository are comparable to, or less than, disposal fees for Class C waste at commercial near-surface disposal sites, waste generators would have an incentive to compact Class C waste such that its radioactivity were increased to GTCC levels. In addition, it is still unclear how the country will dispose of GTCC defense waste that is not transuranic.

It could bs argued that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) would require an evaluation and comparison of alternatives prior to selecting a disposal option. Such a process normally involves balancing costs and benefits associated with a particular project or a major Federal action. In most cases, environmental and public health and safety risks associated with projects can be decreased by adding features to the project that would increase its developme'it costs. The situation involving GTCC waste disposal, however, appears to be quite different. From a public health and safety standpoint, it is highly unlikely that any disposal alternative would provide more isolation than the Yucca Mountain repository. It also appears unlikely that a small, separate GTCC wasta disposal facility of any type would be as economical as the repository.

E. Summary From a public health and safety standpoint, deep-geologic repositories are likely to

. provide the greatest isolation of GTCC waste based on information available today. In fact, repository disposal is believed to be sufficient for isolating spent fuel which is many times more dangerous than GTCC waste. Since the projected volume of GTCC waste would probably occupy much less than 1 percent of the planned Yucca Mountain repository, this option would waste to the Federal Government.

87 Prior to May 1986, DOE had plans to develop a second repository in the East. DOE Secretary, Herrington, postpened these plans, arguing that volumes of spent fuel and defense HLW were insufficient to justify two repositories. This decision also defused a great deal of political opposition associated with this siting program.

29

^

- _-__m_m-_m_m__._.__._m_.m._________._._m_ __m___

~

likely be less expensive than developing a small, separate facility for only GTCC waste using any, technology. Institutionally, using the Yucca Mountain repository would eliminate having to '

site, develop, and license a new separate disposal facility for GTCC waste.

If a decision about the GTCC waste disposal were required today, permanently isolating GTCC waste in a deep-geologic repository would be an accepuble option. It is possible, however, that further research of alternative disposal technologies could indicate that an latermediate-depth disposal facility used only for GTCC waste (e.g., sugered holes) would provide an acceptable level of isolation. DOE could spend the next couple of years evaluating the impacts associated with disposing of GTCC waste in the Yucca Mounmin repository on the repository's overall operation and performance. If this disposal option proved to be acceptable from an environmental, economical, and institutional sandpoint, DOE could use the Yucca Mountain repository as a basis in designing its GTCC waste management approach. If this option proved to be unacceptable, DOE could then evaluate other disposal technologies. Making a disposal decision will help resolve many storage uncertainties and enable necessary guidance and regulations to be developed.

]

i l

l l

= _

~

=

1 0

0 30 e

Chapter 4 A MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR GTCC WASTE As indicared la the previous chapters, GTCC wasts will have to be stored for at least 15 to 20 years while a disposal facility is being developed. Many large generators will probably stors GTCC waste on-site; some generators, especially small ones, claim that they will exhaust I their on-site storage capacity and that this capacity cannot be avr=MM Off-site storage for na {

extended period could be available la several years at sa NRC-licensed, DOE storage facility. 1 While such a facility is being developed, GTCC waste seaerators could be given limited access .

to an existing unlicensed DOE storage facility on a case-by-case basis, determined by DOE or NRC. Once the extended-storage facility is available, all GTCC waste la limited-access storage could be transferred to it. Figure 3 portrays this integrated management approach.

Figure 3. A Management Approach for GTCC Weste continued on-site storage --- - - - - - - >

v. . V V V limited -> DOE extended --- - - - - - - >

access to storage at existing a NRc-licensed DOE storage facility V V DOE disposal facility >

(Yucca Mountain reposigory or a separate facility) i I I I ....  !

1990 2000 2010 2020 20*0 i

Source: OTA l

l 31 l _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

If the above approach for managing GTCC waste over the next two decades is .

implemented, then the Federal Government needs to make several decisions and undertake many i activities regarding storage, disposal, and funding. These decisions and activities are I summarized in the following discussion. The sequence and minimum timing of these activities i are further develooed in Appendix D. j l

Limited-Access Storage

]

During the next several years while an extended storage facility is being developed, DOE could provide limited access to an existing, unlicensed, storage facility at one of its national laboratories. This would reduce the potential for GTCC accidents, especially those involving .

sealed sources, and ensure adequate storage capacity for those generators who do not have adequate on-site storage capacity for their GTCC waste. DOE and/or NRC could determine technical criteria for accepting GTCC waste; DOE, NRC, and possibly Congress could establish additional technical and non-technical specifications (e.g., waste volume limits, generator eligibility, and a decision on fee subsidization). DOE could then estimate the required storage capacity as well u storage costs prior to adapting one of its existing facilities.

State concerns about the permanence of such a facility could be allayed by requiring that any GTCC waste in limited-access storage be moved to the extended storage facility when it becomes available. v Extended Storage DOE's estimate of the time required to develop an acceptable disposal facility for GTCC waste will indicate the time that this waste will have to remain in storage. NRC and/or DOE could then determine performance objectives and technical criteria for waste packaging and extended storage. DOE, NRC, and possibly Congress could establish non-technical specifications on use of this facility, as were made for the limited-access storage facility. With this information, DOE could better design the extended-storage facility and determine storage costs: Considering the probable uncertainties in waste volumes that will require off-site storage,

~

a modular storage facility could be incrementally developed as storage needs become more apparent.

Disposal If a decision about the disposal of GTCC waste were required today, permanently isolating GTCC waste in a deep-geologic repository would be an acceptable option. It is "

possible, however, that further research of alternative disposal technologies could indicate that an intermediate-depth disposal facility used only for GTCC waste would provide an acceptable level of isolation. Such research could commence in a couple of years if DOE determines that GTCC waste disposal in the repository would produce unaccepuble environmental or institutional impacts or would be more expensive than other disposal alternatives.

Fundlag Mechanisms The LLRWPAA of 1985 states that the beneficiaries of the activities generating GTCC waste should bear all reasonable costs associated with its disposal. Since GTCC waste cannot be disposed of immediately, it could be argued that the beneficiaries should also bear the cost of pre-disWsal management. However, there are some who argue that the delays in selecting a disposal option, which make GTCC ws:te storage necessary, are the tault of the Federal Government even though the Federal Government was made responsible for GTCC waste disposal only in 1985. When, how, and how much money is collected from generators for the disposal of their GTCC waste may depend in part on when the waste is accepted for storage and/or disposal. Funding mechanisms are discussed below for several groups of GTCC waste generators. -

32

Fo: waste accepted for limited-access storage, estimated costs for extended storage and disposal could be collected at the time of waste acceptance. Given the current uncertainties about dW cosa, however, acceptance fees could be quite high if full-cost recovery is a j primarf scal. Untessonably high costs would discourage the use of the limited-access facility,. l yet some waste generators may need use of it to protect public health and safety; unrealistically low costs would leave the Federal Government with an obligation to pay the balance of future disposal costs. ,

t Alternatively, an laitial fee for limited-access storage could be collected when GTCC 1 waste is accepted for storage. Once a disposal option is chosen and the cosa of extended storage and disposal are better known, a second fee could be calculated. This second fee could ]

1 be collected when GTCC waste in limited-sccess stcrase is transferred to the extended storage- I facility.

Utilities, which generate about 60 percent of all GTCC wasta, will probably be able to develop sufficient on-site storage capacity for this waste to last until a disposal facility is available. If the Yucca Mountain repository were chosen as the disposal facility for GTCC waste, utility fees paid into the Nuclear Wate Trust Fund could be increased to cover GTCC i waste disposal cosa.

Due to the problems associated with controlling the fate of many thousand sealed sources, it may be desirabia to add a materials management fee into the initial cost of all sealed sources.

This type of arrangement could be used for sealed sources sold after disposal costs have been estimated (within the next several years). When the user is finished with a source, this fee could be partially or entirely refunded depending on the costs that would be required to subsequently manage the source. If the source could be recycled, the user would receive a

. larger refund. This type of " deposit-return

• funding arrangement would encourage the proper managemens and disposal of sealed sources.  !

For all other non-utility GTCC waste or GTCC material now in use, including sealed sources, waste management fees could most easily be collected in one lump sum or in periodic installments when the waste is accepted for extended storage and/or disposal by the Federal Government. Collecting " deposit-return

• management fees prior to waste acceptance may be more difficult, but not impossible, due to the large number of present generators. As with limited-access storage, unless extended-storage and disposal fees are reasonable, waste generators may delay transferring their waste to a wasta management facility, which could i

jeopardize public health and safety. Furthermore, if a waste generator goes out of business l before its GTCC waste has been stored or disposed, the Federal Government may have to accept q the waste and pay for its storste and subsequent disposal in order to maintain public health and 1 safety. 1 33

1 REFERENCES Anderson, Ian, " Isotopes from Machine Imperil Brasilians," [4ew Scientist. Oct. 15,1987, pp.19-20 Cook, J.R., "New Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage / Disposal Facilities for the Savannah River Plant," 1987 Conference on Waste Isolation in the United States, vol. 3, pp. 411-414.

Electric Power Research Institute, " LWR Plant Life Extension," edited by M. Lapides, EPRI NP.5002, January 1987.

EGAG Idaho, Inc., " Costs and Consequences of Site Proliferation: Per Unit Disposal Costs,"

Low-Level Pediametive Wute Forum, Toronto, unpublished conference notes, July 1988. .!

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Letter from L.V. Konstantinov -- the Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy and Safety -- to various countries' Resident Representatives to the IAEA, Vienna, Austria, June 15, 1988.

Knecht, M.A., " Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Concepts,"

Idaho National Engineerin8 Laboratory, paper presented at Waste Management '88 Conference, Mar. 3,1988.

League of Woman Voters Education Fund, The Nuclear. Waste Primer' A Handbook for Citizens (New Yoric Nick Lyons Books),1985.

MacKenzie, D.R., Siskind, B., Bowerman, B.S., and Piciuto, P.L., "Some Considerations in the

. . Eval.gation of Concrete as a Structural Material for Alternative LLW Disposal

= Technologies," 1987 Conference on Waste Isolation in the United States, vol. 3, pp. 63-70.

Marshall, E., "Juarez: An Unprecedented Radiation Accident," $rd8agg, vol. 223, Mar.16,1984, pp. I152-1154. ,

National Research Council, Effects on Poculatians of Ernosure m Low Levels of ionivine Radiation 1980. The N~ational Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,1980.

Office of Technolo8y Assessment, Manneine the Nation's Commarein! Minh-Level Radioactive Easta. Mar.1985.

Roberts, L., " Radiation Accident Grips Goiania," SEignsa Vol. 238, Nov. 20,1987, pp.1028-1031.

Siskind, B. et al, Extendad Storane of Low-Level Radioactive Wasta: Potential Problem Areas.

NUREG/CR-4062. Prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 1985.

Siskind, B. et al, " Extended Stora8e of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: An Update", in Proceedinen of the Svmoosium on Waste Manneement at Tucson. Arizona March 2-6.

128(t, editor Roy G. Post, vol. 3,1986.

34

Stengel, R., " Aftermath of a Nuclear Spill; an Accident in Mexico Exposes Scores of People to Radiation," Ilma, vol.123. May 14,1984, p. 82.

U1 Department of Energy, Mission Plan for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Manaaement Eggggam, DOE-RW-0005, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C.,1985a.

U1 Department of Energy, An Evaluation of Commercial Renositorv enaaeity for the Dinnonal of Defense Hinh-Level Waste. DOE /DP/0020/lRW-0005, Washington, D.C., June 1985b.

U1 Department of Energy, Recommendations for Man == ament of C1 renter-Than-Clans-C Low Level Radioactive Waste DOE /NE-0077 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, U1 Department of Commerce, February 1987a).

U1 Department of Energy, Intearated Data Ba.no for 1987 Seent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories. Projections. and Characteristics DOE /RW-0006, Rev. 3 (Washington, D.C.:

September 1937b).

U1 Deparanent of Energy, Cn===ami Deelen Recore Alternative concents for Low-Level Radioactive Waste DiscosaL Low-Level Waste Management Program, DOE /LLW-60T, June 1987c.

U1 Department of Energy, OCRWM Mission Plan Amendment. DOE /RW-0128, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C.,1987d.

U1 Department of Energy, The 1986 State-by State A-^ ment of the Low-Level Radioactive

'. . WangtRacaivd_aLCommarrant.DianosaUidas. National Low-Level Radacective Waste Management Program DOE /LLW 66T, December 1987e.

U1 Department of Energy, Draft 1988 Mission Plan Amendment. June 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminaion, Letter from NRC Chairman Palladino to Senator Strom Thurmond, Sept. 13,1984a, Enclosure 3.

U1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Proceedings of the State Workshop on Shallow-Land Burial and~ Alternative Disposal Concepts," NUREG/CP-0055 October 1984b.

U1 Nuclear Regulatory Comminaion, Workinn Safelv in Gamma Radicaraohv. NUREG/BR-0024, June 1986a.

U1 Nuclear Regulatory Comminnion, Preliminary A=-- ..::t of Performances of Cenerete as a Structural Material for Alternative Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disoosal Technologies, NUREG-4714, November 1986b.

U1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter from Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to Mr. A. David Rossin, DOE's Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Apr. 30, 1987.

35 1

I

---

____.__._________._____m_______________._____m.__._

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Notice No. 88-07, to material licensees' encouraging them not to store sealed sources for lon8 time periods, Mar. 7,1988a.

U1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter from Gary Roles, NRC staffer, to Gretchen McCabe, Project Director of the OTA GTCC waste staff paper, Aug. 11,1988b.

West, S., " Hot; the Incident on Aldama Street that Became North America's Worst Radioactive Disaster," Scianes '84. December 10,1984, vol. 5, pp. 28-38.

Federal Ramister 47 Federal Raesster 244 (Dec. 27,1982) 53 Federal Ramister 123 (June 27,1988) 53 Federal Ramnster 96 (May 18,1988) -

Federal Code of Granulations 10 CFR 20 (Nov.17,1960).

10 CFR 61 (Dec. 27,1982).

49 CFR 171 (Nov.1,1985).

49 CFR 172 (Apr.15,1976).

49 CFR 173 (Nov.1,1985).  ;

49 CFR 177 (Nov.1,1985).

Federal Laws The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), Public Law 91-190.

The Nuclear Wasta Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), Public Law 97-425.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA), Public Law 96-573.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985,(LLRWPAA), Public Law 99-240.

Nuclear Wute Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (NWPAA), as part of the Budget Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 1988, Public Law 100-203.

Pronomad Legislation Nuclear Reorganization and Rewrm Act of 1988 (H.R.-1315)

Personal _ Communication Karl Amlauer, presadent, Isotope Products Laboratories (a small radioisotope producer in Burbank, California), September 1988.

Carl Connor, UA Department of Energy, May 1988.

Robert Dodge, Reynolds Electric Company (a U1 Department of Ener8y contractor) June 1988.

Christine Fankey, U1 Department of Energy, May 1988.

Margaret Knecht, Senior Program Specialist in Low-Level Waste Management Pro 8 ram, EG&G Idaho, Inc. (a U.S Department of Energy contractor), September 1988.

Manny Komar, U1 Department of Ener8y, June 1988.

36 mm --__m_._-_ _.--_-.u._-_-_----.

l I

4 APPENDICES 1

1 l

37 L-_________-__________

Appendix A. Types of Radioactive Waste The following types of radioactive waste are differentiated by the nature and intensity of the emitted radiation, u well as their physical and chemical form. They are listed roughly in order of decreasing risk to humans.

Spent feel consiste of fuel rods that have been " burned" (irradiated) in commercial, defense, or research nuclear reactors to the point where they no longer contribute efficiently to the )

nuclear chain reaction. Spent fuel is thermally hot, highly radioactive, and requires heavy I shielding. Commercial spent fuel is being stored at nuclear power plants pending the i availability of a Federal monitored retrievable storage facility or a deep-seologic repository for d W  ;

l High-level waste (HLW), as the term is used in this report, is generated when spent fuel is reprocessed to recover plutonium and unused uranium. The vast majority of HLW in this country has been generated in support of national defense programs. HLW is highly radioactive, generates some heat, and requires heavy shielding. Most HLW is now stored at Richland, Washington; Aiken, South Carolina; and Idaho Falls, Idaho pending availability of a deep-seologic repository.

Trassurnale (TRU) waste is produced from the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons, from the manufacturing of sealed radioactive sources, and from the refurbishing or decomunissioning of nuclear power plants. Transuranic weste contains radionuclides that have atomic numbers greater than 92, which is uranium. Defense TRU wastes are currently being stored at seven DOE national laboratories pending disposal in a deep-soologic repository called the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Commercial transuranic waste is defined as low-level radioactive waste. If the concentration of transuranic radionuclides is greater than 100 nanocuries per gram, the waste is greater-than-Class-C low-level radioactive waste.

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) includes radioactive wasta not classified as uranium mill tailings, high-level waste, or spent fuel. About 95 percent of all LLW -- Class A -- has relatively low levels of radioactivity. Class A wasta remains hazardous for about 100 years, Class B and C waste remains hazardous for a few hundred years, while GTCC waste remains hazardous for a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Ursalem mill talliass are the earthen residues -- coarse sand and a " slime" of cisy-like particles

-- that remain after estracting uranium from mined uranium ore. These tailings contain low concentrations of radioactive material, but tailing volumes are very large.

Byprodset Material is material contaminated or made radioactive during the production or use of special nuclear material.

Source: Adapted from the League of Women Voters Education Fund,1985

)

l I

38

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _. I

a Appendix B. Definitions Curle: A measure of the rate of radioactive decay essentially equal to the radioactivity of one gram of radium. A microcarte is one millionth (or 109 of a curie. A sanocurie is one billionth (or 10) of a curie.

Half-life: Tu' ne required for a radioactive substance to lose 50 percent of its radioactivity by decay. For example the radioactivity of cobalt-60 with a half-life of 5.3 years will drop by one-half in 5.3 years.

Ion-exchange reslac Sand-like materials that chemically remove radionuclides from wastewater and concentrate them in a sclid form. -

Isotope: Isotopes are different forms of the same chemical element, having different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons in the nucleus of their atoms. A single element may have many isotopes. For example, uranium naturally appears in three forms uranium-234 (142 neutrons), uranium-235 (143 neutrons), and uranium-233 (146 neutrons); each uranium isotope has 92 protons. -

Radiation: Radiation is emitted in the form of alpha particles, beta particles, samma rays, or x-rays -- each affecting human health differently. For example, alpha particles cannot penetrate a person's skin, therefore can only harm a person if inhaled or ingested. Gamma

. , rays, in contrast, can pass through a person's body.  !

Radioactivih: The spontaneous emission of radiation from the nucleus of an atom.

Radioasellde: Any species of atom whose nucleus emits radiation. Transuranic radionuclides have an atomic number greater than 92 (uranium). ,

Sealed soareer Sealed sources are sources of radiation that contain granules of radioactive material typically sealed inside double-walled, stainless steel capsules. Large sources can measure up to 20 inches long and 2 inches in diameter, but generally are about 3 inches long and 0.5 inch in diameter. Sealed sources are primarily used in industrial and medical applications (e.g., density and moisture gauges, well logging sources, and radiotherapy machines).

l Waste forum Waste form is the matrix in or on which radionuclides are contained. The waste from of GTCC waste maybe metal, ceramic, paper, etc.

Source: Adapted from the League of Women Voters Education Fund,1985 l

l l

l 1

1 39 I. ."

C__-__ ________________m_.__ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _

4 Appendix C. Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants Althoagh most nuclear power plants are licensed by NRC to operate for 40 years, there is no absolute age at which they become unsafe or uneconoodcal to operate. In fact, it may be possible to economically refurbish and extend the operating lifetime of many reactors by replacing aging internal components (EPRI,1987). Once a plant has been shut down, it can be decomanssioned (e.g., dismantled) within a few years, placed in safe storage for 30 to 50 years prior to decommissioning, or permanently entombed (NRC,1931). Reactor refurbishing will probably generate about the same amount of GTCC waste as plant decommissioning.

There are two reasons for delaying decommissioning once a reactor has been shut down.

First, the overall radioactivity of the LLW from decommianianing (at least 95 percent of which is contributed by GTCC waste) will decrease by 30 to 45 times, if decommissioning is deferred five decades (see Table 6). Deferral could therefore reduce worker risks and decrease dismantling costs. Seceed, the volumes of Class A, B, and C LLW3enerated from immediate decomminaioning (97% of which is Class A waste) can be reduced by about 10 times if decommissioning is deferred five decades, thereby significantly decreasing LLW disposal costs unless these costs rise dramatically over this time (See Table 6).

Table 6. Effects of Delayed Decommissioning on the LLW Generated by Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Plant type Radioactivity of all LLW in thouenada of curies (1.175 GW(e)] No delay 30-year delay 50-year delay Boiling-water 6,600 180 140 Pressurized-water 4,900 210 160 7

Volume of all LLW in thouannds of cubic feet No delay 30-year delay 50-year delay Boiling-water ~670 670

• 60 *

, Pressurized-water 630 630

• 65 *

• Includes wastes from both preparation for SAFESTOR and decomminnioning.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, " Integrated Data Base for 1987: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics," DOE /RW-0006, Rev. 3, September 1987, p. 279.

l l For these reasons, many of the existing !!0 nuclear plants, especially the 71 plants that l are co-located with other units, could likely be placed in "SAFESTOR" for 5 decades prior to decommissioning. It is not clear, however, that decomminvioning of all nuclear plants will be deferred. If costs for LLW disposal continue to rise as they have over the last 15 years, it may be more economical to immediately decommission some plants. Older plants (i.e., constructed prior to 1970) without well-documented designs and plants that are not co-located with multiple units may require decommissioning before plant engineers are reassigned or retired. ,

The NRC issued its final rule on decommissioning nuclear facilities in June 1988 (53 Federal Renister 123).

40 L _ _ _ - _ _.-_ _ _ __--____ - --------- - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -

Appendix D. Possible Schedule for Managing GTCC Waste The following tight schedule lists possible activities that may be needed to manage GTCC waste. These activities are listed generally in the sequence in which they would occur.

Even if the activities actually take longer than indicated here, the relationship among them should generally remain the same. If any activity requires additional time to complete, the remaining activities will have to be delayed the same amount of time.

Minimum time in years 0 1 2 3 4 Disposal DOE evaluates the technical, economic, and institutional advantages and disadvantages

. associated w.ith:

1) disposing of GTCC waste in the Yucca Mtn. repository, or

2) developing a separate inter-mediate-depth facility.  : __  :  :  :  :

DOE decides either to use the Yucca Men. repository, or to further evaluate intermediate-depth disposal options.  :  :  :  : L DOE estimates disposal fee. - - - - -

DOE finalizas disposal fee. year 7 Storage continued on the following pages. -

41

Minimum time in years 1

0 1 2 4 3 l

)

Extended-storage regulatory guidance: ~

(regardless of disposal option chosen)

NRC reviews stornse technologies j and analyzes its r,torage i guidance.  :  :  :  :  :

DOE develops estimates of )

storage time until disposal.  :  :  :  :  :

NRC drafts preliminary revisions of added guidance for GTCC waste packaging and storage.  :  :  :  :  :

NRC finali== guidance. year 3 DOE extended-stornse facility:

(assuming NF.C licensing)

Congress mandates development of NR.C-licensed facility. -

DOE /ERC determine general technical criteria for accet

• GTCC waste.  :  :  :  :  :

DOE estimates storage fee and facility capacity.  :  :  :  :  :

1 DOE, NRC, and possibly Congress de- '

termine non-technical specifications for facility use (e.g., wastw volume limits, generator eligibility, and a decision on fee subsidization).  :  :  :  :  :

DOE designs facility.  :  :  :  :  :

DOE sites facility.  :  : :_  :.. .

DOE constructs facility. years 4 and 5 i

NRC grants operating license. year 6  !

DOE finalizes storage / repackaging / ,

disposal fee. year 7 DOE begins accepting waste and extended storage / disposal fee. year 7 to year 20 42

Minimum time in years 0 1 2 3 4 i

1 l Limited-access starsse at existles DOE facility:

Congress mandates DOE to provide limited-access storage, and l expresses intention to transfer waste in limited-access storage to an extended-storage facility. :_  :  :  :  :

DOE /NRC determine toe.hnical l criteria for accepting GTCC waste.  : _  :  :  :  :

DOE estimates required storage capacity.  :  :  :  :  :

DOE estimates fee for limited-access storage.  :  :  :  :  :

DOE, NRC and possibly Congress de-termine non-technical specifications for facility use (e.g., wasta volume ,

limits, generrator eligibility, and a decision on fee subsidization).  :

DOE adapts existing facility.  :  :  :  :  :

DOE finativat limited-access storage fee.  :  : a  :  :

DOE accepts waste and collects fee for limited-access storage year 2 to year 7 Waste is transferred to extended-storage facility and an additional fee is collected for extended storage / repackaging / disposal. year 7 Other:

Congress considers additional controls on the distribution and/or use of sealed sources  :  :  :  :  :

43 h_ __. _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - . - - . . - -

gg ;, , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

[ll.', t , t

[- . i l ;9 ;

1

>f 4

1 .

ENCLOSURE I 0

l l,

1 l

~

.- - - -__.m ___ _______ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _

~

. ne.g%, UNITED STATES 7

, [

q l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

4 A*VIS!RY CIMMITTEE ON fiUCLEAR WASTE WASHINGTON, D.C. M -

February 24, 1989 The Honorable Landt, W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman +

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

FlNAL RULEMAKING ON 10 CFR PART 61 RELATIVE TO DISPOSAL OF GREATER-THAN-CLASS-C LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES During its seventh meeting, February 21-23, 1989, the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Warte (ACNW) met with nembers of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to discuss the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 61 relative to final rulemaking- for disposal of greater-than-Class-C low-level radioactive wastes. A representative from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) partici-pated in this meeting.

The NRC staff discussed the proposed rule (referenced), public coments on the rule, and the draf t final rule. On the basis of these discussions, we recomend that the NRC staff:

('i ; Explicitly state that DOE can exercise a range of options in selecting methods for disposing of such wastes in NRC-licensed facilities; and (2) Specify the performance requirements for the waste package in order to '

assist-DOE in selecting an appropriate option.

Subject to these qualifications, we agree with the rule as proposed.

Sincerely Dade W. Moeller Chaiman

Reference:

Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Proposed Rule,10 CFR Part 61, " Disposal of Radioactive Wastes," published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 96, Wednesday, May 18, 1988 .

l MAR 3 01989 Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Chairman Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -

Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Dr. Moeller:

Your February 24, 1989 letter to Chairman Zech on final rulemaking relative to disposal of Greater Than Class C Wastes (GTCC),10 CFR 61, requested the staff to address two points: (1) Explicitly state that DOE can exercise a range of options in selectin thods for disposing of GTCC wastes in NRC-

, licensed facilities, and (2)g meSpecify the performance requirements for the waste package in order to assist DOE in selecting an appropriate option.

Regarding the first point, Enclosure A contains highlighted text showing where DOE flexibility is explicitly stated in the draft Federal Register notice.

Enclosure B contains text which will be included in the draft Federal Register notice to accommodate the second point.

The staff believes this is responsive to the ACNW coments. Please let me know if I can provide the ACNW with any additional information.

Sincerely.

Okl % Sy, c ,, *

, Y W 6 hee, y

~

Victor Stello, Jr.'

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss

. SECY RES:WMB DE:WMB DE:WMB D/D:DE CPrichard JRandall MSilberberg RBosnak f 3/17/89* 3/17/89* 3/21/89* 3/23/89*

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE , g ,, (

RES :EDO g\V ': ED  :

OFC :D:DE :RES

E Beckjord$ :JT aylor

....L.:... .........:............

VSt 10  :

NAME : G Arlottoi :D Rossi

.......:...............:.............:.............:..............:_.... :3M/80 DATE :3/23/89 :3/24/89 :3/24/89 :3/ /89

ENCLOSURE A

- page 2 of Federal- Register notice)

Background

On May 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission published proposed amendments to Part 61 to require geologic repository disposal- of g mater-than-Class-C (GTCC) low level radioactive waste (LLW) unless an alternative means of disposal was approved by the Commission (53 FR 17709).

The [ proposal to require neologic repository disposal, or an approved alternative.] was aimed au insuring that GTCC waste would be disposed of in a

. manner consistent with the protection of public health and. safety.

This action was taken in lieu of a revision of the definition of high level radioactive waste (HLW). In proposing the amendments the Comission outlined its rationale for not proceeding with a revision of the definition of HLW along the lines proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published on February 27, 1087 (51 FR 5992).

It is the Commission's view that intermediate disposal facilities may never be available, in which case a repository would be the only type of facility generally capable of.providing safe disposal for GTCC wastes. [At-the same time, the Commissinn wishes to avoid foreclosing possible use of intermediate disposal facilities by the Department of Energy ( X)E).] If DOE chooses to develop one or more intermediate disposal facilities, the Comission

- anticipates that the acceptability of such facilities would be evaluated in the light of the particular circumstances, considering for example the existing performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61 and any generally applicable-environmental radiation protection standards that might have been established by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical criteria to implement the performance objectives and environmental standards would be developed by the Comission after DOE had selected a specific disposal technology and decided to pursue development of an intermediate facility.

e Enclosure A

\ _ _ ____ _ __---__ ____ _ _- _ _ - A

2

- page 6) of Federal Register notice (c)EffectsonRepositoryProgram There were a number of comments, including those of DOE, that expressed concern over the possible impacts on the geologic repository program of emplacement of GTCC waste along with HLW in the repository. Specific concerns were over the potential for additional costs, GTCC waste taking up valuable repository space, and the burden for DOE of having to include GTCC waste in its performance assessment of the repository.

The Comission believes that these impacts would be negligible. [First, the

)roposed amendments a' low for a range of GTCC disposal methods to be used by X)E..I Under present regulations on land disp osal of LLW (10 CFR Part 51), GTCC waste is specifically identified as "not generally acceptable" for near-surface disposal. Disposal methods for GTCC waste must generally be "more stringent" than near-surface disposal. The proposed amendments to Part 61 specified that one "more stringent" method would be geologic repository disposal. 70ther methods are not specified but are also left open to DOE, subject to Commission approval.J The proposed amendments were not what prevented DOE from routinely using near-surface disposal; that is already prohibited by 10 CFR Part 61.

Thus, relevant cost impacts of the amendments do not involve a comparison between costs of geologic repository disposal vs. costs of ' ear-surface disposal. Cost comparisons involve geologic repository d' osal vs. other

- page 8 of Federal Register notice J

considerations are involved. However, if DOE found that it did pose such an obstacle, .

[these amendments would permit DOE to choose an acceptable alternative disposal method.]

- page 12 of Federal Register notice Final Rule Following its review and analysis of the public coments, the Comission believes that the course of action it had proposed [--requiring geologic I repository disposal of GTCC waste, or approved alternative]-- should be adopted. Therefore, these final amendments to Part 61 deviate little from those proposed. By them, the Comission is providing DOE with ths regulatory framework DOE needs to proceed with plans for management of GTCC waste. The l Enclosure A

L [ rule identifies one approved method of disposal for GTCC waste, but allows DOE -

to plan and develop an alternative method if DOE so desires.) subject to Commission approval. It is now up to DOE to evaluate its options for GTCC waste disposal, and to proceed with GTCC disposal.

- proposed 561.55 9 61.55 Waste classification.

(a * * *

(2 (1 ) Waste that is not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal is waste for whia waste form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent, than those specified for Class C waste. In the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in Part 'O of this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission.

i -

p Enclosure A

}

l 1 ENCLOSURE B (to be inserted in draft Federal Register Notice)

For all wastes disposed of in a repository, Part 60 now requires:

(1) waste disposal operations shall be conducted in compliance with the radiation protection requirements of Part 20 of the NRC's regulations (section 60.1119).

(2) the option of waste retrieval shall be maintained for a period up to 50 years after the start of waste emplacement operations (section 60.111(b), and (3) "... any release of radionuclides from the engineered barrier system shall be a gradual process which results in small fractional releases to the geologic setting over long times ... The release rate of any radionuclides from the engineered barrier system following the containment period shall not exceed one part in 100,000 per year of the inventory of that radionuclides calculated to be present at 1,000 years following permanent closure ... (section 60.113).

Also implicit in Part 60 is a requirement that any GTCC wastes disposed of in a repository not prevent HLW or spent fuel from meeting the specific perfomance objectives for those types of wastes.

~

These general ~ objectives can be achieved in various ways for different wastes.

For example, containment within a durable waste cenister might be appropriate for short-lived wastes (half-lives about 30 years or less), while processing of wastes to reduce teachability of use of retardant backfill materials might be more appropriate for longer-lived wastes. The NRC is initiating an effort, as contemplated by section 60.135(d) of Part 60, to specify in more detail the waste form and packaging criteria appropriate for specific types of GTCC wastes. The Commission anticipates that DOE will develop specific waste form and packaging alternatives for consideration by the NRC in that rulemaking, and the Connission would welcome similar suggestions from other interested parties.

e Enclosure B I

r.~ -

r 3 DISTRIBUTION Subj/ Circ /Chron MS11berberg.

VStello

'JRandall LJTaylori CPrichard E.Beckjord Dross WMB Rdg/WMB Cire.

Dross GArlotto EDO R/F TMurley EJordon RBosnak EDO 4327 R9ernero JScinto, MBridgers HThompson JBlaha O

l ,

l

\

- - - - - _ - - - - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _