ML20247M788

Notice of Final Rulemaking 10CFR61, Disposal of Radwastes, Amending Regulations to Require Disposal of greater-than-Class C Low Level Radwastes in Deep Geologic Repository Unless Disposal Elsewhere Approved by NRC

ML20247M788
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/25/1989
From:	Chilk S NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20247M768	List: ML20247M765 ML20247M788
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8906050124
Download: ML20247M788 (6)

Text

_

~

22578 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 54, No.100 / Thursday, May 25, 1989 / Rules and Regulations '

budgeted at about last year's amounts PART998-MARKETING AGREEMENT NUCLEAR REGULATORY h- *-

except for staff travel expenses which REGULATING THE CUALITY OF ,o COMMISSION - --

't W have been decreased from $11,000 to ^

DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED -

L md C * '

$5,000. The administrative budget PEANUTS -

, w,1 - 10 CFR Part 61 . ; ; .. . . ac m m wwca includes a reserve for contingencies -- ~ ,, - ,

amounting to $5.279. 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 3 RtN 3150-AB89 ,- yMc The recommended administrative Part 998 continues to read as follows: '

y assessment rate for the 1989-90 crop Authority: Secs 1-19,48 Stat. 31, as :a j Disposalof Radioactive Wastes year is $0.50 per ton of assessable amended: 7 U.S.C. 001-674. AGENCv: Nuclear Regulatory *U peanuts. Last year the assessment rate Ccmmission* m- '

was $2.48 per ton ($0.48 for 2. New $ 998.402 is added to read as , '" '.a~ ,

administrative expenses and $2.00 for I II "8 W ACTION: Final rule.

s indemnification expenses). The 1989-90 Note: This section will not appear in the SUMMAny:The NRC is amending its e assessable tonnage was estimated at 1.7 Code of Federal Regulations. ~

regulations to require disposal of '

n illi n tons, th same as last year. greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) low-level pp I 998.402 Expenses, assessment rate, and on o e assessment rate to indemnification reserve. radioactive wastes in a deep geologic ,

this estimate will result in $850.000 for repository unless disposal elsewhere .

administrative expenses. (a) Admn.us . tratw.e expenses.The has been approved by the Commission.',

Approximately $8.4 million will be budget of expenses for the Peanut -

The amendments are necessary to aa carried forward into the 1989-90 crop Administrative Committee for the crop ensure that GTCC wastes are disposed '

year as a reserve under the agreement to year beginning July 1.1989, shall be in ofin a manner that would protect the meet 1989-90 indemnification expenses, the amount of $850,000, such amount public health and safety and therefore This reserve is deemed adequate to being reasonable and likely to be m,' ~

obviate the need for altering existing cover indemnification expenses for the incurred for the maintenance and 4 classifications of radioactive wastes as

1989-90 crop year. Therefore, the functioning of the Committee and for " high-level or low-level.

Committee did not recommend an such purposes as the Secretary may, 4 pursuant to the provisions of the EFFECTIVE DATE:The rule will become assessment to make monetary additions

. - marketing agreement, determine to be effective on, June 28,1989. g' to the indemnification reserve.The reserve is well within the limits appropriate. 9m.  :. mmit v ron runTNEn NFonMATION CONTACT:

authorized by the agreement. Funding (b) Indemnification expenses. J W. Clari Prichard, Division of s u.

for the indemnification account will also Expenses of the Committee for - ~. Engineering. Office of Nuclear 4 wW be generated from interest on time indemnification payments, pursuant to Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear ,

deposits. the terms and conditions cf Regulatory Commission. Washington, "

While this action may impose some indemnification applicable to the 1989 DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3884. g additional ccsts on handlers, the costs crop, effective July 1.1989, are not SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION:

are in the form of uniform assessments expected to exceed the balance of the WP# #

indemnification reserve (approximately M **d 3 on all handlers signatory to the 7 -

agreement.Some of the additional costs $8.4 million), such amount being On May 18,1988, the Nuclear _

may be passed on to producers. reasonable and likely to be incurred. Regulatory Commission published in the However, these costs will be Federal Register (53 FR 17709) proposed significantly offset by the benefits (c) pay shall Ratetoofthe assessment.

Committee,inEach handler- amenciments to Part 81 to require

- derived from the operation of the accordance with i 998.48 of the geologic repository disposal of greater-~

marketing agreement. marketing agreement, an assessment at than-Class-C (GTCC) low level Therefore,the Administratorof the AMS the rate of $0.50 per net ton of farmers' radioactive waste (LLW) unless an -

has determined that this action will not stock peanuts received or acquired other alternative means of disposal was 2 have a significant economic impact on a than from those described in i 998.31 (c) approved by the Commission.The substantial number of small entities. and (d). All funds generated from this proposed amendments requiring ,:

After consideration of the information assessment shall be for administrative geologic repository disposal, or an and recommendations submitted by the . expenses. approved alternative, were aimed at Committee,it is found that this final rule (d) Indemnification reserve. Monetary insuring that GTCC waste would be

. will tend to effectuate the declared additions to the indemnification reserve, disposed of in a manner consistent with policy of the Act. established in the 1985 crop year the protection of public health and pursuant to i 998.48 of the agreement, safety. This action was taken in lieu of a This final rule should be expedited shall continue.That portion of the total revision of the definition of high level because the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, assessment funds accrued from previous radioactive waste (HL%,). In proposing crop years and not expended in the amendments, the Commission which are incurred on a continuous outlined its rationale for not proceedm, g basis. Therefore,it is also found that providing indemnification on the 1989 good cause exists for not postponing the crop peanuts shall be kept in sucp with a revision of the definition of HLW effective date of this action until 30 days reserve and shall be available to pay along the lines proposed in the advance after publication in the Federal Register indemnification expenses on subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) crops. published in February 27,1987 (51 FR (5 U.S.C. 553).

Dated: May 19.1989. 5992).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 998 pgggg g., g g intermediate disposal facilities may Marketing agreement, peunuts. Associate Deputy Director, Fruit and never be available. In this event, a For the reasons set forth in the vegetable Division. repository would be the only type of preamble,7 CFR Part 998 is amended as (FR Doc. 89-12492 Filed 5-24-e9: 8.45 am] facility generally capable of providing follows: swNo cooE mtHn-M safe disposal for GTCC wastes. At the 8906050124 PDR WASTE 890030

• WM-3 PDC

My

, , Fed:r:1 Regist:r / Vol.'54, No.100 / Thursday, May 25, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 22579 s

same time, the Commission wishes to with the Commission that the volume of only for commercial LLW defined as >

avoid foreclosing possible use of GTCC waste is probably not great  :'

"A". "B", or "C" waste by Part 61. All intermediate disposal facilities by the enough to justify a separate facility for HLW, and all GTCC LLW is a Federal Department of Energy (DOE). If DOE this waste: costs of geologic repository, responsibility. The concerns expressed chooses to develop one or more disposal of GTCC waste would be by commenters on this point have intermediate disposal facilities, the comparable to, or lower than, ~

therefore been addressed, to a large Commission anticipates that the developing a special disposal facility extent, by legislation. No health and acceptability of the facilities would be molely for GTCC waste. -

safety concerns have been presented evaluatedin thelight of the particular The overall recommendations of the that would persuade the Commission to circumstances, considering for example OTA report are that a Federal off-site require the use of Federal facilities, to the existing performance objectives of interim storage facility for GTCC waste the exclusion of other facilities licensed to CFR Part 61 and any generally be established, as no permanent under the Atomic Energy Act, for the applicable environmental radiation disposal facility could be available for . disposal of all GTCC. Indeed, the -

protection standards that might have - at least 13 to 20 years. Until these LLWPAA appears to recognize the -

been established by the U.S. interim storage facilities become continued authority of a State, subject to EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

~

operational. the Federal government the provisions ofits compact, or a Technical criteria to implement the could provide limited access to an compact region, to accept GTCC waste

, performance objectives and . < ~ existing DOE storage facility. Within the for disposal, and in the absence of some environmental standards would be next year or so DOE should begin to compelling reason the Commission's  !

developed by the Commission after DOE evaluate the impacts on repository judgment is that this option should be ' ~

had selected a specific disposal n operations and performance of preserved. ~

'~P-technology and decided to pursue emplacing GTCC waste in the A '

N'ENd development of an Intermediate facility. repository. If DOE determines that such (blA PP li cabilityofStandards n#'

The Commission considers that the impacts are unacceptable, it could then lloth EPA and DOE, among 06r Part el amendments would obviate any begin to develop an alternative disposal commenters, were concerned about one need to reclassify certain GTCC wastes facility. '

[ aspect of possible geologic repository as HLW. Many comments on the Public Comments disposal of GTCC waste. Should GTCC ANPRM advocated classification of all ~ The Commission received 35 comment LLW be emplaced in a repository along GTCC wastes as HLW in order to with HLW, these two categories of ensure availability of a safe disposal lettero in response to its request for waste would be subject to different' * .'

"home" for those wastes. These Pubhc comment. Among the responses standards-EPA's IILW standard, and amendments achieve the same purpose were comments from the Department of

• EPA's LLW standard. In addition, they while leaving open the prospect that an queshned wMer N M Na(

intermediate disposal facility may prove gt et n ge yFA he tes of Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, South 60, or 10 CFR Part 61 would apply to ,

attractive at some time in the future. GTCC waste in a repository. . m Carolina, Vermont. Michigan, a Office of Technology Assessment Washington. Tennessee, and the Commenters cited the potential for -

Report Midwest Interstate Low Level confusion m having dual standards y Radioactive Waste Commission. ap y to wast the same repository, Following publication of the proposed amendments, the Congressional Office Remainmg comments came from of Technology Assessment published a n ustry, pro essiona , an regulations were developed for specific report on management of GTCC LLW.: ronmental to a swe private types of disposal facilities. Thus, Part 60 Its recommendations on disposal of GTCC waste generally support the major comments and Commission HLW, regardless of what other types of stance taken by the Commission in the responses. A detailed analysis of public radioactive wastes may be disposed of comments is available at the there. Similarly, Part 61 pertains to land Commission's Public Document Room, disposal facilities other than 6 he Tare a s that "If a es. r Part 60, and decision about the disposal of GTCC 2120 L Saeet NW., Washington, DC.

wastes were required today, a

{P ps d e f (a) Restricting Alternatives disposal of GTCC wastes in a HLW conservative approach would be t .

Many comments, including some by repository.

permanently isolate the waste m a deep geologic repository, as has been States and a regional state LLW If GTCC wastes were to be disposed proposed for co mercial spent fuel and compact, argued for restricting the of in a deep geologic repository,

-defense HLW. The report goes on to alternatives to geologic repository questions might be raised regarding the acknowledge that further research and disposat These comments were applicability to those wastes of the development could demonstrate the concerned that CTCC waste would be waste form and packaging requirements disposed ofin State or State compact of Part 60. As Part 60 is now structured, a pt bilit ofin e dia d,sposal gds operated facilities. NRC was urged to the retrievability requirement of 5 60.111 d " eliminate the option" of disposalin and the implicit requirement for C bon erm a es$at State or State compact facilities, by packaging to permit safe handling and these amendments pre' serve DOE's limiting alternative disposal methods to emplacement apply to all wastes.

flexibility to pursue either one of these Federal facilities, mcluding GTCC wastes, that are a;ternatives. The OTA report agrees This concern must be examined in the disposed of in a repository.

light of the Low Level Radioactive Applicability of the waste package Waste Policy Amendments Act of1985, containment requirement (300-1,000

$ US. Congress. Ofnce of TedmoloC Pub. L.99-240. 42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq. years) is specifically limited to packages A a [r ter th /$ss c el (LLWPAA) which clarified Federal and containing HLW or spent nuclear fuel.

Rad.oactae waste. OTA-BP4-so. 0ctober.19as. State responsibilities for radioactive Because GTCC wastes would not be

' ibid pp. 2- 3. waste disposal. States are responsible classified as HLW under these m___ __._____ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - .- . _ _ . - - _ - - - - -

22580 Federal Regi ter / Vol. 54. No.100 / Thursday. May 25.1989 /' Rules and Regulations

~

amendments, the waste package wastes rather than types of disposal , likely that a separate fund. similar to the requirements of Part 60 would not facilities as in NRC's regulations. Thus. HLW Nuclear Waste Fund, would be pertain to GTCC wastes.The it is possible that a repository containing established to provide for payment of performance objectives for the both HLW and GTCC LLW would be disposal costs by the generators of M engineered barrier system (release rate subject to two EPA standards.The NRC GTCC wastes, either as an advance fee 1 of 1 part per 100.000 per year) and for does nct anticipate that this will cause or as a charge upon waste receipt e' overall system performance are stated significant problems for DOE. since the (RecommendationsforManagementof '

so as to be applicable to all wastes LLW standard has not yet been Gmater.than-Class CLowl.evel '

emplaced in a repository.The degree to proposed and this situation can be taken Radioactive Waste. U.S. Department of which these performance objectives into account as the standard is Energy. DOE /NE.M77.1987).The ,

would affect GTCC waste form and developed. ~

Commission anticipates that new e packaging would depend on the specifi legislation would be enacted if required' (c) Effects on RepositoryProgram radionuclides present in the GTCC , so that the current situation does not -

wastes and on the physical and There were a number of comments- represent a major impediment to '-

chemical forms of those wastes.  ; including those of DOE. that expressed disposal of GTCC wastes. ,. >

For all wastes disposed ofin a concern over the possible impacts on the The fact that the expected volume of repository. Part 60 now requires: geologic repository program of GTCC waste is very low was an aM (1) waste disposal operations shall be emplacement cf GTCC waste along with important factor in the Commission's -

conducted in compliance with the HLW in the repository. Specific m decision to propose the Part 61 'W radiation protection requirements of ' concerns were over the potential for amendments. Current evidence shows +

additional costs. GTCC waste taking up

~

part 20 of the NRC's regulations that the expected volume of GTCC ia (100.111(a)). valuable repository space and the .  :. . waste is very small relative to volumes .

(2) the option of waste retn, eval shall burden for DOE of having to include a of HLW and Class A. B. and C LLW. It is be maintained for a period up to 50 GTCC waste in its performance , o n ' projected that 2.000-4.800 cubic meters years after the start of waste assessment of the reposi, tory.

• of commercially-generated GTCC waste emplacement operations (5 60.111(b)). In the Commission's view, these -

will need disposal through the year and concerns do not warrant changes from

, 20208. This amount of waste is smaller (3)"* *

• any release of radionuclides the proposed amendments. First, the than the anticipated excavated volume from the engineered barrier system shall proposed amendments allow for a range 7as g; pi g  ;

be a gradual process which results in , of GTCC disposal methods to be used d o not prese a

~

p 9 small fractional releases to the geologic by DOE. Under present regulations on significant burden on the capacity of the setting over long times * *

• The release land disposal of LLW (10 CFR Part 61). repository to receive HLW. It would not rate of any radionuclides from the, GTCC waste is specifically identified as be a significant factor underlying theo ~

engineered barner system followmg the not generally acceptable for near-need for a second repository.

containment period shall not exceed one surface disposal. Disposal methods for Re8arding DOE's assessment of the part in 100.000 per year of the inventory GTCC waste must generally be more t er p g of that radionuclides calculated to be stringent" than near-surface disposal. {e yanc g,e a a 'o e, present at 1.000 years,following The proposed amendments to Part_61 these amendments would permit DOE to pernianent closure , (5 60.113). specified that one more stringent 2 Also implicit in Part 60 is a method would be geologic repository choosp an acceptable alternative requirement that any GTCC wastes disposal. Other methods are not disposal mi.thod.

disposed of in a repository not prevent specified but are also left open to DOE. (d) Relationship to Defer $se Wastes >

Hl.W or spent fuel from meeting the 'biect to Commission approval.The y y sed amendments were not what Some comments were concerned with specific performance objectives for , anY effecta this rulemaking would have those types of wastes. prevented DOE from routinely using - . <

These general objectives can be near-curface disposal: that is already defense wastes. ;7

".I'he proposed amendments apply achieved in various ways for different prohibited by to CFR Part 61.Thus. ,

wastes. For example, containment solely to commercie.1 GTCC 11W. and relevant cost impacts of the 7 within a durable waste canister might have no bearing on facilities for defense amendments do not involve a 11W. NRC has licensing authority only be appropriate for short. lived wastes comparison between costs of geologic (half-lives about 30 years or less), while repository disposal versus costs of near- over commercially generated 11W:it surface disposal. Cost comparisons has no licensing authority over defense processing of wastes to reduce involve geologic repository disposal 11W,includmg defense 11W that might teachability or use of retardant backfill materials might be more appropriate for versus other unspecified Commission. be analogous to GTCC waste. Because ,

longer-lived wastes.The NRC is approved " intermediate" methods. Part 61, by its terms. would only apply initiating an effort. as contemplated by However, the proposed amendments did to DOE activities subject to NRC , *

! 60.135(d) of Part 60. to specify in more not require one method to be selected jurisdiction. and NRC jun,sdiction is detail the waste form and packaging over another; either option is permitted. lacking for defense 11W facilities, these ,

criteria appropriate for specific types of DOE would presumably weigh cost efforts ,would have no effect on defense GTCC wastes. The Commission comparisons along with other factors in 11W disposal.

anticipates that DOE will develop eclecting which disposal method to use. In the case of facilities authorized for specific waste form and packaging Even if geologic repository disposal the disposal of HLW, the Commission alternatives for consideration by the were selected, this type of disposal does have jurisdiction and the .,

NRC in that rulemaking. and the should not cause an increase in the Commission's regulations would Commission would welcome similar present HLW fee charged nuclear continue to apply. Accordingly, to the suggestions from other interested util' es-a specific concern raised on extent that DOE disposes of HLW in parties. behalf of industry. Rather, as suggested facilities other than geologic  ;

Previous development of EPA's by DOE's study of the matter pursuant r standards has addressed types of to sectior. 3(b)(3) of the 11WPAA. it is 'US Depement of Enersy esumates.

g y .,.n.-

,, Federal Regist:r / Vol. 54."No.100 / Thursday, May 25, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 22581 repositories, a license under Part 61 y; Classification System for High-level , , and terms and conditions with respect ,

would be required as before. DOE und OtherRadioactive Wastes. ORNL/ to " land disposal of radioactive waste". 1 would not necessarily be precluded from TM-10289. Oak Ridge National . In implementing this objective, 6 61.3 .

proceeding with such disposal, but as Laboratory,1987). The Commission cited requires that the disposal of low-level .

has always been the case DOE would this report to support its view that waste at any " land disposal facility" ,

need to obtain the Commission's evaluations of the waste isolation ...a _ must be authorized udner Part 61. r.'

approval.The NRC staff has been capabilities of " intermediate" disposal Section 61.7 notes that additional ^ g( y working with DOE to develop facilities would be so speculative and technical criteria might be needed for . .t appropriate classifications for defense site-specific that such analyses would licensing of disposal facilities other than reprocessing wastes under existing laws not provide a technically defensible "near-surface" disposal. If needed, such and regulations. These efforts have led basis for classifying wastes as IILW or criteria would be added to Part 61 .

to agreement that certain non-HLW. The Commission further before licensing an " intermediate" decontaminated salts at Savannah River stated that it could not accept an disposal facility. Because " land disposal and West Valley, generated incidentally alternative classification approach facility"is defined broadly (so as to in the course of processing, should not presented in that report because that include any facility other than a geologic be classified as HLW. Additional efforts ' approach was based solely on the short- repository), the reference to licensing are now underway to review materials term storage and handling risks under Part 61 is proper and in m u-to be produced at flanford in projected . associated with the heat and. external

' conformance with the existing w Jc -

operations, to determine whether the radiation levels generated by a waste regulatory structure. m + M" disposal thereofis subject to , rather than on the degree of waste '

Commission licensing. , isolation required following disposal. (b)Ma.edCTCC Waste , ,n m, n .

(eJRestricting DOE Optionsfor CTCC The authors of the cited report (Kocher EPA raised the possibility that some i Manogement - - and Croff) commented on the proposed GTCC wastes would also contain rule alleging that the Commission had hazardous materials subject to RCRA <

DOE argued tha't'the proposN , , misrepresented the content and amendments would limit its statutory

- (Resource Conservation and Recovery conclusions of their report. Act) regulations.The Commission 'n authority, under the LLWPAA, to As discussed in the detailed analysis develop a comprehensive policy for acknowledges this possibility as well as of public comments, the Commission the importance of steps to insure that management of GTCC waste. acknowledges that its statements could.

The Commission considered the ,, mixed" GTCC wastes are managed have been misunderstood.The appropriately. DOE will need to a proposed rule to be entirely consistent Corr. mission's purpose in referring to with the , comprehensive scheme for consider applicable RCRA requirements Ksher and Croff's report was solely t as well as those arising under the ~ n developing a policy for disposal of support its view that the proposal GTCC wastes , referred to in this Atomic Energy Act. Should RCRA ' '

presented in the ANPRM,i.e., requirements associated with GTCC comment.The pro osed rule did not classification of wastes based on e constram DOE a a ility to ' identify waste represent a significant +

analyses of the projected performance impediment to placing a geologic disposal options, financing mechanisms, of intermediate" disposal facilities, and the legislation needed to implement repository in service, DOE will still have should not be pursued because of the "

tbe optio to ropose the use of a them." Nor did the proposed rule require limited development of these facilities disposal of GTCC wastes prior to separa y.

and because their performance is likely ,

submittal of DOE's recommendations to to be highly site-specific.The -. (i) Limiting State Responsibility  ;

Congress. The propoi,ed rule only Commission continues to believe that recognized that GTCC wastes must be Kocher and Croff's report supports this A number f comments wanted the ~. ,

disposed of in a facility licensed by the Commission to promulgate regulations view. Other references to Kocher and ,

h constraint imposed by the Croff's work are withdrawn. a c h

{a nka ea de al In DOE's 1987 report to Congress (g) Licensing Underpart 61 responsibility. Congress clarified regarding management of GTCC wastes Concerning alternatives to geologic Federal / State responsibilities for (DOE /NE-0077), DOE stated that certain repository disposal, some comments radioactive waste in the LLWPAA.

i regulatory actions were needed before argued that the licensing of any States are responsible for all l DOE could proceed with identification alternative disposal method should not commercially. generated Class A, B, and of disposal options and costs. One of necessarily be under the framework of C LLW.The Federal government is these actions was a decision by NRC Part 61, as was proposed in ( 61.55. This responsible for the disposal of HLW and whether or not to proceed with would be too restrictive in their view. defense LLW. In view of this statutory development of a concentration based The Commission's regulations for framework, which the Commission ,

definition of high-level waste. The licensing of radioactive waste disposal considers to be compatible with Commission has decided not to develop consist solely of10 CFR Part 60, which protection of public health and safety, such a definition for the reasons applies to disposalin a geologic there would be no basis for any previously discussed. Thus, one of the repository, and to CFR Part 61, which Commission action at this time.

regulatory impediments previously applies to land disposal other than in a Changes From the Proposed Rule identified by DOE will be removed by geologic repository. A wide variety of this rulemaking. disposal methods, including all of those Only one change from the proposed currently proposed as " intermediate" rule has been made m these final (f) Reference to Analyses ofKocher and disposal methods, could be licensed amendments. Proposed i 61.55(a)(2)(iv)

C#"ll under Part 61. Thus, the Commission required geologic repository disposal of In the proposed rule, the Commission does not believe that i 61.55 places any GTCC waste "unless proposals for cited a technical report which had unnecessary restrictions on DOE. disposal of such waste in a disposal site recently been published (Kocher, D.C. On the contrary, as provided in 6 61.1, licensed pursuant to this part are and A.G. Croff, A Proposed Part 61 establishes procedures, criteria, submitted to the Commission for

l

.- 22582 Fed:ril Rigister / Vol. 54. No.100 / Thursday, May 25, 1989 / Rules and Regulations >

l l approval." A comment pointed out that the preparation of an environmental of Energy, which does not fall within the  ;)

the mere submittal of proposals was assessment.

scope of the definition of"small y

quite different than approval of The first change, pertaining to the entities" set forth in the Regulatory proposals by the Commission.The definition of" person "la corrective in ' *- Flexibility Act. All waste generators, '.

Commission agrees that its intent is ' that it merely reflects the broader some of which might be classified as 3' better expressed by requiring proposals jurisdiction of the Commission under the small entities, must pay the costs Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy i

to be approved. Accordingly, the associated with management and t wording in this section has been Amendments Act.The modification is disposal of the wastes they generate.

changed to read " proposals * *

• are not substantial This rule would not affect those costs j approved by the Commission." The second change, pertaining to the since it preserves all optione r:urrently Final Rule 8 4- available for waste disposal Only i .

4 l do e wastes lo DOE a selection of a specific disposal, m Following its review and analysis of repository, is minor. The existing technology from the full range of -

the public comments, the Commission regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 already alternatives available would potentially believes that the course of action it had preclude disposal of GTCC in a Part 61 proposed-requiring geologic repository licensed disposal facility without further have an economicimpact on small disposal of GTCC waste, or approved review and approval.This amendment entities. < ; y- aw, alternative-should be adopted. ^ # #

does no more than state the ~ Backfit Analysis Therefore, these final amendments to Commission's conclusion that. in the > n 3~ ~'

' Part 61 deviate little from those absence of such an approved The NRC has determined that the /4 proposed. By these amendments. the alternative, a geologic repository is the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.100, does not a -i Commission is providing DOE with the only currently authorized facility apply to this final rule, and therefore .

regulatory framework DOE needs to acceptable for GTCC disposal without that a backfit analysis is not required for proceed with plans for management of further review by the Commission. It is this final rule, because these GTCC waste.The rule identifies one thus a minor change to specify that the amendments do not involve any approved method of disposal for GTCC "more stringent" methods are to include provisions which would impose backfits ~

waste, but allows DOE to plan and disposal in a repository, whero it is also as defined in 10 CFR 50.10e(aJ(1). ' '

develop an alternative method if DOE so expressly provided that, as before. es desires, subject to Commission proposals for other methods of disposal List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 81 approvalit is now up to DOE to may still be submitted to the . Low-level waste. Nuclear materials, evaluate its options for GTCC waste Commission for approval.No Penalty, Radioactive waste Reporting riisposal, and to proceed with GTCC substantial modification of existing and recordkeeping requirements, Waste d:sposal. regulations is involved. -

classification. Waste treatment and T M

Papm sork Reduction Act Statement disposal th efore e Co as n is promulgating two changes to its existing This rule does not contain a new or For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the M

rules. First, by amending 10 CFR 61.55, it amended information collection would henceforth require all greater- requirement subject to the Paperwork Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, than-Class-C waste to be disposed ofin Reduction Act of1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et the Energy Reorganization Act of1974.

a geologic repository unless an seq.). Existing requirements were as amended, and 5 U.S.C,553, the NRC ~

alternative proposal is approved by the approved by the Office of Management is adopting the following amendments to Commission. Second, the jurisdictional and Budget approval number 315ri.0135. 10 CFR Part 61, reach of10 CFR Part 61 would be . y- Regulatory Analysis . ~

extended to cover all activities of the PART 61-LICENSING The Commission has prepared a Department of Energy that may be REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND subject to the licensing and regulatory ~ regulatory analysis for this final DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE authority of the Commission.Thisis regulation. The analysis examines the intended to reflect the policy of the Low- costs and benefits of the alternatives 1, The authority citation for Part 61 1 Level Radioactive Waste Policy considered by the Commission.The continues to read as follows: ~

Amendments Act, which provides that analysis is available for inspection in Authority: Secs. 53, 57, e2. 63' 65. 'a1,161, a11 commercially-generated wasie with the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L 182,183. 88 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, concentrations exceeding Class C limits Street NW., Yvashington. DC. Single 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073,2077,2002. .

'i shall be disposed ofin a facility licensed copies of the analysis may be obtained m. 2095,21n. 22m. 2232. 22331 secs. 202.

by the Commission that the Commission from W. Clark Prichard. Division of 200,88 Stat.1244. u48. [42 U.S.C. sa42,584el; determines is adequate to protect the Engineering. O.fice of Nuclear secs.10 and 14. Pub.1 95-601,94 Stat. 2951 public health and safety.This change Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear (42 U.S.C. 2021e and 5a511 would take the form of eliminating the Regulatory Commission. Washington, For the purposes of sec. 223,68 Stat. 958, as more restrictive language regarding the DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-38C4, amended (42 U.S.C. 22731; Tables 1 and 2.

Department of Energy that appears in Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification ii e1.3, et.24. e1.25, et.27(al et.41 through i61.2. et.43,61.52,61.53. e1.55,61.56, and 61.01 In accordance with the Regulatory

" ' i' " de b i En X

mentalimpact: Categorical 0D Flexibility Act of1980 (5 U.S.C. 005(b)),

and NRC Size Standards (December 9' tka enied 2 U.Sb" o bl)[68 Ii tn.9a. 61.10 through e1.18,61.24. and 61.80 The amendments to Part 61 contained 1985,50 FR 50241), the Commission are issued under sec.181o. 68 Stat. 950 as herein are corrective or of a minor certifies that this rule will not have a amended (42 U.S.C. 2:01(oll.

nature and do not substantially modify significant economic impact on a existing regulations. Accordingly, under substantial number of small entitles. The 2. In i 61.2, the definition of " person" ,

10 CFR 51.22(a) and 51.22(c)(2), they are only entity subject to regulation under is revised in the alphabetical sequence eligible for categorical exclusion from this rule would be the U.S. Department to read as follows: l r _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

m-- .

' E

, . Fed:r-1 Register / Vol. 54 No.100 / Thursday, May 25, 1989 / Rules and R:gulations '22583

$6t.2 Definitions. .

SUMMARY

This amendment adopts a information may not be available r As used in this part: ,

new airworthiness directive (AD). - through other established means.This -

• * * *

• applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 information is necessary to ensure that

" Person" means (1) any individual, series airplanes, which requires proper corrective action is implemented.

corporation, partnership, firm. Installation of a placard, inspection of The ATA further commented that,if association, trust, estate, public or the aft right lavatory partition beam to the saw cut exceeds the limit specified private institution, group, government ensure structural integnty, and repair, if in the service bulletin, the operator must agency other than the Commission or necessary. This amendment is prompted contact the Manager of the Seattle .

the Department of Energy (except that by reports of an inadvertent saw cut Aircraft Certification Office (SACO) for the Department of Energy is considered made in an aft right lavatory partition - approval of the repair, and therefore,it a person within the meaning of the beam dunng the production installation is redundant to require that same .r regulations in this part to the extent that of a ceiling panel.This condition. if not operator to report finding the saw cut its facilities and activities are subject to corrected. could lead to failure of the again.The FAA does not agree that the licensing and related regulatory partition beam to provide adequate redundant reporting exists in many authority of the Commission pursuant to strength for the lavatory-mounted instances.The rule requires reporting law), any State or any political occupied flight attendant seat when within 7 days after detection of any ..

subdivision of or any political entity subjected to flight or emergency landing inadvertent saw cuts. Only the repair for

, within a State, any foreign government conditions. saw cuts which exceed the limit 4 or nation or any political subdivision of EFFECTIVE DATE:Jur:c 29.1989. specified in the service bulletin must be any such government or nation, or other ADDRESSES:The applicable service approved by the Manager, SACO. Since entity: and (2) any legal successor, information may be obtained from al' repairs do not require specific .e representative, agent, or agency of the Boeing Commercial Airplanes P.O. Box approval by the Manager, SACO, and foregoing. . _,

- ' _~

3707. Seattle, Washington 98124. This quality control feedback is essential. . ;

• '1

• * *- information may be examined at the paragraph C of the AD must be retained.

3. In E 61.55, paragraph (a)is amended FAA Northwest Mountain Region.17900 Since issuance of the NPRM. Revision by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read Pacific Highway South, Seattle. 1 to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1231 as follows: Washington, or Seattle Aircraft dated January 12.1989, has been issued.

Certification Office. FAA, Northwest The FAA has reviewed and approved

$ 61.55 Weste classification. Mountain Region. 9010 East Marginal the revision and has determined that (a) * * * ~

Way South. Seattle, Washington. compliance may also be made with the' (2) * * * ' FOR FUf.TNER INFORMATION CONTACT: procedures as specified in Revision 1. -

(iv) Waste that is not generally Mr. Pliny Brt.Mel, Airframe Branch, The Revision provides for the wy acceptable for near-surface disposalis ANM-120S: telephone (200) 431-1931. . Installation of placards and provides waste for which form and disposal Mailing address: FAA, Northwest procedures for removing the aft right methods must be different, and in Mountain Region.17900 Pacific Ilighway flight attendant seat.The final rule has general more stringent.than those South. C-63960, Seattle, Washington been changed to include this later .*

specified for Class C weste. In the 98168. revision as an optional service absense of specific requirements in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:A ..

information source. This change does part, such waste must be disposed of in proposal to amend Part 39 of the Federal not increase the economic burden on a geologic repository as defined in Part Aviation Regulations to include an any operator, nor does it increase the -

00 of this chapter unless proposals for airworthiness directive which requires scope of the rule. , . . . ..r .

disposal of such waste in a disposal site the installation of a placard, inspection After careful review of the available hcensed pursuant to this part are of the aft right lavatory partition beam data, including the comments noted approved by the Commission. to ensure structural integrity, and repair, above, the FAA has determined that air if necessary, was published in the safety and the public interest require the

. Dated at Rockville, Md. this 19th day of Federal Register on January 13,1989 (54 adoption of the following rule, with the May,10a9. change previously noted.

FR 1385).

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Interested persons have been afforded There are approximately 80 Model 737 Samuel J. Chilk, series airplanes of the affected design in an opportunity to participate in the Secretaryo/the Commission. making of this amendment.Due the worldwide fleet. It is estimated that

[FR Doc. 8&12570 Filed 5-24-87. 8:45 am] consideration has been given to the 15 airplanes of U.S. registry will be suma coot me.e,-u comments received. affected by this AD, that it will take

___ The AirTransport Association (ATA) approximately 2 manhours per airplane of America requested that the proposed to accomplish the required actions, and DEPARTf/ENT OF TRANSPORTATION reporting requirements of paragraph C. that the average labor cost will be $40 be deleted from the rule ar.d that per manhour.The placard may be Federal Aviation Administration reporting should only be required when manufactured locally and the cost is further rulemaking might be necessary. expected to be negligible. Based on 14 CFR Part 39

. The FAA does not concur. When the these figures, the total cost impact of the

[ Docket No. 68-NM-187-AD; Amdt. 3b unsafe condition addressed by AD AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be 62251 action appears to be attributed to a $1.200. .

manufacturer's quality control (QC) Information collection requirements Airworthiness Directives; Boein9 problem, such a reporting requirement is contained in this regulation have been Model737 Series Airplanes Instrumentalin ensuring that the FAA is approved by the Office of Management AGENCY: Federni Aviation able to gather as much information as and Budget under the provisions of the p ssible as to the extent and nature of Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (Pub.

Administration (FAA). DOT.

ACTION: Final rule ~

the QC problem or QC breakdown, L 5511) and have been assigned OMB especially in cases where this Control Number 2120-0050.

e s<-. ..