Text

PR-061-57FR08093 - Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes
	ML23151A712
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/06/1992
From:	Chilk S; NRC/SECY
To:	;
References
	PR-061, 57FR08093
	Download: ML23151A712 (1)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:DOCUMENT DATE: TITLE: CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD: ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/06/1992 PR-061 - 57FR08093 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES PR-061 57FR08093 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OP RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULB: PR-061 OPEN ITEK (Y/N) N RULE NAME: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OP RADIOACTIVE WASTES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 57FR08093 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/06/92 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 04/06/92 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: EXTENSION DATE: I I 6 FINAL RULB FED. REG. CITE: 58FR33886 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 06/22/93 NOTES OH FILE LOCATED ON Pl. STATU OF RULE TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAXING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-061 RULE TITLE: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES ROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 91-394 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 92-351 CONTACTl: JANET LAMBERT CONTACT2: PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE: 01/16/92 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 03/06/92 FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SRM DATE: 05/24/93 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 07/08/93 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE MAIL STOP: NLS-260 PHONE: 492-3857 MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-061 (57FR08093) In the Matter of LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 03/02/92 02/28/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 03/30/92 03/25/92 COMMENT OF DAVID L. SIEFKEN (

1) 03/30/92 03/24/92 COMMENT OF JUDITH MYERS (

2) 04/01/92 03/29/92 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC (SUSAN L. HIATT) (

3) 04/07/92 04/03/92 LTR COLLINS TO SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION REQUESTING A THIRTY DAY EXTENSION FOR COMMENTS.

04/09/92 04/06/92 COMMENT OF US ECOLOGY, INC. (RICHARD A. SAUER) (

4) 04/09/92 04/06/92 04/30/92 04/24/92 COMMENT OF MA LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MGT BOARD (JOHN A. MAYER, JR., PE) (

5)

COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY (THOMAS W. ORTIGER, MANAGER) (

6) 05/07/92 05/06/92 LETTER FROM MEL SILBERBERG, NRC TO ORTCIGER, STATE OF ILLINOIS ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF ORTCIGER 5/24 COMMENT AND DECLINING EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD 06/17/93 06/16/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

DOC ET NUMBER PR b r 1 OSED RULE [ S-'1 FR~..!... tJ!.!.. CJ-~)~.- lt\\Ll USNHC

93 JUN 17 P 4 : 1 8

[7590-01-P] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 61 RIN 3150-AEOO Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations containing licensing requirements for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. These amendments (1) clarify that 10 CFR Part 61 also applies to the licensing of above-ground disposal facilities; (2) replace the phrase "quality control program" in§ 61.12(j) with the phrase "quality assurance program," tailored to LLW disposal; (3) update the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in§ 61.8, and (4) identify the correct NRC recipient of copies of the licensee 1s annual reports. The changes are intended to simplify LLW disposal facility licensing interactions for NRC, the NRC Agreement States, and potential appl icants for LLW disposal licenses. EFFECTIVE DATE: ( 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). LJ'.21-1~] ~ -~I? J5nri.13'tfb

ADDRESSES: Copies of the regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and the comments received on the rule may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mel Silberberg, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 492-3810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 6, 1992, (57 FR 8093-8096) that proposed to make four specific changes to 10 CFR Part 61 (hereafter referred to as 11Part 61 11 or "the regulation"). Part 61 sets out licensing requirements, licensing procedures, and performance objectives for the land disposal of LLW waste. A review of Part 61 against the backdrop of current State and Compact efforts to site and develop LLW disposal facilities identified the need to modify the regulations as follows: (1) clarify that 10 CFR Part 61 also applies to above-ground disposal facilities; (2) replace the phrase equality control program 11 in§ 61.12(j) with the phrase "quality assurance program," tailored to LLW disposal; (3) update the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in§ 61.8; and (4) identify the correct NRC recipient of copies of the licensee's annual reports. A 30-day comment period expired on April 6, 1992. Comments were received from six respondents. 2

Summary and Analysis of Public Comments Two of the letters came from States, one from a citizens group, one from an environmental consulting company, one from a LLW facility developer, and one from a private citizen. Three of the respondents provided no actual comments but only wrote to indicate their support for the proposed rulemaking. Two of the actual commenters, the State of Illinois and the consulting company, objected to certain provisions of the proposed rule and provided comments on those provisions. The objections raised by these two commenters focused on the change which clarifies that Part 61 also applies to above-ground LLW disposal facilities. The developer commented on a part of the rule that was not being revised. One of the commenters raised a concern about shallow land burial that was not germane to this rulemaking. Issue: Abandonment of the systems approach. The State of Illinois and the consulting company expressed concern that the proposed amendments to clarify the applicability of Part 61 to above-ground disposal amounted to more than simple clarification. These two commenters took the view that the proposed amendments constituted a significant change in, or even abandonment of, the regulatory concept that was the foundation of Part 61 and referred to as the "systems approach." The consulting company stated that two of the basic concepts of the systems approach in Part 61 were that "the site should make a significant contribution to the long-term isolation of the wastes, 11 and 11 as reliance on the long-term performance of engineered features decreases over time, reliance on the site must increase over time in order to compensate." The same commenter stated that the site would play a significantly less important role in assuring the 3

long-term isolation of the waste for above-ground disposal facilities without soil covers than it would for disposal facilities built into the ground with soil covers. The commenter stated that there would have to be overwhelming reliance on the above-ground engineered structures not only to contain the wastes over the short-term, but to provide long-term isolation as well. The commenters argued that this situation is an abandonment by NRC of the system approach to LLW disposal. Response. The systems approach to safe disposal of LLW was and still is the foundation of licensing under Part 61. The NRC is not abandoning that regulatory concept in the process of clarifying that Part 61 can be used to license above-ground disposal facilities. In pursuing the concept of the systems approach during the development of Part 61, NRC assumed that for LLW disposal facilities to meet the performance objectives in Subpart C, there would have to be an integrated performance of all of the disposal system components (i.e. the site, the waste form, the engineering or facility design, the operation, and the closure of the facility). Each component of the disposal system would make some particular contribution to the containment or isolation of the waste, albeit dependent upon the particular design. As an integrated system the components would work with each other to protect the public health and safety. This assumption applies to any LLW disposal facility, whether it is in the ground or above-ground. As noted in the Statement of Considerations for the proposed rule, technical criteria, analogous to those presently in 10 CFR 61 but specific to above-ground disposal, do not exist. Nor is the NRC providing either technical criteria or guidance for above-ground disposal designs in this rulemaking. It is expected 4

that should NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal. criteria will be developed on a case-by-case basis. In any case, whether an LLW facility is in the ground or above ground, it will have to meet the Part 61 performance objectives to be licensed for LLW disposal, and performance assessments will evaluate the interactions of the site, design, etc., to determine if they will result in a safe facility. Issue: NRC promotion of an unproven and questionably safe disposal technology. The public health and safety implications of the proposed action were also a major concern to the consulting company. That commenter objected to the proposed rule on the grounds that the NRC could not ensure that the public health and safety would be protected because the Agency had not evaluated the safety of an above-ground disposal facility over the 500 years during which there would be a radiological hazard at such a facility. The commenter also asserted that the NRC had not demonstrated through the proposed rule that an overall disposal system of such a design could, with reasonable assurance, meet the performance objectives of Subpart C, as such a facility would be required to do before an LLW license could be granted. In addition, the commenter stated that above-ground disposal technology was not specifically evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the existing Part 61 and noted that no additional assessment was offered as part of the proposed rulemaking. From this commenters perspective, by proposing the changes to authorize the use of above-ground disposal, NRC is promoting an unproven and questionably safe disposal technology. 5

Response. The structure of Part 61 is that all land disposal facilities must meet the performance objectives of Subpart C. The Subpart C performance objectives are the safety objectives, intended to protect the general population from releases of radioactivity, to protect individuals from inadvertent intrusion, and to protect individuals during facility operations. The license application for any LLW land disposal facility must demonstrate compliance with these objectives. If NRC received a license application for an above-ground facility, NRC would perform a safety evaluation as a necessary part of the licensing process to determine if the required performance objectives would be fulfilled. NRC's analysis and evaluation for such a facility would be based on site-specific information and data obtained during the licensing process to assess compliance with the performance objectives. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.S0(a}, the NRC will prepare an EIS for the facility as it is required to do for any LLW disposal facility license issued under 10 CFR Part 61. Issue: Lack of technical requirements for above-ground disposal - more complicated licensing process. The two commenters who objected to the proposed rule also objected because it did not contain technical requirements for above-ground disposal. Part 61 contains detailed technical requirements specifically for near-surface disposal facilities but no equivalent technical requirements for above-ground facilities are present in the existing Part 61, nor were any proposed through the rulemaking. The commenters maintain that it is not desirable to 6

promulgate a rule extending the applicability of Part 61 to above-ground disposal facilities without appropriate technical guidance. The consulting company also objected to the proposed rule because the commenter believes that NRC's intentions to develop technical requirements after an application is received would increase uncertainty and complicate, rather than simplify, the licensing process. The commenter stated that developing the requirements at the same time a license application is under review would expose the license review to undesired debate about the adequacy of the regulations and the manner in which they were developed. The commenter argued that NRC should develop the technical requirements for above-ground disposal now, as part of this rulemaking. Response. The NRC continues to support its earlier decision not to issue technical criteria for above-ground disposal with this rulemaking. While some States have considered above-ground disposal, no State has actually decided to build such a facility. Thus, NRC may not even receive an application to license an above-ground facility. Therefore, NRC believes that it is a more efficient use of NRC resources to develop technical criteria when there are actual plans for an above-ground facility rather than speculate at this time as to how such a facility might be designed. Although the decision to defer development of the technical criteria for an above-ground disposal facility will introduce some uncertainty into the licensing process, the Commission does not believe that this deferral will substantially interfere with the development of a license application for such a facility or the NRC review of such a license application. As noted previously, the performance objectives of Subpart C must still be met, and 7

furthermore, the near-surface disposal requirements currently in § 61.50, § 61.51, and § 61.52 may be useful to a potential license applicant in preparing a license application for an above-ground disposal facility. Issue: Increased regulatory uncertainty for above-ground disposal. The consulting company expressed concern that if an Agreement State receives an application for above-ground disposal and NRC has not developed technical requirements, the Agreement State will have to develop its own technical requirements which could be different from those developed by another Agreement State or by the NRC. The commenter's view is that the differences in requirements could raise issues that would ultimately have to be resolved by NRC or by the courts. Response. NRC recognizes that different States and the NRC might utilize different technical criteria appropriate to the particular design proposed to them. The NRC will provide assistance to the extent practical to facilitate States' efforts in developing and utilizing criteria. In any case, as noted previously by the Commission, the performance objectives of Subpart C must still be met. Any differences in technical approaches should not give rise to proceedings before NRC or the Courts. Issue: LLW licensing on an ad hoc basis. 8

According to one of the commenters, the proposed changes which include facility review and criteria development on a case-by-case basis, raise the specter of above-ground disposal facilities that are designed, licensed, constructed, operated, and closed, on an ad hoc basis. The commenter believes such licensing would be a retreat to the method of licensing used before the promulgation of Part 61. Response. The NRC does not believe that the term "ad hoc" accurately describes the licensing decisions it will make on above-ground disposal. NRC has dealt with and will continue to deal with many specific licensing issues on a case-by-case basis. However, since the promulgation of Part 61, the licensing process for LLW disposal is directed at attaining reasonable assurance that the licensed facility will meet the performance objectives of Subpart C. Granted there will likely be new and different issues associated with licensing an above-ground facility, but NRC will deal with these issues as it has in the past, making sure that adequate conservatism has been incorporated in the design or the siting of the facility to ensure the public safety. Issue: Not disposal but long-term storage. One of the cornmenters objected to the concept of above-ground disposal as nothing more than a 500-year hold-for-decay, storage facility. The commenter notes that long-term storage of LLW is inconsistent with Commission policy. The comrT1nter urged NRC to make a clear case that an above-ground disposal facility without an earthen cover is substantially different from a 500-year storage facility. 9

Response. The NRC would not treat an above-ground disposal facility as a storage facility. A performance assessment would need to demonstrate long-term performance and stability as required by Part 61. The facility would be licensed as a permanent disposal facility and would be evaluated for compliance with the Performance Objectives in Subpart C. Issue: Lack of public role in the regulatory process. Another issue raised was that the approach NRC intends to use to license above-ground disposal will not ensure adequate opportunity for public involvement in the regulatory process. The commenter noted that in the proposed rule NRC specified its intent to develop technical requirements for above-ground disposal facilities after an application is received and on a case-by-case basis. The commenter assumed that such an approach would not afford the public the opportunity to be actively involved in the development and review of such requirements. Response. There has been opportunity for public participation in the establishment of the performance objectives in Subpart C, which were established by rulemaking. In addition, there will be opportunity for the public to be involved in the regulatory process related to licensing an above-ground disposal facility. As discussed previously, the technical review criteria for an above-ground disposal facility will be developed on a case specific basis 10

after a license application is received for such a facility. On a case specific basis the Commission will determine what mechanism to use to establish the technical requirements for the facility license and the method for involving the public in the development of such requirements. In similar situations where the technical criteria for licensing has not been established by rule, the Commission has provided an opportunity for parties to the hearing on the license application for the facility, the opportunity to comment on the licensing criteria. This occurred in the Envirocare license application for a specialized high-volume, low-activity thorium and uranium waste disposal facility {56 Fed. Reg. 2959) 1991 and in the Louisiana Energy Services license application for the design, construction, and operations of unique uranium enrichment facilities. (56 Fed. Reg. 23310) 1991. Participation by a member of the public in the licensing process is described in NUREG-1274 including procedures for compliance with 10 CFR Part 2, NRC's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders." Federal Register Notices (FRN) are published when an application is tendered, when an application is determined to be acceptable for docketing, when the Draft Safety Evaluation Report {OSER) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are completed, and when public hearings are scheduled. NRC will also publish a Notice of Intent to issue a license and a Notice of Issuance. The public, States, tribes, and local governments can petition to participate in the licensing process and can request hearings to provide further involvement. Issue: Shallow land burial facilities could be considered geologic repositories. 11

The developer commented that the second sentence of the definition "land disposal facility" which reads, "For purposes of this chapter, a geologic repository as defined in Part 60 is not considered a land disposal facility" might be construed to preclude shallow land burial as a permissible method for LLW disposal. The commenter noted that while the exclusion of geologic repositories is supposed to decouple LLW facilities from deep geologic facilities for high-level waste (HLW) disposal, the definition of geologic repository in Part 60 (NRC's HLW disposal regulations) is very general, and that a "shallow land burial facility" for LLW could be considered a geologic repository under the Part 60 definition. Response. NRC staff believes that this comment reflects a misunderstanding regarding NRC's proposed changes to the definition of "land disposal facility," and it addresses an issue which is outside of the intended scope of the rulemaking. From the developer's comments, it could be that the developer incorrectly believed that the second sentence of the definiton was being added, or at least changed, as part of NRC's proposed revision to Part 61. However, neither was the case. The language identified in this comment is already part of the definition of "land disposal facility" in Part 61 and has been since the original rule was promulgated in 1982. For purposes of presenting the entire definition as it would appear when the revisions were promulgated, the NRC staff included the second sentence in what was referred to as the proposed definition for "land disposal facility" for the proposed rulemaking. Even though NRC was not proposing to add or change that sentence, NRC staff considered the developer's comment to determine if the wording of 12

the second sentence could be used to exclude typical shallow land burial as an acceptable design for disposal of LLW. The staff does not believe that there should be any difficulty in differentiating between a geologic repository that is licensed under the requirements of Part 60 for disposal of HLW and a land disposal facility licensed under the requirements of Part 61 for disposal of LLW. The definition of a geologic repository must be read within the context of the purpose and scope of 10 CFR 60.1. This section applies to a geologic repository that is only licensed to the U.S. Department of Energy {DOE) in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Moreover, section 60.1 specifically states that Part 60 "does not apply to any activity licensed under another part of this chapter." Therefore, a shallow land burial facility licensed under Part 61 would not come within the scope of section 60.1, but instead would fit within the scope of Part 61. The staff concludes that no change is required to the second sentence in the definition for "land disposal facility" in Part 61 to address the developer's comment. Based on the analysis of public comments and further staff review, the staff has prepared this final rule. As described below, there are some editorial differences between the proposed definition for "land disposal facility" and the definition to be promulgated in the final rule. Discussion of the Revisions I. Amend the definition of "land disposal facility" in § 61.2 to clarify that the term refers to LLW disposal facilities which are on or protrude through the earth's surface and do not have an earthen cover, in addition to those that are in the ground and have an earthen cover. The 13

purpose of this change is to clarify the regulatory applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of "above-ground" disposal designs like the "above-ground and vault," in particular,/the applicability of the performance objectives of Part 61 to these designs. The definition of "land disposal facility 11 offered in the proposed rule read "land disposal facility means the land, buildings, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes on the surface or into the subsurface of the land. For purposes of this Chapter, a 'geologic repository' as defined in Part 60 is not considered a 'land disposal facility'." For the final rule, the wording of the definition of "land disposal facility" has been modified slightly from the language of the proposed definition in order to better clarify that Part 61 can be used by NRC to license above-ground LLW disposal facilities. The final definition of land disposal reads 11 land disposal facility means the land, buildings and structures, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes. For purposes of this Chapter, a "geologic repository" as defined in Part 60 is not considered a "land disposal facility. 11 In the final definition, the words "on the surface or into the subsurface of the land 11 / have been deleted to eliminate confusion regarding the kinds of facilities to which these terms apply. The word structures" has been added since that term better describes the types of engineered features likely to be constructed at an above-ground LLW disposal facility. The Commission believes the final definition is not a substantive change but a modification to simplify the defintion so that it is easier to understand. At this time, the NRC is not issuing specific technical criteria for above-ground disposal facilities that are analogous to the near-surface 14

disposal requirements of§§ 61.50(a), 61.5l(a), and 61.52(a) of Subpart D because of the special technical characteristics of above-ground disposal facilities. Only those portions of the regulation that apply generically to "land disposal facilities" are directly applicable to the licensing of above-ground disposal facilities. Specifically, this means that the overall performance objectives of Subpart C will apply to above-ground disposal facilities, as well as the Part 61 administrative and procedural requirements, the environmental monitoring requirements, the financial assurance requirements, the waste transfer and manifest requirements, and the general institutional requirements. Establishing the applicability of the Subpart C performance objectives to above-ground disposal is particularly important. Any applicant for a license for an above-ground disposal facility under Part 61 will have to demonstrate to the NRC that the proposed facility can meet the same safety requirements and dose limits that apply to any LLW disposal facility that has an earthen cover. The demonstration of compliance will have to address the unique features of the above-ground design, the special technical considerations associated with those features, their potential health and safety consequences, and reconcile them with the Subpart C performance objectives. Even though some of the requirements in Subpart Dare only applicable to near-surface disposal, the Commission still believes they would be useful to a prospective license applicant as guidance for planning an above-ground facility and to the NRC or Agreement States in the development of technical requirements for such facilities. To provide further clarification regarding the applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of above-ground disposal facilities, NRC also is amending the "Disposal Facility discussion in the Concepts Section - 61.7. The change to 15

§ 61.7(a)(l) clarifies the distinction made by the NRC between near-surface disposal and above-ground disposal, to emphasize that near-surface LLW disposal facilities built partially or totally above-grade have protective earthen covers, while similar facilities constructed without earthen covers are considered to be "above-ground disposal facilities. 11 NRC is not providing either technical criteria or guidance for above-ground disposal designs with these amendments. It is expected that, should NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal, criteria will be developed on a case-by-case basis. II. Replace the term "quality control program" in § 61.12(j) with the term "quality assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal. The purpose of this change is to clarify what steps an applicant for an LLW disposal facility license must take in order to assure that the facility will perform as intended, and also ta assure that the necessary records and documentation are available for evaluation and performance assessment by NRC or an Agreement State at the time of license submittal. Quality assurance is a broad term that encompasses quality control and also includes managerial controls and audits. III. Revise § 61.8 to indicate that the NRC requested and obtained 0MB approval for the information collection requ1rements in Part 61. Under the 0MB guidelines that were in effect when the original Part 61 was issued, 0MB approval of the Part 61 information collection requirements was not necessary because the regulation was expected to affect less than 10 licensees. Subsequently the 0MB guidelines changed, and Part 61 was no longer exempt from the 0MB approval requirement. Accordingly, NRC submitted Part 61 for 0MB review and obtained the 0MB clearance that is required by the Paperwork 16

Reduction Act. The purpose of this change is to update§ 61.8 to correctly reflect this approval. IV. Revise§ 61.BO(i)(l) to identify the correct NRC headquarters recipient of copies of the annual report. Issue of Compatibility for Agreement States Under existing NRC policy and guidelines, two of the changes adopted in this rulemaking would be matters of compatibility for the NRC Agreement States. The change to the definition of land disposal facility in§ 61.2 is a matter of Division I compatibility, and the "QC" to "QA" change in § 61.12(j) is a matter of Division II compatibility. This means that those Agreement States that have assumed NRC's regulatory authority for the disposal of LLW under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, normally would be required to incorporate the new definition of "land disposal facility" essentially verbatim directly into their State regulations for LLW disposal. However, States who have already selected a disposal technology and adopted a more narrow regulatory definition of 11 land disposal facilityu to reflect that selected technology, will not be required to amend their regulatory definition to conform to this revision, provided the selected technology falls within the scope of 10 CFR Part 61 and the definition is not inconsistent with the NRC definition. The incorporation of the Division II change is also required; however, the Agreement States have more flexibility than for the Division I change. For the Division II change, the language adopted need not be identical to the NRC regulations, bat the effect cannot be less stringent. 17

Based on the existing guidelines, the changes would have to be incorporated within 3 years after this final rule is issued. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. Three of the proposed changes - the "quality control" to "quality assurance" change in§ 61.12(j), the update of the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in § 61.8, and the correction of the organizational inconsistency in § 61.S0(i)(l) are the types of actions described in categorical exclusion § 51.22(c)(2). As such they are _ considered by the Commission to be corrective and nonsubstantive in nature and will not have an impact on the environment. The remaining changes, which clarify the applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of above-ground LLW disposal, also will not have an impact on the environment in that these amendments do not change the required level of overall performance for LLW disposal facilities. Furthermore, any environmental impact of operating such a facility will be addressed as a part of the licensing action for that specific facility under 10 CFR Part 51. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, 18

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3877. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule 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. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final regulation. The analysis examines the alternatives considered by the Commission and explains the decision to revise Part 61. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield, (301) 492-3877. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The changes made to Part 61 in this rule will only affect those entities that decide to apply for a license to build and operate an LLW disposal facility. In the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) and the Low-Level Radioactive 19

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), Congress mandated that the individual States or groups of States called compacts should provide the LlW disposal capacity for the LlW generated within each of their borders. Thus the licensees for LlW disposal facilities will either be States or private operators which are not small entities under the size standards established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56671). In addition, this rule will not have a significant economic impact because the changes to Part 61 are clarifying in nature, and only a small number of licensees are likely to be affected. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(l). list Of Subjects Part 61 - Criminal penalty, low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 61. PART 61 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR 20

LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1.

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

2.

In§ 61.2, the definition of land disposal facility is revised to read as follows: § 61.2 Definitions. As used in this part: Land disposal facility means the land, buildings and structures, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes. For purposes of this Chapter, a 11geologic repository 11 as defined in Part 60 is not considered a II land disposal facility. 11

3.

In§ 61.7, paragraph (a)(l) is revised to read as follows: 21

§ 61.7 Concepts (a) The Disposal Facility. (1) Part 61 is intended to apply to land disposal of radioactive waste and not to other methods such as sea or extraterrestrial disposal. Part 61 contains procedural requirements and performance objectives applicable to any method of land disposal. It contains specific technical requirements for near-surface disposal of radioactive waste, a subset of land disposal, which involves disposal in the uppermost portion of the earth, approximately 30 meters. Near-surface disposal includes disposal in engineered facilities which may be built totally or partially above-grade provided that such facilities have protective earthen covers. Near-surface disposal does not include disposal facilities which are partially or fully above-grade with no protective earthen cover, which are referred to as "above-ground disposal." Burial deeper than.JO meters may also be satisfactory. Technical requirements for alternative methods may be added in the future.

4.

Section 61.8 is revised to read as follows: § 61.8 Information collection requirements: 0MB approval (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 0MB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0135. 22

(b} The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in§§ 61.3, 61.6, 61.9, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12, 61.13, 61.14, 61.15, 61.16, 61.20, 61.22, 61.24, 61.26, 61.27, 61.28, 61.30, 61.31, 61.53, 61.55, 61.57, 61.58, 61.61, 61.62, 61.63, 61.72, and 61.80.

5.

In§ 61.12, paragraph {j) is revised to read as follows: § 61.12 Specific technical information. (j) A description of the quality assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal, developed and applied by the applicant for the determination of natural disposal site characteristics and for quality assurance during the , design, construction, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility and the receipt, handling, and emplacement of waste *

6.

In§ 61.80, (i}(l) is revised to read as follows: § 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports. and transfers. (i)(l) Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materials received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual reports to the appropriate Commission regional office shown in Appendix D of Part 20 of this 23

chapter, with copies to the Director, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Reports must be submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the preceding year. f Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this f b ~ay of _J_u_n_e ____, 1993

Commission
24

CIT:T NUMBER PR ~L-PROPOSED RULE en --- ( 51 F fL f-D 'f3 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 Thomas W. Ortciger, Director State of Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704

Dear Mr. Ortciger:

MAY 6 1992 I Ol.K[ 1 Ll' U~NRC

92 MAY -7 A8 :55 This is to acknowledge receipt of your April 24, 1992, comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule changes to 10 CFR Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes." As agreed to by Steve Collins and Wayne Kerr of your staff and Janet Lambert of my staff, since your comments were received in a timely manner after the official public comment period ended on April 6, 1992, it was unnecessary for NRC to formally extend the comment period as you requested in your letter dated April 3, 1992. Your comments will be considered in the preparation of the final rule.

Sincerely, ~ Mel Silberberg, Chief Waste Management Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

THOMAS W. 0RTCIGER DIRECTOR DOCKET NUMBER PR / / PROPOSED RULE 0 -.,._~_R_g_o r,_!) STATE OF ILLIN0IS 0(,KU 1:.L* USNRC '92 APR 30 AlO :37 DEPARTMENT OF N~CLEAR SAFE~;¥1- '~l_Jf.St~KUt,1'.,. 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE t oc l IING,\\,;, Vlf:f_ SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704 uRANG~ (217) 785-9900 April 24, 1992 JIM EDGAR GOVERNOR Secretary of the Convnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C011111ission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Re: Proposed Rule Changes, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes;" 10 CFR 61; 57 Federal Register 8093-8096 (March 6, 1992). Gentlemen: The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety has reviewed the above-referenced Federal Register notice and has the following coments. Although the notice indicates these changes are intended to clarify the applicability of 10 CFR Part 61 to certain types of facilities and to simplify !*:*..;ensing interactions, we believe there 1s a more substantive pol icy change involved. The current Part 61 contains "Technical Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities" in Subpart D that do not, either under the existing rule or under the proposed rule, apply to above-grade facilities with no protective cover or to underground caverns. We do not believe it desirable to promulgate a rule which is applicable to these facilities without incorporating appropriate technical guidance. It is particularly difficult to understand why the site suitability requirements of 10 CFR 61. 50 would not apply to any such facility as a minimum. We recommend it be deferred until such guidance can be incorporated. We also object to the assignment of Division I compatibility to this proposed rule. This would mean that States such as Illinois and most other Agreement States currently developing waste disposal facilities would be required to incorporate a definition of a land disposal facility which includes the acceptability of a technology which Illinois has found unacceptable (i.e., shallow land burial) and, in fact, is prohibited by Illinois l aw. We believe it inappropriate for NRC to categorize this change as necessary for Agreement States to adopt within three years of the effective date in order to maintain compatibility. Further, inasmuch as siting and regulation of such facilities in many cases is a state responsibility, we do not believe the rule merits a Category I compatibility designation. Acknowledged b card JUL l 6 1992 y

( MM:SSIOt\\ flON RY

Secretary of the Commission April 24, 1992 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to coment on the proposed rule changes. If you have any questions, please contact Wayne Kerr at (217) 785-9918. ~incerel;, \\~~~tcig r Director TWO:gas cc : B. J

Ho l t WILLIAM F. WELD GOVERNOR JOHN A. MAYER JR C HAIRMAN CAROL C. AMICK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE Samuel J. Chilk uvvn.L-I In,,.,---
rn - 0 I PROPOSED RULE ( !J1 F fl ii O 1V COM MON'vVEAL TH OF MASSACHUSETTS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEM ENT BO.Ar~l2KL rm 10C CAMBR IDGE STREET ROOM 903 USNHC BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02202 617 727-6018 April 6, 1992

'92 APR -9 P 3 :49 OFF!Cf: OF ::i!:.C f.1ARY QOCK[T1N(i <', ';[fiVICf. 81~AN Cl-i Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The Massachusetts Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Board submits the enclosed comments on the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 61, as noticed in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 45 on March 6, 1992. I. Amendment to the definition of "land disposal facility". We support the clarification, which this amendment would provide, that 10 CFR Part 61 applies to above-ground disposal facilities as well as "near surface disposal" facilities. II. Replace the term "quality control" with "quality assurance". We support this change, always believing that "quality assurance" was the intended concept. We have no comments on the other two changes. s/ZJtf-1 J ohn A. Mayer, Jr. PE Chairman RESPON S IBLE FOR PL.A NNING AND EFFECTI NG THE M A NAGEM EN T OF LO W -LEVEL RADIOACTIV E WASTE I N TH E COMMONWEALTH

U.S. NUCLEArl REGULATORY COMMISSIO~ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docume t Statistics Postmark Date - ~+-i(--,--1 ____ _ Copies Receivea __ I ____ Add'I Copies Reprodured _3""----- Special Distribution :Pb R) R ;x::.~ 5 L °'-V'll ~e..1(1

US Ecology, Inc. 9200 Shelbyville Road, Suite 300 P.O. Box 7246 Louisville, Kentucky 40257-0246 502/426-7160 USEcology an American Ecology company April 6, 1992 Samuel J. Chil k Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR - ' / ? ) ( 57 FR go'f V i ' ' ', *-... ~, USNHC '92 APR -9 P 3 :43 HRANCl-i

Subject:

Co1t111ents on Proposed Charges to 10CFR61; Federal Register March 6, 1992

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Per the March 6, 1992 Federal Register pertaining to the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission's proposed 10CFR Part 61 revisions, US Ecology has only one comment. Reference 61.2: The exclusion of geologic repositories as defined in Part 60 from the definition of a "Land disposal facility" could create problems when siting a LLRW facility. The exclusion of geologic repositories is supposed to decouple LLW facilities from deep geologic repositories for high level waste.

However, the definition of geologic repository in Part 60 is very general.

Typical shallow 1 and burial could be defined as a "geologic repository." Thus this change to 61.2 could be used to exclude typical shallow land burial as an acceptable design for a LLRW disposal facility. We hope this conwnent is given consideration and want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to Part 61. fµ:J !Ja,wJ Richard A. Sauer Vice President RES/pt JUL 16 1992 Acknowledged by card.......... "......................

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docur.ent st~tistics Postmark Date t./ f 7 Copies Received-...,__,,--',-/------ Add'I Copies RcprudL :i,d.....,>=---=--c--- SP.ecial Distribution

1) R 1:.,hS

~'('(\\ b "'<'

THOMAS W. 0RTCIGER DIRECTOR DOCKET NUMBER PR / / OPOSED RULE - h ) 7FL80'i3

92 APR -? p 3 :z, STATE OF ILLIN0IS

_* ~--~- r"v DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY \\fd~'~f 19~t/;/'tl~ 1:1r:! 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE 8RAHC4 SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704 (217) 785-9900 April 3, 1992 JIM EDGAR GOVERNOR Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Re: Proposed Rule Changes, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes;" 10 CFR 61; 57 Federal Register 8093-8096 (March 6, 1992). Gentlemen: The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety has reviewed the above-identified proposed rule changes and hereby requests a thirty day extension for comments. Although the proposed rule changes are purportedly only intended to clarify the rule, it is not readily apparent to the Department that such is the only result. The changes appear to suggest a departure from existing regulatory policy, especially relative to "above-ground" low-level radioactive waste disposal facility requirements and the Department would like more time to consider its commentary. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposed rule changes, and look forward to an additional thirty day period to C°arefully consider your proposal. Please contact me at (217) 785-9935 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~(!_,_~ Steven C. Collins, Chief Division of Radioactive Materials SCC:JGK cc: B.J. Holt @ recyclable

J.~,,:l.i"uLi::.-.. 1 iit:GULATORY COMMISSIOt-. DOCKETING &,.HMCE SECTION OFFICt: OF THE SECRETARY OF T iE COMi\\USS:ON Document Statistics Postmark Date 3 Copies Recei *ed. ___ /---=----- Add'I Copies Reproduced ----~- Special Distribution__,__

_: _...:...,..~-=-,;;_s L ~'rn e. \\

March 29, 1992 DOCKET NUMBER PR ~ l PROPOSED RULE..!:.!-~~-t.>32 °'\\ ~, ff( <j f) -,3/ ' LKL"iLO USNRC

92 APR -1 P4 :10 COMMENTS OF ON PROPOSED RADIOACTIVE OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. ( "OCRE")

RULE, "LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LA D ~DJ.:Ss~Jfft. 1f?F WASTES," 57 FED. REG. 8093 (MARCH 6ioc.1K1:Y~h l.suiv1cr. RANCH G) In this proposed rule the NRC seeks to make four specific changes to 10 CFR Part 61 for the purpose of correcting imprecise wording and administrative inconsistencies in the current regulations. OCRE supports this proposed rule. The changes sought are necessary. It is especially important to clarify that Part 61 applies not only to shallow-land burial of low-level radioactive wastes, but to the use of above-ground and above-grade engineered structures for waste disposal as well. Since most States and Compacts have rejected shallow-land burial and instead plan to use engineered structures, it is important to revise Part 61 to incorporate these concepts. Otherwise, it could be claimed that Part 61 mandates shallow-land burial. Clearly that was not the intent of Congress in enacting the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Section 8 of which directs the NRC to assist the States in developing alternative disposal methods (other than shallow-land burial). OCRE urges the NRC to adopt this proposed rule without delay. Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 ).... APR 15 1992 Acknowledged by card""""*----..-::-

l I-'

1 US. NUCLEAH REGULATORY COMMlSSIO~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 3.3 0 Copies Received __ Add'I Copies Repr, "ed -=----- szc~... -B) :RX.),s

~~ ~~ Ho -e, w: ~mf ~ 1/4 1 w Cz B d-)c I 2)i~_Q--n~ ~ (' 1 ~ -i:Lt_ Lo n.r1 ~ s s.; a n ~ \\ OL6_-h "i 0--~ &, J;UL ~~\\ lA, , 'f'J \\.A_C,\\,e,,e,_,* ~ ~-hi~ l_0 r.'\\ 1 \\ \\ S ; Of'\\ W CA,() ki.. I~ +c_ n 1 D Q_,, ~ 6~ ~-< ~ C-' V~r -....)trS )

92 MAR 30 P 3 :40

~ M ~ v-y d J '{)w.. ro OU, J ~ '--+L,_j-- w cn,J,J ~ y~ lQ.\\ .-\\u .AQ_~ ~ °'f?~J frr 1/4 Lo\\.J- ~ wewd,. cLo ('~ ~ Le 0l, <&u ~~f "- 11 () ~ ~ {/ 0~ ~,-

!~ ~C?..-1.~)1 ~b,J- ~

~~ \\'\\) \\<,_e, -<'.l~{ ~_;~:.,,_., I AeJ_-L,r --j,~ a_ "o~ ~Q* ~ ~~~ ~ t,C) ~ ~ rvt~FJ) ~~ 0&.oJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-L :>!JCA.ke ~ ~t\\L~ uti'0-<..QA/\\J (__,{:b ?~ L w~ ~ ~ ~., W ~~ U\\uoU ~ ~ ~ 1 C-0,rf<f'L~ pcnJ~ ~ ~ b_ ~ o,~.AJl.ffi"Q~ +.- ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ \\~ rnd, ~ ~1~~ ~ ~ ~~ w~ d.MpaJ J,.J-0 0- rrol~:j j~.p) ~ YLD 4J'(lu,,,.,L) WJ ~W) ~t~I L-e. oJJJvveJ h ~~ Cf0 °" '/cz-e} ML-~.~~ ' 1 ~ f'Qlrl\\,6Vtl\\3/4 er) ~

'AP_J ~')..Q 11 ~

~ ~ _f, J., _ 2-

~~ +o ~ L(~ ~ L/ to fu ~ ~ / 6' +k ~to IS. r ~ Oz~ ~ trw =~L <ti) C-{J\\M_J; O 0cJ:, ~\\.

,.... m,.......................... pJeo Aq paBpajMOU~OV '---zss1 s r Hdtt J -~<n?YW1... ?~.1f SP( r"vfJ

ERM Program Management Company DOCKET NUMBER PR p I PROPOSED RULE~~~-, 2 > (51f"~ f Of/~ 7926 Jones Branch Drive

Suite 210
Mclean, Virginia 22102 * (703) 734-9327
Telefax: (703) 734-9394 USNRC
92 MAR 30 A 9 : 1 1 25 March 1992 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir or Madam:

After review of the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 61 published in the Federal Register (Vol. 57, No. 45, pages 8093-6) on March 6, 1992, I believe that the proposed changes to accommodate an uncovered above-ground disposal facility do not ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, do not ensure adequate opportunity for public involvement in the regulatory process, increase the regulatory uncertainty associated with licensing a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility of that design, and are a retreat to the ad hoc licensing process used by the NRC for low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities prior to promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61. Accordingly, I urge the Commission to not adopt these proposed changes. The proposed changes are not simple word changes -- rather, they are abandonment of the systems approach which was the foundation of 10 CFR Part 61. Whatever happened to concepts such as (1) the site should make a significant contribution to the long-term isolation of the wastes (NUREG-0902, p.3) and (2) as reliance on the long-term performance of engineered features decreases over time, reliance on the site must increase in order to compensate (47 FR 57450). Further, the proposed changes authorize the use of a disposal technology -- above-ground disposal without an earthen cover -- which the NRC did not evaluate in the EIS supporting promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61. The safety of an uncovered, above-ground disposal facility for the 500-year duration of the radiological hazard has not been adequately demonstrated by the NRC. In the absence of subsystem requirements for site suitability, disposal facility design, land disposal facility operation and disposal site closure, the NRC has not demonstrated that an overall disposal system of that design can, with reasonable assurance, meet the performance objectives of subpart C. In essence, the proposed above-ground disposal facility is a 500-year, hold-for-decay, storage facility. Such a facility appears to be inconsistent with recent Commission policy related to storage of low-(j) APR 15 1992 Acknowledged by card"**"-:::..~ An affiliate of The Environmental Resources Management Group with offices worldwide 'Wilc;_n

~

.; -. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf\\ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSK,N Document Statistics Postmark Date __ 3..,._,.~-"----- Copies Aeceivod. __ /_ Add't Copies Reprodur.-"...,J---=.:--.=---=-- S ecial Distribution_.,.--~ _._K ..:..;....~_.:;._ p._

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 March 1992 Page2 level radioactive wastes for much shorter time periods with on-going monitoring and surveillance. If the NRC, however, believes that it can make a clear case that an above-ground disposal facility without an earthen cover is substantially different from a 500-year storage facility, then the siting, design, operation, and closure requirements should be developed now, in a formal rulemaking process, in order to guide site selection, site characterization, facility design, and preparation of a license application and to increase confidence in the outcome of these activities. In the absence of these criteria, the proposed rule changes appear to increase the regulatory uncertainty and to encourage the development of an unproven engineered alternative for land disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. Having been a contributing author on the NRC staff when 10 CFR Part 61 was developed, I have to say it is my recollection that the concept of an uncovered above-ground disposal facility on the ground surface was considered and it was a conscious decision, not an oversight, to (1) adopt the wording "in or within" and (2) not include the word "on." My recollection can be verified by checking with current NRC staff (Ed Hawkins, Paul Lohaus, Kitty Dragonette) who I supported in the drafting of the regulation. More detailed comments are as follows:

1.

Significant Change in System Approach The proposed change to clarify that 10 CFR Part 61 applies to above-ground disposal facilities is not, as indicated in the Summary, simply a change "... to correct imprecise wording... in the current regulations." Rather, the change is a major change in the systems approach that is the foundation for the regulation. Clearly in the case of the uncovered above-ground disposal facility, there is an overwhelming reliance on engineered features with respect to long-term isolation of the wastes. Whereas the site characteristics may be expected to promote long-term stability, the engineered facility must provide containment of the wastes. If not, the primary pathway for the release of dissolved radionuclides from the uncovered above-ground disposal facility after the assumed end of the institutional control period, but prior to the end of the radiological hazard for Class C wastes, will be directly onto the ground surface adjacent to or under the structure. The site, ~ Group,._

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 March 1992 Page 3 therefore, makes little direct contribution to isolation of the wastes.

2.

Disposal versus 500-year Storage

3.

In the absence of the systems approach which relies on the site to make a significant contribution to the long-term isolation of the low-level radioactive wastes and to provide added confidence in the disposal system as confidence in the engineered factures decreases over time, the above-ground disposal facility addressed in the proposed rule change is essentially a 500-year, above-ground storage facility. Absence of Criteria for Above-Ground Disposal Facility As stated near the top of the second column on page 8094, 11

- - at this time the NRC has no specific criteria analogous to the near-surface disposal requirements of Sections 61.50(a), 61.51(a), and 61.52(a) of subpart D for above-ground disposal.

11 As stated near the bottom of that same column, the subpart D requirements are not applicable as requirements for above-ground disposal facilities. These two statements clearly indicate that, since there are no regulatory criteria for site suitability, disposal facility design, land disposal facility operation and disposal site closure with which to evaluate such a facility, the NRC has little basis to encourage the development of and to license, or to permit an agreement state to license, an uncovered above-ground disposal facility. Although Section 61.54 advised that the NRC may, on its own initiative, authorize provisions other than those set forth in Sections 61.51 through 61.53, this did not include Section 61.50(a) and, more importantly, it would be done only if the NRC finds reasonable assurance of compliance with the performance objectives of subpart C. The NRC presents no basis in this proposed rulemaking that it will be able to make such a finding.

4.

Complication of Licensing 1?rooess Referring to the same citations on page 8094, in the absence of these requirements, the NRC has proposed a situation wherein the public debate, site suitability review, and licensing review will be open not only to the issue of public health and safety but also to the issue of the adequacy and appropriateness of the regulations and the manner in which they were developed. ~ Group,.,

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 March 1992 Page4

5.

Ad Hoc Approach The proposed changes raise the specter that each above-ground disposal facility will be designed, licensed, constructed, operated and closed on an ad hoc basis. Not only should this be a concern to the licensee, but it should also be an anathema to those persons, whether the NRC staff, the staff of state regulatory and/or review agencies, interested parties or the public, who need to ensure or be assured of the long-term safety of the disposal facility. This proposed change to an ad hoc approach appears to be a retreat to the licensing process used for low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities prior to the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61.

6.

Regulatory Uncertainty The NRC states near the top of the third paragraph on page 8054 that "... should the NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal, criteria will be developed on a case-by-case basis." This approach creates significant regulatory uncertainty, both for agreement states and non-agreement states, because it leaves unanswered the following questions: What does the NRC expect that an agreement state which receives an application for an above-ground disposal facility will do? If the agreement state develops its own criteria, what will be the NRC' s basis and process for acceptance or rejection of such criteria? Assuming that there could be two or more above-ground disposal facilities, how will the NRC, the states and ultimately the courts successfully deal with what are likely to be different criteria between the different host states or between an agreement state and the NRC?

7.

Public Involvement The proposed rule, whereby the NRC will develop site, design, operation, and closure requirements on a case-by-case basis, does not address in any fashion adequate opportunities for the states, interested parties, and the public to be actively involved in the development and/or review of such requirements. OOi Group,.)

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 March 1992 Page 5

8.

Incorporation of NRC Case-by-Case Criteria by Agreement Stat.es The statement in the first column on page 8095 that "... it is the NRC's policy to give agreement states 3 years to reflect changes like those proposed for part 61 in their LLW regulations" may have limited applicability for the disposal site, many aspects of the design, and certain aspects of the operation and closure that are controlled by the design of the disposal facility after the agreement state has already issued a license and the facility has been constructed and is operational. In summary, the proposed changes will not enhance the public confidence in either the NRC or the process of siting, characterizing, designing and licensing the next generation of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. As stated earlier in this letter, the proposed change of the definition of land disposal facility is not simply an exercise in semantics to clarify the NRC's regulations. Rather, it is an abandonment of the systems approach which was the foundation of 10 CFR Part 61; it proposes an unproven disposal technology that was not evaluated by the NRC in the EIS for 10 CFR Part 61; and it retreats from formal rulemaking to an ad hoc basis for licensing. Further, it leaves to the States the responsibility to develop criteria that the NRC appears unable or unwilling to develop. Instead of facilitating the development of above-ground disposal facilities, the proposed rule changes may well, in fact, complicate such development. For the reasons cited in this letter, I request that the proposed rule change to the definition of land disposal facility not be adopted. Please feel free to contact me at (703) 734-9327 if you have any questions concerning my comments. cc: Dr. R. John Starmer Respectfully, ~,L~ David L. Siefken Principal

-gz MAR -2 roo :20 [7590-01] OFFICE OF S[CtJT~R.Y NUCLEAR REGULATORY c~M~§~ c~r,ivtcr. 10 CFR Part 61 RIN 3150-AEOO Licensing Requirements for land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes 9 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to make four specific changes to its regulations containing licensing requirements for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. These changes include (1) clarifying that 10 CFR Part 61 applies to above-ground disposal facilities; (2) replacing the phrase "quality control program" in 61.12(j) with the phrase "quality assurance program," tailored to LLW disposal; (3) updating the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in§ 61.8; and (4) identifying the correct NRC recipient of copies of the licensee's annual reports. The Commission has determined that these changes are needed to correct imprecise wording administrative inconsistencies in the current regulations. These amendments will serve to incorporate established and documented NRC staff positions into the regulation yet will not result in extensive changes to actual text. The proposed changes are intended to simplify LLW disposal facility licensing interactions for NRC, the NRC Agreement States, and potential applicants for LLW disposal licenses.

DATE: Corrment period expires (30 days after publication). Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Submit written co1T1Tients to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrnnission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver co1T1Tients to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of the regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment, and the comments received on the rule may be examined at: the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Lambert, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1T111ission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3857. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND The NRC issued its "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," 10 CFR PART 61, (hereafter referred to as "Part 61" or "the regulation 11 ) in December 1982. Part 61 sets out licensing procedures and performance objectives for the licensing of any "land disposal facility 11 for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) containing source, special nuclear, and 2

byproduct material. It also sets out technical requirements for 11.near-surface disposal facilities, 11 a subset of land disposal facilities. The performance objectives, which are set out in Subpart C to Part 61, require that any 11 land disposal facility" be sited, designed, operated, closed, and controlled after closure so that exposures to humans are within the specified limits. The performance objectives also address protection of inadvertent intruders and workers and minimizing the long-term care needed. Technical requirements, which are found in Subpart D to Part 61 help ensure that the performance objectives in Subpart C wfll be,met. Subpart D establishes the minimal technical requirements for a 11near-surface disposal facility" in the areas of site suita,bility, site design, facility operation, waste form, waste classification, and site closure, although the option for alternative requirements is explicitly included for all areas except site suitability. Such a facility is defined in§ 61.3 as a land-disposal facility constructed in or within the upper 30 meters of the earth's surface. Part 61 was developed in response to needs and requests expressed by the public, Congress, Industry, the States, and other Federal Agencies. for the codification of comprehensive national criteria to define the level of safety that shou1d be achieved in the land disposal of LLW. Since its promu1gation, Part 61 has served as the basis for the development of compatible State regulations for LLW disposal facilities and related licensing guidance documents such as NRC 1s "Standard Review P1an for a License Application for a LLW Disposal Facility" (NUREG-1200), and the II Standard Format and Content Guide for a License Application for a LLW Disposal Facility" (NUREG-1199). In response to a potential national shortage of LLW disposal capacity, Congress enacted the 11Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, 11 (LLRWPA). This act was subseqently amended by the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste 3

Policy Amendments Act of 1985," {LLRWPAA). These Acts made the individual States responsible for the management and safe disposal of all cormnercial LLW generated within their borders. Congress also mandated that the States, either alone or in groups called Compacts, were to develop the capability to dispose of their LLW by January 1, 1993. States that fail to meet this deadline face significant economic penalties and the potential loss of access to any available LLW disposal capacity. Given the mandated deadlines, applications for LLW disposal licenses are already under review and additional applications will be filed in the next few years either with NRC or the appropriate NRC Agreement States (States that have assumed the NRC 1 s regulatory responsibilities for the disposal of LLW under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended). Part 61 or the equivalent and compatible Agreement State regulations are and will be used to determine the acceptability of the proposed LLW disposal facilities. A review of Part 61 against the backdrop of current State and Compact efforts to site and develop LLW disposal facilities has identified two places in the regulations where the current wording is imprecise and should be changed. Currently, § 61.2 defines a "land disposal facility 11 as a LLW disposal facility built 11 into the subsurface of the land. 11 The words "into the subsurface" have been interpreted as limiting the regulatory applicability of Part 61 to those facilities that are covered with soil, so as to exclude above-ground disposal facilities like above-ground vaults, that are not covered with soi 1. In the second instance,§ 61.12(j) of the regulation incorrectly labels the quality assurance (QA) program developed for the facility over its entire life - from planning, through site characterization, construction, operation, and closure, as a quality control (QC) program. From both the breadth of the 4

program as described in§ 61.12(j) and in staff documents related to LLW disposal, the description of the information regarding the applicants* "quality control 11 program to be submitted in the application and to be reviewed by the NRC as presented in NUREGs 1199, and 1200, clearly is intended to be a quality assurance program, of which quality control is a component. Further clarification was provided by the staff in NUREG-1293 11Quality Assurance Guide for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. 11 It is clear that NRC had actually intended to require the applicant to develop a quality assurance program for the LLW disposal facilities. (Copies of NUREG-1199, NUREG-1200, and NUREG-1293 may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the ~ational Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.) In the third instance, NRC is proposing to update§ 61.8 - the 11 Information Collection Requirements - 0MB approval" statement to reflect the fact that subsequent to the original issuance of Part 61, NRC requested, and obtained the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) approval for the Part 61 information collection requirements. Section 61.8 was to be corrected the first time other*revisions were made to Part 61. NRC has also identified a fourth place in Part 61 where a reporting requirement is inconsistent with the present organization of NRC. Accordingly, the Corrnnission has initiated this rulemaking to make the 5

necessary changes to Part 61. Discussion of Proposed Revisions I. Amend the definition of 11 land disposal facility" in § 61.2 to specify that the term refers to LLW disposal facilities which are on or protrude through the earth's surface and do not have an earthen cover, in addition to those that are in the ground and have an earthen cover. The purpose of this change is to clarify the regulatory applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of "above-ground" disposal designs like the "above-ground vault," in particular, the applicability of the performance objectives of Part 61 to these designs. The change that NRC is proposing to make to the definition of "land disposal facility" in Part 61 will clarify that the regulation will be used by NRC to license above-ground disposal facilities. However, at this time the NRC has no specific criteria analogous to the near-surface disposal requirements of §§ 61.50(a), 61.51(a), and 61.52(a) of Subpart D for above-ground disposal because of the special technical characteristics of above-ground disposal facilities. Only those portions of the regulation that apply generically to "land disposal facilities 11 will be directly applicable to above-ground disposal. Specifically, this means that the overall performance objectives of Subpart C will apply as well as the Part 61 administrative and procedural requirements, the environmental monitoring requirements, the financial assurance requirements, the waste transfer and manifest requirements, and the general institutional requirements. Establishing the applicability of the Subpart C performance objectives to above-ground disposal is particularly important. Any applicant for a license 6

for an above-ground disposal facility under Part 61 will have to demonstrate to the NRC that the proposed facility will meet the same safety requirements and dose limits that apply to any LLW disposal facility that is built completely underground. The demonstration of compliance will have to address the unique features of the above-ground design, the special technical considerations associated with those features, their potential health and safety consequences, and reconcile these with the Subpart C performance objectives. In addition, many of the existing Subpart D requirements could be useful in evaluating the technical merits and general licensability of an above-ground disposal facility, even though under Part 61 they are not applicable as requirements for such facilities. To provide further clarification regarding the applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of above-ground disposal facilities, NRC also is proposing to amend the "Disposal Facility" discussion in the Concepts Section - 61.7. The proposed change to§ 61.7(a)(l) will clarify the distinction made by the NRC between near-surface disposal and above-ground disposal, to emphasize that near-surface LLW disposal facilities built partially or totally above-grade have protective earthen covers, while similar facilities constructed without earthen covers are considered to be "above-ground disposal facilities". It should be noted that NRC is not providing either technical criteria or guidance for above-ground disposal designs in this rulemaking. It is expected that, should NRC receive an application for above-ground disposal, criteria will be developed on a case-by-case basis. II. Replace the term "quality control program" in § 61.12(j) with the term "quality assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal." The purpose of this change is to clarify what steps an applicant for an LLW disposal facility license must take in order to assure that the facility will perform as 7

intended, and also to assure that the necessary records and documentation are available for evaluation and performance assessment by NRC or an Agreement State at the time of 1icense submittal. III. Revise§ 61.8 to indicate that the NRC has requested and obtained 0MB approval for the information collection requirements in Part 61. Under the 0MB guidelines that were in effect when the origina1 Part 61 was issued, 0MB approva1 of the Part 61 information collection requirements was not necesary because the regulation was expected to affect less than 10 licensees. Subsequently the 0MB guidelines changed, and Part 61 was no longer exempt from the 0MB approval requirement. Accordingly, NRC submitted Part 61 for 0MB review and obtained the 0MB clearance that is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this proposed change is to update§ 61.8 to correctly reflect this approval. IV. Revise§ 61.BO(i)(l) to identify the correct NRC headquarters recipient of copies of the annual report. Open Meeting on Proposed Changes Before proceeding with the rulemaking, the NRC staff invited the States to an open public meeting to discuss the changes that NRC was contemplating for Part 61. In order to maximize State participation, the meeting was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Conference of Radiation Protection Control Directors (CRPCD) on May 14, 1991 in Wichita, Kansas. At the meeting, NRC staff members briefly explained the proposed changes for Part 61. State representatives and other attendees were given the opportunity to provide corrments, to ask questions, or participate in further discussions. A transcript was made of the meeting so the proceedings could be part of the 8

formal record for the rulemaking. Attendees were given an additional 2 weeks to submit written comments. However, the NRC did not receive any comments in response to this opportunity. Of the approximately forty State representatives that participated in the May 14, 1991, meeting, seven representatives ( those from California, N.ew York, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvannia, and Nebraska) offered comments. None of them voiced objections either to the specific revisions NRC was proposing or to the idea of revising Part 61 in general. Two technical co1TB11ents were offered at the Wichita meeting that were intended to address the issues for this rulemaking and both were considered in developing the proposed rule. The representatives from Washington and Illinois expressed concern regarding the compatibility of the proposed changes with their State rules, because they are presently involved in LLW disposal facility license reviews. In order to prevent possible impacts on their licensing-process, they-sugge-s-ted-that if, as Agreement States, their States would be obligated to incorporate the resulting changes into their respective LLW regulations, they should be afforded flexibility in the manner or timing of this action. The NRC staff explained that it is NRC's policy to give Agreement States 3 years to reflect changes like those proposed for Part 61 in their LLW regulations. At the end of the three year period, if a State has not completed its licensing process, NRC staff would consider a limited extension on a case-by-case basis. One of the commentors voiced concern about the concept of above-ground disposal. The commentor expressed doubt that an applicant for an above~ground disposal facility would be able to get a licensed engineer to certify the integrity of such a structure for 500 years unless long-term active maintenance was provided. While NRC acknowledges that there are significant engineering - ------- -~-------- 9

challenges that will have to be resolved by an applicant in order to license an above-ground disposal facility, the NRC does not want the language of Part 61 to preclude an applicant from having the opportunity to meet those challenges. The other commentor, from Nebraska, offered a co1J1T1ent about 11 above-grade 11 disposal facilities, the kind of facility that Nebraska is considering for its LLW disposal needs. The commenter noted that licensing an 11above-grade 11 LLW disposal facility requires special guidance that is not provided in the current Part 61. A recommendation was made for NRC to consult with the States currently developing above-grade disposal facilities for the benefit of their experience in this area. From the NRC perspective, "above-grade disposal" and 11above-ground disposal 11 are considered to be similar in that both rise above the land surface of the overall disposal site. However, for purposes of regulating LLW disposal under Part 61, NRC makes an'important distinction between the two. While "above-grade facilities" may rise above the original grade (surface) of the disposal site, they have a constructed soil cover and when completed do not actually protrude through the land surface to expose the disposal structure to the elements. NRC has determined that these types of facilities are already clearly covered under Part 61 and are not of concern for this rulemaking. Although the colJITlent did not directly apply to the proposed rulemaking~ the experience gained by the States in licensing "above-grade" disposal could prove to be applicable and useful to licensing "above-ground" disposal. 10

Issue of Compatibility for Agreement States Under existing NRC policy and guidelines, two of the changes proposed in this rulemaking would be matter of compatibility for the NRC Agreement States: the change to the definition of land disposal facility in § 61.2 is Division I compatibility, and the 11QC 11 to 11QA 11 change in § 61.12(j) is Division II. This means that if the final amendments to Part 61 retain these provisions, those Agreement States which have assumed NRC's regulatory authority for the disposal of LLW under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act {AEA} of 1954, as amended, will be required to incorporate the new definition of "land disposal facility" essentially verbatim directly into their State regulations for LLW disposal. The incorporation of the Division II change is aso required, however, the Agreement States have more flexibility than for the Division I change. The language adopted need not be identical to the NRC regulations, but the effect cannot be less stringent. Based on the existing guidelines, the changes would have to be incorporated within 3 years after the final revisions to Part 61 are issued. The Commission, however, is currently considering a reevalution of its compatibility policy and may decide to revise its requirements for the Agreement States. If a change is made to the compatibility policy that affects the above compatibility position, it may be necessary to revisit this position. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action 11

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. Three of the proposed changes - the 11quality control" to "quality assurance 11 change in§ 61.12(j), the update of the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement in§ 61.8, and the correction of the1 organizational inconsistency in§ 61.80(i)(l) are the types of actions described in categorical exclusion§ 51.22(c)(2). As such they are considered by the Commission to be corrective and nonsubstantive in nature and will not have an impact on the environment. The remaining changes, which will expand the applicability of Part 61 to the licensing of above-ground LLW disposal, also will not have an impact on the environment in that these amendments do not change the required level of overall performance of LLW disposal. Further, any environmental impact of operating such a facility would be addressed as a part of the licensing action for that specific facility under 10 CFR Part 51. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from Janet Lambert, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3857. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule 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. 12

Regulatory Analysis The Corrnnission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the alternatives considered by the Commission and explains the decision to revise Part 61. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lowe~ Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Janet Lambert, (301) 492-3857

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The changes to Part 61 that are proposed in this rule will only affect those entities that decide to apply for a license to build and operate a LLW disposal facility. In the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 1980 (LLRWPA) and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), Congress mandated that the individual States or groups of States called compacts should provide the LLW disposal capacity for the LLW generated within each of their borders. This rule will not have a significant economic impact because the changes to Part 61 are trivial in nature and only a small number of licensees are likely to be affected. 13

Backfit Analysis Th~ NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1)

List Of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 61 Criminal penalty, Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 61. PART 61 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LANO DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

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

AUTHORITY: 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). 14

For the purposes of Sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); Tables 1 and 2, §§ 61.3, 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 are issued under sec. 161(b), 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201)(b); §§ 61.9a, 61.10 through 61.16, 61.24 and 61.80 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

In § 61.2, the definition of 11 land disposal facility 11 is revised to read as follows: § 61.2 Definitions. As used in this part: 11 Land disposal facility 11 means the land, buildings, and equipment which are intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes on the surface or into the subsurface of the land. For purposes of this Chapter, a "geologic repository 11 as defined in Part 60 is not considered a 11 land disposal facility."

3.

In§ 61.7, paragraph (a)(l) is revised to read as follows: § 61.7 Concepts 15

(a) The Disposal Facility. (1) Part 61 is intended to apply to land disposal of radioactive waste and not to other methods such as sea or extraterrestrial disposal. Part 61 contains procedural requirements and performance objectives applicable to any method of land disposal. It contains specific technical requirements for near-surface disposal of radioactive waste, a subset of land disposal, which involves disposal in the uppermost portion of the earth, approximately 30 meters. Near-surface disposal includes disposal in engineered facilities which may be built totally or partially above-grade provided there is a protective earthen cover. Near-surface disposal does not include disposal facilities which are partially or fully above-grade with no protective earthen cover, which are referred to as 11 above-ground disposal. Burial deeper than 30 meters may also be satisfactory. Technical requirements for alternative methods may be added in the future.

4.

Section 61.8 is revised to read as follows: § 61.8 Information collection requirements: 0MB approval (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 0MB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0135. 16

(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in§§ 61.3, 61.6, 61.9, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12, 61.13, 61.14, 61.15, 61.16, 61.20, 61.22, 61.24, 61.26, 61.27, 61.28, 61.30, 61.31, 61.53, 61.55, 61.57, 61.58, 61.61, 61.62, 61.63, 61.72, and 61.80.

5.

In§ 61.12, paragraph (j) is revised to read as follows: § 61.12 Specific technical information. (j) A description of the quality assurance program, tailored to LLW disposal, developed and applied by the applicant for the determination of natural disposal site characteristics and for quality assurance during the design, construction, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility and the receipt, handling, and emplacement of waste.

6.

In§ 61.80, (i)(l) is revised to read as follows: § 61.80 Maintenance of,records, reports, and transfers. 17

(i)(l) Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materials received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual reports to the appropriate Commission regional office shown in Appendix D cf Part 20 of this chapter, with copies to the Director, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission, Washington, DC 20555. Reports must be submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the preceding year; Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this "}Jl( day of u~-* 1992. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Secretary 18}}

ML23151A712

Contents

Text

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Background

Dear Mr. Ortciger:

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Dear Sir or Madam:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML23151A712

Text

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

Background

Dear Mr. Ortciger:

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Dear Sir or Madam:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search