ML23153A216

PR-150 53FR31880 - Reasserting NRCs Authority for Approving Onsite Low Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States

ML23153A216
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/22/1988
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-150, 53FR31880
Download: ML23153A216 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 08/22/1988 PR-150 - 53FR31880 - REASSERTING NRC'S AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES PR-150 53FR31880 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

No. 96-75 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234 Internet:opa@nrc.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Thursday, May 30, 1996)

NRC WITHDRAWS PROPOSED RULE ON AGENCY AUTHORITY OVER LOW-LEVEL WASTE AT REACTOR SITES IN AGREEMENT STATES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has withdrawn a proposed rule that would have reasserted NRC's jurisdiction over low-level radioactive wastes generated and disposed of at reactor sites in what are known as agreement states.

The agency is taking this action after analyzing public comments -

most of which opposed the proposal -

and after considering the relatively low hazards associated with on-site disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

NRC and comparable state regulations already require that such on-site waste disposal be authorized on a case-by-case basis.

It was in 1988 that NRC proposed to reassert its authority over low-level waste generated and disposed of at reactor sites within agreement state borders.

The proposed rule also would have clarified the jurisdiction over the disposal of non-critical waste quantities of special nuclear material at fuel cycle facilities.

(Agreement states, which now number 29, are so named because they have agreements with NRC to regulate the uses of radioactive byproduct and source materials, including low-level radioactive wastes.

Special nuclear material includes plutonium and certain types of uranium which, by law, are federally regulated.)

At the time, NRC once thought the move necessary for greater assurance that such waste disposal did not present a health hazard and would not unnecessarily complicate or delay decommissioning.

But the NRC staff reconsidered the proposed action after reviewing the public comments.

It also has taken note of the fact that, since the rulemaking was first proposed nearly eight years ago, agreement state authorities in a number of instances have authorized on-site disposal of low-level wastes without any problems.

FROM:

SUBJECT:

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 May 8, 1996 James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations John C. Hoyle, Secretary

/s/

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-078 -

WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 150.15, REASSERTING NRC'S AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES The Commission has approved discontinuance of the current rulemaking effort for 10 CFR 150.15 and publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal of the proposed amendments.

cc:

Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

SECY NOTE:

THIS SRM, SECY-96-078, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF PROPOSED RULE:

PR-150 RULE NAME:

REASSERTING NRC'S AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE L OW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

53FR31880 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

08/22/88 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/21/88 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:

FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

OTES ON: FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

TATUS OF RULE:

PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT 49 1

I I

PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-150 RULE TITLE:

PROPOSED RULE REASSERTING NRC'S AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE L OW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 88-166 SRM DATE:

07/25/88 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

08/16/88 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

FINAL RULE SRM DATE:

I I

DATE FINAL RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE I

I CONTACTl: JOHN STEWART CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP: NLS-129 PHONE: 492-3618 MAIL STOP:

PHONE:

PRESS PAGEUP TO SEE STATUS OF RULEMAKING PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY

DOCKET NO. PR-15O (53FR3188O)

In the Matter of REASSERTING NRC'S AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES DATE DOCKETED DATE OF DOCUMENT TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

08/30/88 08/26/88 COMMENT OF CANE (MARVIN LEWIS) (

1) 08/30/88 08/16/88 10/03/88 09/26/88 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORP (C. W. MALODY, MANAGER CORPORATE) (

2) 10/03/88 09/29/88 COMMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL (HEYWARD G. SHEALY, CHIEF, BUREAU OF) (

3) 10/05/88 09/18/88 COMMENT OF ECOLOGY ALERT (E. NEMETHY) (

4) 10/17/88 10/18/88 10/19/88 10/20/88 10/20/88 10/20/88 10/21/88 10/21/88 10/21/88 10/21/88 10/07/88 COMMENT OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF (HORACE H. BROWN) (

5) 10/05/88 COMMENT OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (DON J. WOMELDORF, CHIEF) (

6) 10/15/88 COMMENT OF GERALD A. DRAKE, M.D. (

30) 10/14/88 COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (G. C. SORENSEN, MANAGER) (

7) 10/17/88 COMMENT OF CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA (JOHN RUNKLE, GENERAL COUNSEL) (

8) 10/17/88 COMMENT OF MARYLAND NUCLEAR SAFETY COALITION (PATRICIA T. BIRNIE, CO-DIRECTOR) (

9) 10/19/88 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC (SUSAN L. HIATT) (

10) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS (NICHOLAS S. REYNOLDS) (

11) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (PAUL J. MERGES, PH.D.) (

12) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY (SENATOR JOSEPH E. JOHNSON) (

13)

DOCKET NO. PR-150 (53FR31880)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 10/21/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/25/88 10/25/88 10/25/88 10/25/88 10/27/88 10/27/88 10/20/88 COMMENT OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (JOHN J. KEARNEY) (

14) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF JESSIE L. RILEY, CHAIR, NUCLEAR (

15) 10/17/88 COMMENT OF DAVID EBBERT (

16) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF ARKANSAS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (GRETA J. DICUS, DIRECTOR) (

17) 10/18/88 COMMENT OF JOYCE D. JOHNSON (

18) 10/18/88 10/20/88 10/21/88 10/19/88 10/20/88 COMMENT OF DUKE POWER CO (HAL B. TUCKER) (

19)

COMMENT OF NIRS (DIANE D'ARRIGO) (

20)

COMMENT OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF (TERRY R. LASH, DIRECTOR) (

21)

COMMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO (0. S. BRADHAM) (

22)

COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR CORP (J. L. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR,) (

23) 10/18/88 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO 10/20/88 10/18/88 10/20/88 10/18/88 (DONALD W. EDWARDS, DIRECTOR) (

24)

COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO (HENRY E. BLISS, MANAGER) (

25)

COMMENT OF ECOLOGY TASK FORCE (ALBERT G. COHEN) (

26)

COMMENT OF MARY BYE (

45)

COMMENT OF SUSAN DALTON (

27) 10/19/88 COMMENT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC STOCKHOLDERS ALLIANCE (PATRICIA T. BIRNIE) (

28) 10/19/88 COMMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING LOBBY (LARRY SHAPIRO, KAIA DERCUM) (

29) 10/19/88 COMMENT OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA ALLIANCE (MARY SAULS KELLY, PHO) (

31) 10/24/88 COMMENT OF BETTY HOYE (

32) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF (CONGRESSMAN JAMES MCCLURE CLARKE) (

33)

DOCKET NO. PR-150 (53FR31880)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 10/27/88 10/31/88 10/31/88 10/31/88 11/01/88 11/02/88 11/04/88 11/08/88 11/08/88 11/15/88 11/21/88 11/23/88 12/12/88 12/12/88 10/26/88 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT & RESOURCES COUNCIL, INC (JOE F. COLVIN) (

34) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTATE LLRW (CLARK W. BULLARD, CHAIRMAN) (

35) 10/24/88 COMMENT OF NATIVE AMERICANS FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT 10/26/88 (PAT MOSS, VICE CHAIRMAN) (

36)

COMMENT OF SOUTHEAST COMPACT COMMISSION (RICHARDS. HODES, M.D.) (

42) 10/21/88 COMMENT OF BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE (JANET M. HOYLE) (

37) 10/28/88 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 10/18/88 11/04/88 11/04/88 11/07/88 11/18/88 (DONALD R. HUGHER, SR., MANAGER) (

38)

COMMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER (JUDITH H. JOHNSRUD, PH.D.) (

39)

COMMENT OF FLORIDA, STATE OF (LYLE E. JERRETT) (

40)

COMMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT (TENNEY I. DEANE, JR., CHAIRMAN,) (

41)

COMMENT OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (PAUL J. MERGES, PH.D) (

43)

COMMENT OF PUBLIC CITIZEN (SCOTT SALESKA) (

44) 10/24/88 COMMENT OF UTAH, STATE OF (LARRY F. ANDERSON) (

48) 12/08/88 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (WILLIAM P. DORNSIFE) (

46) 12/07/88 COMMENT OF MIDWEST INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADIO WASTE COMMITTEE (DR. TERI L. VIERIMA, CHAIR) (

47) 04/12/90 04/06/90 COMMENT OF MAINE, STATE OF 05/23/96 05/22/96 (RICHARD H. SILKMAN, DIRECTOR) (

49)

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE: WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED RULE

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR '&o

( 5~ FR.~\ ~~D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 150 RIN 3150-AC57

-1.-

\

DOCKETED USNR Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States; Withdrawal AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule: Withdrawal.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking that would have reasserted the NRC's jurisdiction in Agreement States over the disposal of licensed material generated and disposed of at nuclear reactor sites. The proposed rule would also have clarified the jurisdiction over disposal of noncritical waste quantities of special nuclear material at reactors and fuel cycle facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6202.

~~ s\oiC\\\\C\~

(Cs:,\ '4<.~(,.. <a, S;;).J

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 22, 1988 (53 FR 31880), the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register entitled "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States."

This rule would have reasserted the NRC's jurisdiction in the Agreement States over the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated and disposed of at reactor sites.

The proposed rule would also have clarified the jurisdiction over the disposal of noncritical waste quantities of special nuclear material at fuel cycle facilities.

The NRC would have authorized this disposal under 10 CFR 20.302, but 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," was revised in May 1991 (56 FR 23360).

The applicable regulation is now 10 CFR 20.2002.

The purpose of the proposed rule was to provide for a more centralized and consistent regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid duplication of regulatory effort by the NRC and the Agreement States.

The uniform review process that would result from the proposed rule was intended to provide greater assurance that onsite disposal of radioactive material will not present a health hazard and that the disposal of this waste in this manner will not unnecessarily complicate or delay decommissioning.

As a result of publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, the NRC received 49 comment letters. Twelve commenters (24 percent) favored the proposal, 37 commenters (76 percent) opposed the proposal.

Comments were submitted by private citizens, Agreement and Non-Agreement States, nuclear 2

utilities, nuclear utilities' representatives, and various conservation and public interest groups.

The vast majority of the comments favoring the proposal were from nuclear utilities and their representatives.

Comments opposed to the proposal came from private citizens, Agreement and Non-Agreement States, and conservation and public interest groups.

Nineteen of the commenters questioned the need for the proposed rule, six commenters wanted the States' participation in ~he approval process to be specified, and a few States questioned the NRC's authority to promulgate the rule.

The remaining commenters were concerned with better definitions of the protected and exclusion areas, the type of waste to be covered by the rule, existing onsite disposal, and the impact on regional low-level waste disposal facilities.

Some States commented that the Agreement States were more familiar with local conditions and that their requirements were more strict than the NRC's.

Of the 10 Agreement States that commented, 9 States were opposed to the amendments.

The remaining Agreement State that commented supported the rule but reserved the right to participate in the approval process with full review privileges and expected their concerns to be addressed.

As a result of the public comments received and the relatively low hazards associated with onsite disposal of low-level waste radioactive material, the NRC reevaluated the merits of the proposed rule.

In the 7 years since this rulemaking was originally proposed, there have been a number of approvals granted by Agreement States for onsite disposal of low-level waste material under the equivalent of 10 CFR 20.2002 (successor to 20.302).

The NRC staff is not aware of any problems with the Agreement States' approvals of any onsite burials of low-level waste material.

3

Based on the comments received, the relatively low hazards associated with onsite disposal of this type of radioactive material, and current experience with disposals, the NRC has reevaluated the issues and concluded that it is not necessary to reassert its regulatory jurisdiction over onsite disposal at reactor sites in the Agreement States.

Therefore, the proposed rule is not required and is being withdrawn.

Withdrawal of the proposed rule does not ~ffect the current NRC jurisdiction over disposal of special nuclear material by reactor or fuel cycle licensees.

With the withdrawal of the proposed rule, the Agreement States will maintain jurisdiction over the disposal of low-level radioactive waste on nuclear reactor sites.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, thisclJ~day of -~l~'Jt.~7-()-+-. __, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C Secre ary of the Commission.

/

4 I

TNUMBER (if)

HOPOSED RULE PR /SD 7 1/ 0 t

@3P,e3;g?c; T7 COCKEiED USNHC STATE OF MAINE EXECUTIVE DEPARTM~T APR 12 P1 :02 STATE PLANNING OFFICE JOH N R. McKE RNAN, JR.

GOVERNOR April 6, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch R ICHi\flD H. S ILKMAN

• FIC'" Of SECr.E IAK FIREGroR

'riocK[il G & SEI IC:

u OR NCH Re:

comments in opposition to proposed rulemaking in 10 CFR 150, "Reas ing NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States" (FR 31880, August 22, 1988).

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter forwards the comments of the State of Maine in the above-captioned matter.

We respectfully request that our comments in opposition to the Commission's proposal be placed in the official record of this proceeding.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

/( __

Silkman enc.

Acknowledged

()

184 STATE STREET, STATE HOUSE STATION 38, AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 TEL (207)289-3261 FAX# 5756

",. 'T'f"I V COM~ !SSION CE SECTION ut-1CE: OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION OOM1en1 Statistics Postmark Date 0

Copies Received_...:.-------

A j '! Copies R rod

_.3 Special D1strib:..

!::=.

t3~*_!_....=.~~>------

Before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States.

Comments of the State of Maine The State of Maine hereby submits its comments in opposition to the NRC proposed rule "Reasserting NRC's authority for approving onsite low-level waste disposal in Agreement States".

The State of Maine has a sincere interest in and responsibility for the disposal of any hazardous substance, and respectfully requests the NRC to consider the following comments:

1)

2)

THE STATE OF MAINE IS CHARGED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE (LLRW).

The state of Maine has been charged to accept responsibility for the disposal of LLRW generated within its borders by the United States Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Acts of 1980 and 1985.

In complying with this law, the state is establishing geographical and geological criteria for the disposal of all LLRW in the State of Maine, including very low activity LLRW.

To assure that LLRW disposed under 10 CFR 20.302a is evaluated uniformly and consistent with the state's requirements for LLRW disposal, it is logical and practical for the state to assume full responsibility and jurisdiction for all disposal requests under 10 CFR 20.302a.

DISPOSAL OF ALL WASTES MUST MEET LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES OF THE STATE.

The State of Maine has developed and continues to develop broad reaching regulations and policies concerning land use, not only to protect public health and the environment, but to sustain and improve Maine's quality of life and economic viability.

To assure that land use for disposal purposes is consistent with state regulation and policy, it is necessary that all disposal decisions are within the jurisdiction of the state.

3)

STATE OF MAINE IS AWARE OF NRC'S CONCERN OVER JURISDICTION.

The State understands NRC's concern with regards to retaining control over the decommissioning process of an NRC licensed reactor, in that NRC requires knowledge of any onsite LLRW disposal when determining if a site can be returned to unrestricted use.

Also, the State recognizes NRC's concern that licensee's are not subjected to 1

unreasonable demands with the disposal of very low activity LLRW, such that it has an adverse impact upon the operation of the nuclear facility.

However, the state can alleviate NRC's concerns on these issues by:

a.

Providing the NRC with records of 10 CFR 20.302a approvals from reactor licensees.

b.

Developing criteria for 10 CFR 20.302a applications which meet NRC criteria, as a minimum.

c.

Developing criteria for 10 CFR 20.302a which is based on risks comparable to other hazardous materials accepted for disposal by land burial in the State of Maine.

2 I

J

DOCKET

~

-fo C.. I<-

H-\

t ~R

~ /880 DEPARTMENT OF H

)

f o<J2_ -

"-"'* n.

X,.c.,1v'I ~c:u.,vc.,1/

GPA.iSUTP ~

I\.C.. ~

Norman H. Bangerter

~rnor Suzanne Dandoy, M.D., M.P.H.

£xttudw DirKtor Kenneth L. Alkema DirKtor DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 880CT 31 PM 2: 20

~

Bureau of Water Pollution Cohtrol 288 North 1460 West, P.O. Box 16690 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1 6-0690 (801) 538-6146 October 24, 1988 Carlton C. Kammerer, Director State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. ~ t:

--..,.. ner:

Again this yeor, as in the past, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has hosted an informative and instructional All Agreement States Meeting. The Agreement States are very appreciative of your efforts in this regard. As has been the case in the past, the Agreement States have assembled a list of objectives and concerns which we believe should be resolved by the NRC. The following represents that list:

1.

We request the NRC to arrange to have Dr. John Poston present a course relative to internal dosimeter consistent with 10 CRF part 20 to the Agreement States; preferably at least one course being presented in each NRC Region.

2.

The Agreement States oppose the reassertion of NRC authority over on-site low level waste disposal at reactors.

3.

The Agreement States have traditionally and appropriately recommended to the NRC thatn~:.tturaHy-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) sh0ufo be regulated by the NRC. For reasons we have carefully documented over the years, it remains impractical and illogical that NARM not have a home in a single federal agency; common sense dictates that the NRC be that home. While conscience demands that the Agreement States once again make this recommendation to the NRC, we no longer intend to simply give the Commission our recommendation and wait for a response. This time it is our intention to press for resolution of this goal. We have had our NARM Meeting, we are developing a plan, and we intend to implement that plan which will finally see the states regulate NARM with an appropriate federal agency providing "guidance,"

11over-sight," and/or "compatibility," even if legislation to accomplish this end must arise from the Agreement States.

4.

The NRC should complete the General License Study and provide a report to the Agreement States.

• N -*

00CKETI G & StRV1a S@C:fl FFl~t OF THE SEC £ A Y OF HIE CO!.'\Ml~SION D:>cumer.t Sta tics OStin X {jJff (opiet i'ecciv d A,M'r Cop,ol e;s~

5J(1'u1toJ,t

I Carlton C. Kammerer October 24, 1988 Page 2

5.

The NRC should fulfill its objectives under the Consolidation Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by adopting a radioactive materials license and inspection fee schedule that'reflects the real costs of implementing the radioactive materials program and recovering 45% of the costs.

6.

The Organization of Agreement States supports the Te:xas industrial radiographic testing program and strongly encourages the NRC to utilize that -system to ensure that the testing of individuals remains within regulatory channels so that individuals tested remain subject to appropriate regulatory sanctions.

7.

We wish to e:xpress our concern with NRC recommending the use of different shipping and packaging configurations for private carri.ers and common carriers, specifically for spec 2-T containers. We believe the same conditions should apply for transport in both cases and therefore the same shipping-packaging configuration requirements should apply and be met. We are also concerned that the inspection and enforcement notice sent to industrial radiographers is not clear regarding the structural requirements for boxes used in private shipments.

8.

The Organization of Agreement States submits the names of Don Flater of Iowa and Paul Merges of New York for membership on the NRC/Agreement State Training and Fum)ing Task Force.

9.

Greta Dk"US of Arkansas was selected as chairperson elect, to assist the incoming chairman Don Hughes of Kentucky in conducting activities over the coming year.

Again, we appreciate your support and pledge our continuing cooperation over the coming years.

Sincerely,

~

w~

Larry F. ~~n, Director Bureau of ~~~~ion Control I /

V

D,_

~ BER

/SO (53 F-(2 _3, Ff-OJ Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste ~on)roission Room 588

• 350 N. Robert Street

• St. Paul, MN 55101 * (612)'293-0126 December 7, 1988 Secretary of the Commission Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Secretary:

.88 OEC 12 P 3 :31 L,

,..'Y

'**VICf At its December 2 meeting, the Midwest Compact Commission discussed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rulemaking that would reassert NRC Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (Federal Register, August 28, 1988, p.

31880).

The Commission also discussed comments on the proposed rulemaking that were submitted to the NRC from the Southeast Compact Commission and the State of Illinois.

While our interest in on-site disposal is related to jurisdiction, we do not challenge NRC Authority with regard to the Agreement State Program.

Our host state, Michigan, is not an Agreement State, but may request such status in the future for the purpose of regulating a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

If it obtains that status, we expect that the terms of the agreement would determine the responsible party for this licensing function.

Rather, our interest is focused on a broader jurisdictional concern.

Irrespective of who is responsible for this licensing function at nuclear power plants, disposal of any low-level radioactive waste at a non-regional facility is subject to Midwest Compact Commission approval.

This approval is necessary whether disposal is proposed a t a nuclear power plant, at other generator sites, or at a commercial disposal site.

All would require NRC or Agreement State approval; they also would require the approval of the Midwest Compact Commission.

Article III(h)(2) of the Midwest Compact states that, "The Commission may:

... 2. Approve the disposal of waste generated within the region at a facility other than a regional facility."

Article I I (n) defines a regional facility as, " **. a facility which is located within the region and which is established by a party state pursuant to designation of that state as host state by the Commission."

Furthermore, Article IX(b)(4) states that, "Unless otherwise authorized by the Commission pursuant to Articl e II(h) after January 1, 1986 it is a violation of this compact:

... 4. For any person to dispose of waste at a facility other than a regional facility."

Indiana Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri Ohio Wisconsin

Secretary of the Commission December 7, 1988 Page Two The supplementary information accompanying the proposed rule implies that jurisdiction for on-site disposal at NRC-licensed reactors would only be vested in the Commission.

We request that the supplementary information include some acknowledgement that Compact Commissions also may have jurisdiction over such disposal, depending upon the specific Compact language approved by Congress.

Please do not hesitate to contact the Commission's Executive Director, Gregg Larson, if you have any questions.

Dr. Teri L. Vierima Chair cc: Commissioners LLW Forum

DOCKET fWMBER PR PROPOSED RULE PENNSYLVANIA DE'.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES t Post Office Box 2063

• aa 0£C 2 P3 :32 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Bureau of Radiation Protection December 8, 1988 (717) 787-2163 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Re:

Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 150.15 (a)

I u,.,i**

'I Reference 53 Fed. Register 31880 -

31882, August 22, 1988

Dear Sir:

1At<Y

• • ,.~ I VIC[

l,..

We do not support the Commission's proposal to amend 10 CFR 150.lS(a) to reassert NRC jurisdiction over on-site low-level radioactive waste disposal in Agreement States at NRC-licensed reactors and 10 CFR Part 70 facilities.

The proposed amendment is contrary to provisions in the APPALACHIAN STATES LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT ACT and Pennsylvania's LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ACT which prohibit the dispoal of low-level waste without the approval of the Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission's and only in accordance with applicable state regulations.

We request that the proposed rule changes not be adopted or, if the regulations must be changed, that they include a mechanism by which states can exert some control over on-site disposal within their borders to prevent inordinate amounts of low-level waste from being disposed of on site.

Sincerely,

/J..)~

p D~-( -,

William P. Dornsi~ Chief Division of Nuclear Safety

1 t.cl.1 "'I:.,

KCT1t*:G & S£RVIC£ $"(CTI Orf... t CF lHE SKF.ET AR.-'

OF 1HE COMMlS:,10

DOCKET NUMBE~

PROPOSED RULE(_;~ I SO

~

~Fr<3lf-4"0 J f -,i_ N o.._(:__ 1 ~w la..cJ2..... 1 W 1:jb.JJ -

-3/4 o..p(,1--L-O"v-('.

n ~~-0..~ er c:L,._:i,~

~- lt~~Lt ~ ~o.Uns, _ *~ 7~

i.nl( ~

~~ -,~ IL. Jluu.S ~

~ 1~ ~

,+- iL-e ~....__~

I ~

~1L-., a.....~,Yo ~

..;-.~ IL it.alts

~ n.-d..ul le J,.__ c....~..-e_ Je ~

d...t...c..c...s,"'1-

~~~

Mary Bye Route4 Doylestown PA 18901

- 1 l988

~knowlcdged by card ************

. !>. NUClE R REGU TORY COMMISSlot.f DOCKm 'G & SERVICE SECTION orrK E OF THE SECRETARY Or i'flE COMMISSION r,, umel'll Statistics

>ostmark D,iie

_Lb =-~ :::_ff_

opies :: -*li *e rJ

_ _ / _

dd'l C,pi s P.";,r 1., ed

~ _

ipecial Dis*ribution

~ 2'::b,S:,

0

-- -- /~- ---

- --,--- ~-....,.,.- w olfJ. e,

DOCKET NUMBER OSED RULE ~

..f -

Buyers Up Congress Watch D Critical Mass Health Researc88;ro Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir/Madam:

I -I

~ l(f

~¢yember 18, 1988 I am writing on behalf of the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen in order to comment on the proposed NRC regulation {53 FR 162:31880-31882) to reassert NRC jurisdicti on over on-site disposal of low-level waste generated by nuclear reactors in Agreement States.

Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to address a wide range of consumer and environmental issues.

Critical Mass is the energy policy arm of Public Citizen.

We are opposed to the proposed regulati on, and strongly urge that jurisdiction over low-level waste disposal remain with the Agreement States.

Environmental conditions vary from state to state; local regulators will l ikely be most aware of and most sensitive to the particulars of regional environmental concerns.

Therefore, Agreement State jurisdiction will be the most effective means of regulating the disposal of low-level wastes in terms of protecting the local environment and public health.

For example, in some states, because of the environmentally sensitive location of a waste generator, state officials adamantly oppose any on-site disposal.

The proposed rule, however, would grant the NRC authority to permit on-site disposal without the concurrence of and even against the will of the state.

Conversely, in some states, environmental conditions dictate the minimization of the amount of waste stored i n away-from-source disposal sites.

Under such conditions, it would be in the best interest of the state and i ts citizens to keep the number of contaminated sites to a minimum and require disposal at or near the source of generation.

If the proposed rule is adopted, however, only the NRC could permit the at-reactor disposal option.

Again, it would be possible for the Commission to mandate a disposal policy that is against the interest and the will of the local community.

Moreover, the close ties that the Commission has with the 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE D Washington, DC 20003 D (202) 546-4996 NO\I ~ 9 19Si c r w a by r....... ~-"*"**.,._.,......

J. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM 5S1 OOCKfTING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE or THE Sfl"RHARY OF TH£ C'OM.\',1 ',SION A.

r

November 18, 1988 Page 2 nuclear industry, its lax regulation of nuclear plant safety, and its increasing willingness to allow the nuclear industry to regulate itself, all give added weight to our concern that the NRC will be less sensitive to the public safety and health than will be the individual state regulators.

Of particular concern in this regard is the impending possibility that the Commission will declare a policy that would identify a radiation risk that it considers to be "below regulatory concern" (BRC).

In the context of the proposed regulation withdrawing Agreement State jurisdiction, such a BRC policy declaration could remove wastes that are currently under state regulation from being controlled under any regulations at all.

The consequence would be the imposition of a questionable and irresponsible policy by a lax and distant regulator on states and their citizens who will have to bear the risks to their health and environment.

NRC reasons that it needs to have complete information about the location of wastes disposed of on-site when it comes time to decommission a reactor.

Reasserting jurisdiction over on-site disposal of wastes, however, is not the only method of addressing this.

We believe that this problem could easily be solved by requiring Agreement States to report to the NRC all waste disposal that they permit at reactors and licensee sites.

To sum up :

because uniform regulations promulgated on the federal level will be less able to take account of local environmental variations, because there is reason to believe that local state regulators are more likely to be vigilant in the protection of public health than is the NRC, and because there exists an immediately available alternative remedy to alleviate the NRC's stated concerns, we urge that the proposed regulation be rejected, and that jurisdiction over on-site disposal of low-level wastes be allowed to remain with Agreement States.

In the final analysis, it is the citizens of each of these states who will have to live with contaminated reactor sites (whether or not decommissioning involves actual reactor dismantling} and the low-level waste sites (however such wastes are disposed).

They should retain the ability through their local elected officials to regulate those wastes in the manner which they see fit.

Sincerely,

~~

Scott Saleska Nuclear Waste Policy Analyst Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen

DOCKET NUMBER eff__L;-o PROPOSED RULE @>j}i, b t 8W r.JLKi.. ~i.

~ U, Ni-_C New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 -7255

• 88 NOV 15...

p3:5~

Thomas C. Jorling OF r IC Lr

-~\1c fCommissioner l}OCK[ 1II~( ~1*

1-<

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission u.s. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C. 20555 November 7, 1~~:s-8' *~

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule:

10CFR Part 150 -

Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving On-Site Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement states.

Due to a few errors in my October 21, 1988 letter to you on the above subject, this letter supersedes in its entirety the October 21st letter.

This letter is in response to Mr. Nussbaumer's letter transmitting the Federal Register publication of the subject proposed rule.

We do not support the NRC proposal to amend 10 CFR Part 150 to reassert the Commission's authority to regulate disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) on NRC-licensed reactor sites and to clarify the Commission's authority to regulate disposal of waste containing less than critical mass quantities of special nuclear material (SNM) on Part 70 licensed sites in Agreement States.

The Commission's proposal, as stated, would remove the regulatory authority over on-site LLW disposal currently held by New York as an Agreement State.

The subject proposed rule contains no provision for Agreement State policies to be considered in NRC decisions that could result in LLW disposal on-site.

The Department anticipates that, upon completion of decommissioning activities at affected sites, the NRC would terminate licenses and return control of the sites to New York state.

This would create a situation where the State would be responsible for LLW disposal sites, without having any regulatory control over siting, design, construction, and operation.

If the State must ultimately be burdened with the environmental consequences of NRC-licensed on-site disposal actions, then the State should have authority over such actions.

._," I 1 /3 1988

0. S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISS/QA DoCKETtNG & Si:RV/Cf SECT ION OFFl(f o; )<.

• SEC.~fT 4. :Y Qr Tl-tE Cc, 11: '-1/S*;,..

Postmark /)ue

_ //-;1 o - [i-,?'

Copies :._.-e"-,,,/

(

l\dd':

• . * ;,_~,,*orocf t I y::

,,.c;.1 o,,,,,b"'ioa -1'<.

Z::.,t:,.s 1

~d:,,,e

---.Bz-~..,...

While the NRC is seeking to gain "centralized and consistent" regulation of on-site waste management activities in individual Agreement states, it is worthy to note that on-site waste disposal in New York State will conflict with this State's goal of centralized and consistent State management of low-level waste.

The proposed rule could have the effect of populating the State with multiple shallow land burial sites, wherever reactors or Part 70 licensees exist.

In contrast, the State, in complying with the Federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended, passed the New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act, which set the State on a course of actions that will lead to the centralization of in-state LLW disposal in one or two facilities to ensure that the best possible site(s) wil l be selected.

Furthermore, the Act specifically prohibits the use of conventional shallow land burial as a disposal methodology, and requires instead that alternative technologies be considered, including the use of engineered structures.

The on-site disposal actions foreseen under the proposed rule would, therefore, decentralize LLW disposal in New York State, and could work contrary to this State's goal of providing the most suitable site(s) for in-state generated low-level waste.

We conclude that adoption of the proposed rule would constitute a circumvention of an established system of State environmental protection mechanisms designed to manage the State's low-level waste disposal problem.

We oppose the adoption of the subject proposed rule on the grounds that it leaves the State out of a decision that has the potential to cause significant impact on the state's environment, that it could l ead to actions that would result in a legacy of LLW burial sites that are incompatible with State environmental regulations specifically designed to regulate the same, and that it, therefore, does not serve the best interests of environmental protection in the State of New York.

CEJ/jmk cc:

J.

F.

K.

McGrath, USNRC, Region 1 Bradley, NYSDOL Rimawi, NYSDOH Sincerely, g~~

Director, Bureau of Radiation

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 631 PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVM,,/IA 19406 January 7, 1985 Anne Rabe c/o Assemblyman Richard Gottfried Room 941 LOB Albany, New York 12248

Dear Ms. Rabe:

This will confirm our telephone conversation on December 19, 1984 regarding licensing jurisdiction for the storage of LLW at nuclear power plant sites.

We discussed two specific cases.

Each is addressed below.

1.

2.

Storage of LLW Generated by a Reactor at the Reactor Site In this case exclusive licensing jurisdiction is retained by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15(a)(l).

(See our November 10, 1981 letter to all reactor licensees and applicants for further information on storage of reactor-generated LLW at reactor plant sites.

A copy has been sent to you under separate cover).

Storage of Reactor and Non-reactor Waste at a Reactor Site In this case, if the LLW storage facility is clearly separate from the reactor facility, i.e., it has no impact on the safe operation of the reactor and is sited relatively remotely from the reactor itself, the regulation would be by the State in an Agreement State and by NRC in a non-Agreement State.

if the LLW storage facility is not cl early separate from the reactor facility, i.e., may impact on the safe operation of the reactor or is sited relatively close to the reactor itself, NRC licensing jurisdiction may be retained.

In this situation, the specifics of the proposal including the location of the storage facility and its effect cfn operation of the reactor would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis in reaching a decision on licensing jurisdiction.

If I m3y be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, ti rt. iVt ~:tzv-tt-h: u 1 H. Lohaus

~ State Liaison Officer

SOUTHEAST COMPACT COMMISSION RICHARD S. HODES. M.D.

Chairman FRED 0. BRASWELL. Ill Vice Chairman for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 3904 Barrett Drive*Suite 400-B* Roetgh. NC 27609*(919, 781-7'52

')QCKET NUMBER

. ~

KO POSED RUL[

F/?.. ~t n-E)

October 26, 1988 Secretary of the Corranission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Re:

Proposed Arren&rent to 10 C. F.F. § 150.15(a) r :)(.)0:[ i [

L,h

• 88 ocr JtPT~

~.,

11 H sR, ER

~re ary Treasurer 1B[

-1 11\ ___ E BChE-MP4 P OP IL:: ~

..fxf).9uttve D,recfor DOCKri I~

, *t r*

BRi t..

Reference 53 Fed. Register 31880 - 31882, August 22, 1988

Dear Sir:

On behalf of the Southeast Coopact Commission, I would like to express vigorous opposition to the proposed rule changes in the above-referenced Federal Register Notice. The Ccmnission recomnends that the Nuclear Regulatory Canmission maintain the present system whereby Agreement States have licensing authority over disposal of all civilian low-level radioactive waste within those states. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes to ensure uniformity in the licensing of onsite disposal in Agreenent States and that certain mini-mum standards for such disposal are enforced, this can best be acconplished by the issuance of licensing and disposal guidance documents.

During our Annual Meeting conducted on October 25, 1988, the Conmission raised the following reasons for opposing the proposed changes in the rules:

1. '!he proposed rule changes have the potential of being in opposi-tion to federal policy as contained in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy ~ndrnents Act of 1985, which require the states to provide for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and encourage them to create multi-state regional facilities to acconplish this.

The proposed rule is so broadly stated that it would permit the licensing of onsite disposal of any low-level radioactive waste, thereby contravening the Congressional intent, as evidenced by the 1980 and 1985 Acts, that there be a limited number of disposal sites, and that those sites be operated and regulated pursuant to state and regional authority.

2. The stated rule changes have the potential of depriving the Con-gressionally mandated state and regional facilities of a substan-tial part of the waste stream necessary to make them economically viable, since licensed nuclear reactors contribute the majority of low-level radioactive waste to these disposal facilities.

NOV 1 6 19 Ackno I dged by card......

Alabama

• F-londa

• Georgia

• Mississippi

• North Carolina

• South Carolina

• Tennessee

• Virginia

.s.

Secretary of the COrnmission October 26, 1988 Page '.l\,,o

3. If the NRC feels that uniformity rrust be brought to the licensing of isolated instances of onsite disposal of "very low-level" radioactive waste in order to ensure that it can meet its stated requirement that the sites of decomnissioned facilities be avail-able for unrestricted use, then the NRC can provide guidance docu-ments or other assistance to Agreement States for their use in the issuance of onsite disposal licenses without disturbing the long standing authority of Agreement States to regulate disposal and without contravening national policy established by the Congress of the United States.

4. The General Assembly of North Carolina, the state designated to host the second regional disposal facility in the Southeast, has mandated certain minimum requirements for the licensing of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. These requirements are nore stringent that those contained in the present NRC regula-tions.

The proposed rule changes have the potential of weakening the protection which the North Carolina General Asserrbly has deemed necessary for the people of their State.

5. Finally, public perception of the proposed changes will be that the NRC is attempting to weaken the traditional control of the Agreement States and, in the process, renoving from the people the ability to control their destiny with regard to nuclear facili-ties.

The Southeast Colrpact Corrmission strongly believes that the states of the Union, and particularly the eight states belonging to the Southeast Corrpact, have proceeded to comply with the mandated national policy in good faith and the NRC must show equal faith in states' abilities to continue regulating in this area.

We therefore request that the proposed regulatory changes not be adopted or, if the regulations rrust be cllanged, that they be nore narrowly drawn so as to accomplish only the stated purpose and not disturb the long-standing regulatory authority of the Agreement States.

If you have any questions in connection with our position, please contact our Executive Director, Kathryn Visocki, at ( 919) 781-7152

• We would appre-ciate notification of any actions you take regarding this rule.

Sincerely,

@/~-

Cllairman KV/apl

lenney I. Deane. Jt, Olairman Raymond L Mw,ay, Ph.D., Vice Cllllinnan Ca,lyn S. Allen North Carolina lDw-1..evel Radioactive Waste Management Authority "88 NOV -8 P 4 :17 Kenneth W. BIOWlldl, Ph.D.

Albert L Canipe, Mara. B. 0cm. P.E.

Elimbem H. Drury David F. ~

. Sr.

O Goa!on~Jt HanyE.la3tand john W. McAllsttr pepl,W.Pitt William B. Smalley UlNlllnCe Kalbach w.llaer, Ph.D.

Dooald G. Willhoit, Ph.D.

November 4, 1988 Secretary of the Commission

0. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 150-15(a)

Reference 53 Federal Register 31880-31882, August 22, 1988

Dear Sir:

In response to the above ref erenced Federal Register Notice, the North Carolina Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority would like to express its opposition to the proposed changes.

The North Carolina Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority was created by the North Carolina General Assembly to fulfill the responsibilities of the State and the Southeast Compact under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.

By letter dated October 21, 1988, the North Carolina General Assembly's Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste voiced its opposition to the proposed changes and set forth its reasons for that opposition.

A copy of that letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

The North Carolina LON-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority concurs in that reasoning and wishes to join the Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste in opposing the proposed changes.

TI D j r. : VV : l sk Attachment Sincerely,

~

Tenney I. Deane, Jr.

Chairman, North Carolina Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority NOV 1 6 1988 Acknowledged by card............... __ __

116 West Jones Stn!et

• Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003

• 919-733-0682 North Carolina Residents Toll Free 1-800-248-642i An Equal Oppommity / Affirmative Action Employer

J. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF:(E OF THf SECRETARY QC !He rc,,\0,1,ss,oN

,:>ostmark 0** *

//

Y, -

f' /'

Copies ?.* *

/

Add' I C*o,..,;

*.I

._3 Spe~ / D1stribut*on _ ~b..S

,'i:J "l'cGV'/f--~

Western North Carolina Alliance25 o 4 :42

• as OCT r

OFFICERS:

Dan Plttlllo, Chair Judy Wllllamson, Vice-chair Dick Heywood, Treasurer Lou Zeller, Secretary //

19 October 1988 Secretary P.O. Box 18087 70 Woodfin Street 4B Asheville, NC 28814-0087 (704)258-8737 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir or Madame:

Staff:

.. *::i I Mary Sauls KeRy

• 1 "

Coordinator Ron Lambe, Administrator I am writing in comment to the proposed rule 53 FR 162:

31880-31882, published in the August 22 Federal Register, concerning the authority for at-reactor disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW).

This proposed rule would take the authority for at-reactor disposal away from the states and give authority to the NRC.

We oppose this proposed rule for the following reasons.

First, this rule clearly violates the intent of Congress in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act (LLWPA) of 1980 in which states were given responsibility for providing for the disposal of all LLRW generated within each state.

House committee reports for this legislation concluded that " low-level radioactive waste can more effectively and efficiently be managed on a regional basis" (House Report 1382, Part 2, 96th Congress, 1980) and that states should be given primary responsiblity for LLRW because they are "better capable of the planning and monitoring functions relevant to low-level waste" (House Report 1382, Part 1, 96th Congress, 1980).

The 1986 amendments to the act (LLRWPAA) further specifies that states should be responsible for the permanent disposal of Class A, B, and C LLRW generated within states' boundaries.

We concur, and strongly urge that the states be allowed to maintain the authority to determine, on a state-by-state and reactor-by-reactor basis, which facilities may be suitable for at-reactor storage and which are not.

We feel that not only will states be more familiar with the operating capabilities and histories of reactors and with the ~1eeds of t he b:-..,erl:ll ~-"Lll...:.., bu".. ~hat c:t~:t~ 0.::;: ~.::.::.dl,::;

arP ~~re dire~tly accountable frr the satety 6i sta~ 0 residen~5 t~Jn 1~ ~ne

~~~-

Sincerely,

?71,,.,1--r ~3.h+

Mary Sauls Kelly, PhD Coordinator, WNC Alliance

'-J.11'1 >>p

[,7,,t,rv(YV<-v~7 nlf { 1L{7 ~

7;-

~

o:i-1 YJ J:. ~ b r~,,,,--*P J?

'n~

DOCKET NUMBER PR t O PROP SEO RULE STATE OF FLORIDA 5v~3f rrs</

• qs~q,Lc DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (fg

'88 NOV -8 P 4 : 12 November 4, 1988 Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Re:

Proposed amendment to 10 CFR 150.15 as published in Federal Register Vol. 53, No. 162, August 22, 1988, pages 31880-31882 We have reviewed the above referenced proposed revision to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 150, Section 15 and wish to make comments on the amendment.

As written, we do not endorse the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 150.15.

We do not believe that it is in the best interest of the citizens of this state to relinquish authority over onsite disposal of radioactive wastes.

Florida has been an Agreement State for a number of years, and we believe that we have sufficient capability to continue regulating onsite disposal of radioactive wastes.

Furthermore, we believe that regulatory uniformity among the Agreement States can be accomplished by the same means used to ensure uniformity in the regulation of by-product material.

Specifically, NRC should consider the issuance of standard regulatory guidance documents which would address general concepts germane to onsite disposal methodologies.

For those cases where the methodology has not been previously evaluated, NRC should designate technical experts which are available, on an as-needed basis, for peer review.

Assuming NRC does reassert authority over onsite disposal of radioactive wastes, we wish to express our concerns with respect to the proposed language.

The language does not define the type of wastes which would fall under NRC jurisdiction.

Specifically, it is not clear that authority for the disposal of Class A and above low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) would remain with the Agreement States.

' 1 6 1988 Acknowledged by card. **,................ ___,

1317 WINEWOOD BL VD.

• TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0700 BOB MARTINEZ, GOVERNOR GREGORY L. COLER, SECRETARY

Nt,1.....

• 'l *r 01v1 ~,ssr DOCKET!....

~,,

I ~f t T, N OFFICE OF THt :1:C.KLIAR Y OF THE COMMISSION

'),-,r,*,1:<a*1t S*atistics

'ostmark Oat('

0pies i'~ce* ed

_I l\dd' I Copir:s Reproduced

-3 ipecia/ Distribution ll._-:;;:::__o_~ _

p D RI.s 1/4W;!l_R.:r:__

Samuel J. Chilk November 4, 1988 Page 2 Without clarification of the

language, one might infer an apparent conflict with the LLRW Policy Act ( 1980) or the LLRW Policy Amendments Act (1985), which directs the states to develop means by which civilian LLRW is disposed of in state-regulated facilities.

In the event that an approved onsite disposal methodology results in a post-decommissioning contamination problem, it is not clear that NRC will assume responsibility for remediation of the site.

NRC has not documented the protocols by which an affected Agreement State would be allowed to review and comment on an onsite disposal proposition.

We believe that NRC is obligated to consider the position of an affected state since the site will ultimately fall under state jurisdiction.

To summarize our position, we feel that the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 150. 15 is not a viable option.

However, if NRC does promulgate this or a similar rule, our concerns and those of other Agreement States should be seriously considered.

At a minimum, NRC should rectify the language and clarify its position with respect to Agreement State involvement in the evaluation of proposed onsite disposal methodologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Please contact me at ( 904) 487-1004 if you desire any further explanation of our comments.

gjm Sincerely,

~o~

~1~:w-Office of Radiation Control

ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER DOCKET NUMBER~

PROPOSED RULE

- o 5 3FI{ 31 fS~O Co-Directors: Ms. Phyllis Zltzer-Box 761, Pottstown, Pa. 19464 215-326-9122

[.lQ(,l'i[T[i' Dr. Judith Johnsrud-433 Orlando Avenue, State College, Pa. 1680~~~237-3900 October 18, 1988 *aa NOV -4 AlO :oo Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Madam ar Sir:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the above named organization and for Food and Water, Inc.

Both are non-profit public interest citizen groups concerned about the environmental and health impacts af the nuclear fuel cycle, including the management of radioactive wastes.

The undersigned is a member of the Pennsylvania Low-Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee, which is charged by Commonwealth law to review and advise an matters relating to disposal of low-level radioactive wastes generated in the Appalachian Compact States.

These comments, however, do not, and are not intended in any way to, represent the views of that committee or of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

The Commission proposes to ttreassert authority for approving onsite low-level waste disposal in Agreement States,tt This Commission authority would be extended ta NRC-licensed reactors and Part 70 facilities.

We oppose the proposed rule and ask that the Commission withdraw this proposal.

At 53 FR 31881, the Commission states that :

and:

and:

and:

Onsite disposal of low-level radioactive waste is regulated by the state regulatory agencies in Agreement States.

In Agreement States, the Atomic Energy Commission did not reserve jurisdiction under 10 CFR 150.15(a) for onsite low-level waste disposal at NRC licensed facilities.

.** the states will have control over land burial of low level wastes"

• • • the Commission decided against "control over land burial of wastett in Agreement States by relinquishing jurisdiction of onsite disposal of low-level waste to the states while retaining AEC jurisdiction of high-level waste disposal.*.

Under current law Agreement States have the authority to regulate the disposal of low-level waste products onsite.

(emphases added)

The Commission is here stating clearly that Agreement States, under existing law, have regulatory authority over onsite disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and that its regulatory stance, in response to the law, has Jong been to recognize Agreement State authority over onsite disposal.

Absent authorization by law, the NRC cannot arbitrarily decide to make so great an alteration of the authority of Agreement States, an authority reemphasized in the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 Amendments.

O\J - s \969 A(:knowledged by caM... -.-~

J. S. NUCtEAR REGL"~.A 10RY COMM I

DOCKETING t, StR'/1 Ct> c;ECT 10 OFFICE OF THf E' * ~T ARY OF Tt1E O,",:,St~

,o._--31-~8"'

V

~

j

~ !I N due:

J Io tf_Z-,

6--z:-t:=w~~--

p. 2 Moreover, of greatest pertinence to this point, the 1980 Low-Level Radio-active Waste Policy Act and its 1985 Amendments state specifically that the states are responsible for the disposal of all low-level radioactive wastes that are generated within their borders.

No new directive from the Congress now negates that mandate to the states.

The Commission provides no justification for its arbitrary and capricious reversal of authority in this Proposed Rule, but merely states that "the Commis-sion believes that jurisdiction for onsite disposal *** 'should' be vested in the Commission" and that it "'believes' it prudent" to do so.

An agency cannot by fiat take actions wholly contrary to provisions plainly stated in law.

Of great importance to the states which are required to take disposal responsibility for low-level radioactive wastes under the 1980 and 1985 Federal laws is the failure of the Commission in this proposal to specify the classes of low-level wastes eligible for disposal onsite and by land burial.

The Pennsylvania DER Bureau of Radiation Protection Nuclear Safety Director stated in public meeting that he interpreted this Proposed Rule as applicable only to very low activity wastes; an NRC Region 1 staff member pointed out that the Proposed Rule does not so specify.

The only reference to what wastes may be disposed of under this reasserted authority in the Proposed Rule states,

"..* the onsite disposal of non-critical waste quantities of onsite special nuclear material remains an NRC licensing function **. "

As the Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 150.15Ca) now reads, any low-level waste, including Class C wastes of high activity and longevity and undetermined quantities of special nuclear material, could be disposed of in this manner onsite within the protected and exclusion areas of any NRC-licensed reactor and within Part 70 licensee restricted areas and "any contiguous property established for activities carried out under licenses issued pursuant to Part 70.**. "

There is not even any clear requirement for the Part 70 licensee to own the contiguous property.

With regard to the latter, Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act declares that the Commission is authorized to discontinue its regulatory authority for byproduct materials (as defined in Section 11Ce), source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.

Section 274Cb) of the Atomic Energy Act and the mandatory control over the disposal of low-level waste stated in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act, taken in combination, provide more than ample demonstration of the Congressional intent that Agreement States are indeed directed to assume the responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 Amendments plainly state that the responsibility for disposal lies with the state in which waste is generated.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in order to protect the health and safety of its citizens and to comply with the State's Constitutional provisions for protection of the environment, has enacted legislation that requires above grade waste disposal and recoverability.

For the Commission now to attempt arbitrarily to alter that firm mandate of the Congress would set a precedent of Federal agency faithlessness by ex post facto changing the rule.

The state's authority commensurate with its responsibility for low-level radioactive waste control and disposal cannot be summarily reversed by the Commission in a manner contrary to law.

p. 3 If the states are to be able to carry out their obligations for disposal, they must have certainty that the NRC will not on whim change the rules and regulations whenever the Commission pleases and on no credible basis other than its unsubstantiated "beliefs."

It is difficult enough for a Host State to determine the quantities and characteristics of the wastes for which it must provide disposal capacity, and to make timely decisions on the siting and design of such facilities within the very short time permitted by the milestones of the Federal law and its amendments.

Moreover, the conditions of geology, climate, land use, population distribution, and economy differ widely from state to state; some states have attempted to set standards and regulations that their responsible officials believe will be best suited to meet the long-term requirements for waste isolation from the biosystem.

for example, onsite and near site disposal of radioactive waste by land burial, as is allowed under 10 CFR 61, will jeopardize surface waters where licensee facilities are located on or near flood plains.

In Pennsylvania's case, as well as Minnesota's Prairie Island, Three Mile Island is in fact located in the river, subject to extreme flooding and to breaching of the dikes.

State law and regulations would prohibit subsurface disposal at such sites.

These wastes will persist in unacceptable toxicity and will remain the ultimate long-termresponsibility of the states long, we daresay, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ceases to exist.

This proposed NRC regulation that would deny to the states the ability to control in any way whatsoever the disposal of potentially vast quantities of low-level radioactive waste violates Federal law, Congressional intent, good faith negotiations which Agreement States have entered into with the Commission, and potentially the health and safety of those who reside and in future will reside in the vicinity of NRC-licensed reactors and Part 70 licensees.

For these reasons, the proposed regulation must be withdrawn -- or the Federal government must reassume its full responsibility for the management and disposal of ill radioactive wastes, a responsibility that we believe must follow from the Federal authority to issue licenses that result in the generation of these wastes in the first place.

Respectfully submitted, Judith H. Johnsrud, Ph.D.

Director, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power; Research Director, Food and Water, Inc.

CABINET FOR HUMAN RESOURCES COMMONWEAL TH OF KENTUCKY FRANKFORT 40621-0001 DEPARTMENT FOR HEAL TH SERVICES October 28. 1988 '88 NO -2 P4 :,4 The Secretary of the Commission U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED R.U

..!>a 5"3Fte 31~

Re:

Proposed Rule.

11 Reassert ing NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States": 10 CFR Part 150. 53 Federal Register 31880- 31882 (August 22. 1988)

The Kentucky Radiation Control Program hereby submits its comments on the above referenced proposed rule concerning regulatory authority over onsite disposal of radioactive materials.

In addition to being somewhat surprised. we are deeply concerned that the NRC would even consider such a proposal.

Kentucky objects from two points of view.

First. it would appear the proposed rule extends beyond the authority of the NRC.

Under the Atomic Energy Act it is recognized that the State shall have the authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards.

It would appear the rule would. for all practical purposes. terminate a portion of the Agreement.

The Agreement may be terminated by the NRC based on certain specific conditions: however. those conditions obviously do not apply in this situation.

Kentucky. although it was the first Agreement State. does not have a nuclear power plant within its borders.

However. we are a party state within the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact.

This Compact was created in response to the federal policy set forth in the Low-Level Radioactive waste Policy Act of 1980 making each state responsible for the disposal of certain categories of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders.

Therefore. our second objection to the proposed rule is very simple.

The Compact language was passed by the legislatures of all involved states and the Compact was subsequently ratified by Congress.

In simple terms. the proposed rule is in conflict with existing federal aw.

We have not been able to determine why the NRC would even consider proposing such a rule with such overwhelming evidence that would eventually. if passed. be overturned by either the courts or Congress.

"An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/H"

a.s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT ION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docu.,, nt S1 *istics Postma,~ D t 6 -

~ - &-r Copie Recc1v J

Add' I Copies R r,r I 3 (ial D t l'or, f...XI:> ~

'r.s..w19..~-z

The Secretary of the Commission Page Two October 28. 1988 In conclusion. we would simply suggest the proposed rule is in violation of several regulations and strongly recommend it be withdrawn.

DRH/ns Donald R. Hughes. Sr.* Manager Radiation Control Branch Division of Radiation & Product Safety COMMONWEAL TH OF KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOR HEAL TH SERVICES 275 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40621-0001 RADIATION CONTROL BRANCH

BLUE RIDGE.ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE October 21, 1988 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Connnission Washington, DC 20555

Dear NRC:

DOCKET NUi,iBtR PROPOSED RULE Janet Hoyle, Director

JCKL i * ~,

"BB NOV -1 P 3 :32 OFF1r~.

• OOCKP Iii 1

• BRANC I V ( ;

On behalf of the members and the Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Environ-mental Defense League (BREDL), I comment on the NRC proposed rule in the August 22, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 162: 31880- 31882).

We oppose the adoption of the proposal that would make "low-level" radioactive waste disposal at nuclear power plants a federal responsibility.

The proposed rule is e definitely unfair to the states and potentially unsafe for the public.

Having been given the responsibility for management of "low-level" radioactive wastes by the 1980 Policy Act and the 1985 Amendments, North Carolina and other agreement states have established programs, policies, and regulations for waste management.

Such states should have the right to decide whether or not to site and operate "low-level" waste facilities at reactor sites within their borders.

If North Carolina meets the federal standards in 10 CFR, Part 61, the NRC should not be able to refuse to license a waste facility simply because it is at a nuc-lear power plant.

Our state should have the right to decide that the greatest protection of public health and safety can be achieved by operating* its waste facility near the point(s) of waste generation. Under the proposed rule, North Carolina and other host states would have all of the responsibility and less of the control.

We recognize that the NRC encourages shallow land burial of "low-level" radio-active wastes.

The adoption of this proposed rule would establish a dangerous precedent for the NRC to disallow safer, better waste management technologies.

North Carolina and other host states have banned shallow land burial and required the use of engineered barriers. These decisions have been made, in part, in re.s-ponse to safety concerns of citizens. Waste management companies have proposed technologies which meet the states' higher standards.

The agreement states should have the right to go beyond federal.regulations to ensure the selection of the best possible. sites and the safest possible technologies.

States like North Carolina must be able to plan for the design, operation, and financing of their "low-level" waste facilities.

The proposed rule which allows the NRC to approve utility dumping at reactor-sites would impede the states' planning for waste management.

Many states have made significant progress.. in :this planning. It is untenable that they have to be responsible for managing radio-active wastes without being able to project waste volumes and waste types.

We object to utility dumping at reactor sites -- with or without NRC approval --

which does not meet state regulations. It is unclear just what rules would apply to such disposal. Utility companies which operate nuclear power plants and states which will operate "low-level" radioactive waste facilities

• need public confidence.

The proposed rule would erode the public confidence which is building P.O. Box 88

• Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 '.

919/982-2691 I

- 3 1988

5. NUCLEAR ~EGUlA TCRY COMMISSIOtf DOCKETING & ~.~RVICE SECTION OFFl(E Of i. *" SECRET ARY OF THE CC,M.'ilSSION Docum~!'II Statisl ic:s Copi s r.~**1 cl Add'I Copi s r,*

Ss,.cial D1 *r bu j-,

j O :-.,;:; L--_,.__,.__ __

I

-3

~2:'"b.S...,.._ __ _

_._____............... __ 5 r :::-L,,J J'JL _ _ _

2.

slowly in:. states which are doing a good job in their waste management programs.

The hann which adoption of this rule would do to these programs is significant.

Continuing to allow the agreement states to regulate "low-level" radioactive waste within their borders in compliance with federal guidelines is in everyone's best interest.

Thus, BREDL urges the NRC to reject this proposed rule. Thank you for your con-sideration of our connnents.

Sincerely, Janet M. Hoyle JMH:po

1) CKET NUMBER "0POSE RULF PR, so Native Americans for a Clean S°?::>F!( 31&-(!tJJ Environment

Dear Secretary,

P.O. Box 1671 Tahlequah, OK 74465 918-458-4322 October 24, 1988

• aa OCT 31 1'!2 :22 Please be advised that the enclosed letter reflects the sentiments of, not only Ms. Carter-White, -:mt"" but the 400+ members of Native Americans for a Clean Environment and many other concerned citizens, here in Eastern Oklahoma. Your attention and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

-fa_~

Pat Moss, Vice-Chair N.A.C.E.

• - I.

kknow1eaged by card...........

J S. NUCLEAR R.fGUl AlORV COMMISS DOC ETlr-JG & SiRVICE SECTION OfFl<:E Of THE SECRETARY OF tll: COMMISSION Docunenl Statistics Postmark Dale Copies R~c v Add'I

DOCKET. Ju 1~1 ER R ~

PROPOSEOrffJJLE -

v

~.3FA..~I~ Kathy Carter-White P.O. Box 124

Welling, OK 74471

• aa nf'r 31 Ul, Pf2 :22 At U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:

Secretary

/1

• r.r Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Recission of Agreement States' On-site Bisposal Management

Dear Secretary:

53 F.R. 162: 31880-31882 permits publ c comment on NRC ' s proposed recission of Agreement St ates ' On-Site deposition of low level radioactive materials authority, I comment :

The Supremecy Clause affords the NRC broad powers with regard to nuclear regulation.

Thus far, states have had some ability to participate in management technology by reason of health and safety issues under the U. S. Constitution's police powers.

Federa l management provides unilateral solutions.

State management permits the development of more appropriate technology which is sensitive to local geography, social custom, ecosystem features,

and other local needs.

The NRC is poor ly-situated to make the assessment of whether the local people can politically tolerate one solution over another.

States are better situated to find and implement the most perfect solution, because state agencies are more intimately familiar with the facts.

A better solution would be the voluntary sharing of information, thru availability of consulting services and, perhaps, a decommission-ing interview at the conclusion of a facility ' s operative life, when the facility is entering the liability-only phase of using nuclear.

NRC could conduct an onsite inventory & assessment, and make nonbinding recommendations to the a ppropriate state agency.

I stringently oppose rescinding Agreement States' authority to regulate commercia l low eve l radioactive wasted sposal i n their states.

In addition to the nonsense about NRC's need to know what is onsite at decommissioning by supplanting state decisionmaking authority with that of the NRC, permitting Agree-ment States to make their own policies paves the way to responsible appreciation of the whole consequence of nuclear power. It internal-izes the social cost of reactor operation on the social groups which choose to utilize these b nefi s

K A

w Public Comment for:

Native Americans for a Clean Environment

)

/

~. "11J COMMISSION SECTION ETA Y tON l

I

,. I &tics t

rk D le ec1i1I D ro IZ,-

~

DOC T NUMBER ~ @

CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTAT&WP0SEl) RULE

_ I-s="tJ LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION

~~Fl<. 3/~

1035 Outer Park Drive

• Springfield, IL 62704

• 217/785-9937

_lt~:.;,'r'*

Clark W. Bullard, Chairman Terry R. Lash, Secretary-Treasurer Donald R. Hughes. Sr.. Commissioner October 21, 1988 The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch "88 OCT 31 Pl2 :22 OFFIC!..

~~.r.r,.

DOC [ 1 1

• : f 'I c:

3p.4,r1.._

RE:

Proposed rule, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States 11 ; 10 CFR Part 150, 53 Federal Register 31880-31882 {August 22, 1988)

The Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission (Commission) hereby submits its comments on the proposed rule referenced above.

The Commission is the administrative body of an interstate agreement (Compact) between the State of Illinois and the Commonwealth of Kentucky for the regional management of low-level radioactive waste.

The Compact was created by its party states in response to the federal policy set forth in the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended, 42 USC 202l{b) et seq. (Policy Act) making each state responsible for the disposal of certain categories of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders.

The Commission is generally responsible for administering the Compact, adopting a regional management plan for safe and efficient management of the region's low-level radioactive waste, and other specific duties.

The Commission has reviewed the comments of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IONS).

Although the Commission has no licensing authority, the Cammi ssion does share and generally agrees with the concerns raised by IONS.

The Commission believes that establishing multiple low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities by allowing onsite disposal activities would promote neither safe nor effective management of the 1ow-1evel radioactive waste (LLW) generated in Illinois and Kentucky.

The Commission's Regional Management Plan calls for a single regional disposal facility.

Pursuant to its designation as the host state for that facility, Illinois is proceeding to develop the safest facility ever built for disposal of LLW in this country. Allowing multiple disposal sites, each established to standards less stringent than those required of the regional facility, would be completely inconsistent with the Compact's stated purposes of "limiting the number of facilities needed to manage low level radioactive waste generated in the region safely and effectively and efficiently, 11 Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 63 v-1, art. I(a){4) and 11ensuring the ecological and economical management of low-level radioactive waste, including the prohibition of shallow-land burial of waste, 11 Id., art. I(a)(7).

NOV - { f988 Illinois

• Kentucky

U.S. NUCLE ~ REGU! TORY COMMISSION DOCKmr*G & Si.f. 'IC'i: <:f TION Orf ICE OF T ~ *,* ' T' RY OF Tl-IE C0,"1, l$JION Postma,' C t

-'-a -ti)....,. -~r Copi s

, d I

Add' t Ce>>')I ** ~,,. I

..3 fl..Z ~ -

---~.:,.....+~ D:ii, CAll'A:T

The Secretary of the Commission Page 2 October 21, 1988 The Compact has been enacted into law by both of its party states and has been ratified by Congress.

The Compact forbids "any person to dispose of low-level radioactive waste at a facility other than a regional facil ity," Id.,

art. IX(b)(4).

Notwithstanding the receipt of a license from Kentucky, Illinois, or the NRC, onsite disposal is prohibited in those states without approval from the Compact's administrative Commission.

In the event that NRC decides to proceed with this rulemaking, the Commission would expect explicit recognition, perhaps through appropriate procedural safeguards, of the Conunission's authority to absolutely prohibit onsite disposal by generators located in the State of Illinois and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Very truly yours,

(!_()~ LI).

Clark W. Bul lard Chairman

DOCKET NUMBER PR BRO POSED RULE I 60 Joe F. Colvin Executive Vice President &

Chief Operating Officer NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006-2496 (202) 872-1280 October 26, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch

~3.F~I ~

~Ol k. ~ ' f -

~*,~fr\..

'88 OCT 27 Pl2 :49 Of F l !..,:

DOCKL: !Nt, v 'L f.

OR.I', c~

SUBJECT:

NRC Proposed Rulemaking, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States," 53 FR 31880, August 22, 1988

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) in response to the above-captioned proposed rulemaking.

NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues, and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC.

In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect-engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

NUMARC supports the Commission's proposed rule and endorses the comment letter dated October 20, 1988 submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

However, NUMARC urges the Commission to clarify the wording of the rule that would restrict the disposal to within the "protected and exclusion area"; because the protected area is within the exclusion area, we recommend the restriction be phrased in terms of the exclusion area alone.

The rule should also explicitly acknowledge that existing 10 CFR 20.302 burial locations are not negated by this rule.

NUMARC urges the Commission to adopt the *proposed rule to clarify NRC's regulatory authority over the disposal of low-level waste onsite at nuclear power plants.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking.

Sincerely,

+. ~

--l

--..L" F. Colvin Nu\J - 1 1988 JFC:laf A * '1u ~,eogeo oy ca rd.*******.,.....,._..

JAMES McCLURE CLARKE 11 TH DISTRICT, NORTH CAROLINA COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR ANO INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Cct ober 21, 1988 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission Washington, OC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

217 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 205 1 5 (202) 226-8401 ONE NORTH PACK SOUARE SUITE 434 ASHEVILLE, NC 28801 (704) 254-1747 3,P }.. WEST MAIN STREET AlO : ~~DALE, NC 28160 (704) 286-4890 319 WEST MAIN STREET SYLVA, NC 28779

• *, r* f,104) 586-8631 V

I am writing to express concern about the rule proposed in the Monday, August 22, 1988 Federal Register, to reassert the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Canmission (NRC) in regulating onsite low-level radioactive waste disposal in Agreement States.

As you know, the intent of Congress in passing the Low-1.evel Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-1.evel Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985 was to provide for waste disposal at a limited number of sites under the jurisdiction of state and regional authority.

The proposed rule appears to contradict this intent by potentially prohibiting Agreement States from regulating the disposal of all low-level waste onsite.

The North Carolina General Assembly has established requirements for the licensing of a low-level waste facility that are rrore stringent than those contained in current NRC guidelines.

The proposed rule has the potential of weakening the standards the General Assembly and many of the people in North Carolina feel are necessary for protection of the public.

Many of those individuals are concerned that the proposed rule change further limits the ability of the people to directly detennine the degree of protection they are afforded from exposure to radioactive waste.

It would seem to me that the intent of the proposed rule, to provide greater assurance that onsite radioactive waste will not present a health hazard when the site is decanmissioned, could be accanplished without placing into doubt the authority of Agreement States to regulate the disposal of low-level waste. This could be done by providing guidance documents to Agreement States for use in the issuance of onsite disposal licenses and/or requiring reporting to the NRC of all onsite disposal permitted by states.

For these reasons I hope that the Commission will not approve the proposed rule change.

Sincerely, JMC:ss NO\J - 1 1988

~cknow1eageel by card........

DI(

\ TORY COMMISSIO~

~r.VICE SECTION CRHARY

' ' IISS ION l:,tj~* ics 1-1, -,,-,,. _ _ _

/ __ _

' --3_ -*---

/l::c,b~--

,& Tc'-1A-A r:

DOCKET NUMBER PR u:RULE -----=

~

l-5~,._;e ~J t-F--j) ~

America the Beautiful USA 15

.S e.c..r~.\- O..r'-\_

V I S I C\J l1 e-\~Q..v" (°(e.~uto...-\-or'-\ C.~m~ \ ~'=- 1 &--

W a:.s \\\\, ~<l' +o--..,, 1). c...

2,C5~~

}

~ ~l

~c.\~", _uo.'t°"-

~Z~

'f\W"

'Sc!.o::.r~

V,s. ~Re.,\

J Wo.s;l,\.,~h,...,. D.<!.. z.o.sG~

~~'"'*

Lue..op(""'c.. Cl.V\~ ~

o...\\\\ e1.t\~~~ lo\

1/4~ N(<c_ --h:, ~uw-~.e..,r \1-\~r~nl_C.. o-t,,..

5\-c:\te ~ n c"'t<;.. lo\ u ~IJ rr io~!co,,,.~\ <\"'*

a...\l CG1/2,.n-i,en;.,ci...J

\CS1...t.) - \c"c\ n:,..~toac.h->~

\.oabte... noc.o rc.:,-c..r~c:l +-o..\-<,..e.. s.\-o..+~s..

A+-(\?r-c s.e,....l-1/4~ (\J. y,.$, L-ow -Le. vc.

ROl-A. l 0

0 ~c.-hve Wa.*:,Ae.. 5,,h~\ Q~~s~ -

L~. V\.~ de.c::le1.r,c.a_ L<JlA\ -:C>\v-6 ~

I, fh * -ts for ~u~~ CL r"~fOSoC.. -

fo~ \ dad.

r-e~ ; LO'k.,'"I.:'::t\~"'- s..so\~.s ovrc:..-e...'

a.l$t.J,fe,r, We-u.lo.._.\i no""° I.J..)o,.,.,...-\- fo

see. N, Y., S, 1 S prv d -....c. c.. ~l!..1/'e.rs.e...l lo~ 3/4-e-NR;.c.. I Nor 1..uo-.,\ :;,>We:.. ~rove.. --\-1/4c_

E_

L _

I

" r,

'.I G! 1 ~

- kc..,-v-j ~ '1;.n~-r, h.fte..s. n e..o.. +-, "eQ..

~o \\\\'\*c. i ~e ra.dlc..-o..A ;0 a:c..\-,ve..slo~ c\ \

0"14 srtc..

• ik ~

s\-)ould.. \Je.. ovov.s ~

c.le.a..n 0-\r, R~6 ovr \~~~ ~ (\JO +o ~

~os-a..ts ~oJ-a?"~ (l=>r-of11-,s. bc{"~rc..

pe.o~le..,

\

It"' '11 q::s~\i~,~~t-\~

AcKnow1eagee1 by cares **

. otr:[ ii U )N"i...

• aa OCT 27 AlO :36

- 1 198,

"........... w.-.

p N

1 TORY COMMl5SIOfj DO c:. ?.VICE SECTION

", r. srrRET ARY lC \\\\Iii I SS ION f,

tatistics 10 ~..s-- rr:..

I *-

-1 3

.,. ~0£

_.S / (;:"~/}-~t:_ __

Western North (0(\

Carolina Alliance25 PA :42 <2Y

• as OCT Stall:

OFFICERS:

Dan Plttlllo, Chair Judy Wllllamson, Vice-chair Dick Heywood, Treasurer Lou Zeller, Secretary //

P.O. Box 18087 70 Woodfin Street 4B Asheville, NC 28814-0087

. (704)258-8737

' * '.,w i Mary Sauls KeU'f t *, it '

Coordinator 19 October 1988 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir or Madame:

t. C.

Ron Lambe, Administrator I am writing in comment to the proposed rule 53 FR 162:

31880 - 31882, published in the August 22 Federal Register, concerning the authority for at - reactor disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW-).

This proposed rule would take the authority for at - reactor disposal away from the states and give authority to the NRC.

We oppose this proposed rule for the following reasons.

First, this rule clearly violates the intent of Congress in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act (LLWPA) of 1980 in which states were given responsibility for providing for the disposal of all LLRW generated within each state.

House committee reports for this legislation concluded that " low-level radioactive waste can more effectively and efficiently be managed on a regional basis" (House Report 1382, Part 2,

96th Congress, 1980) and that states should be given primary responsiblity for LLRW because they are "better capable of the planning and monitoring functions relevant to low-level waste" (House Report 1382, Part 1, 96th Congress, 1980).

The 1986 amendments to the act (LLRWPAA) further specifies that states should be responsible for the permanent disposal of Class A, B, and C LLRW generated within states' boundaries.

We concur, and strongly urge that the states be allowed to maintain the authority to determine, on a state - by-state and reactor - by-reactor bas is, which facilities may be suitable for at - reactor storage and which are not.

We feel that not only will states be more familiar with the operating capabilities and histories of reactors and with the needs of the general public, but that state officials are more directly accountable fo r the safety of state residents t han is the NRC.

Sincerely,

?1~~1'~

-h+

Mary Sa uls Kelly, PhD Coordinator, WNC Alliance N V - 1 1981 C:kOOWledgtd by card. **._...,........,...... _. ___

l S, NUCt,Ult REGULATORY C" lt11MISS DOCKETING & SiRVl<"i: ~ECTlON OFFICE OF THE Sf ' ~ :, \RY.

OF THE COW * *, I I ::>>I t'otumo!'f

• i ics

~aa OCT 25 P 4 :43 p@

GERALD A DRAKE. M.D.

7921 Indian Garden Road Petoskey, Ml 49770 616 347 9530 October 19, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR t ~

~6/=/(_3, Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

,e Washington, DC 20555 Dear Sir.

I am wr1tlng to oppose glv1ng NRC author1ty for at-reactor s1 e d1sposal.

I belleve this takes away the right of states to protect the health and safety of the1r people. Without the authority to monitor what is done with the low level waste, how can states provide the protection they are by law supposed to prov1de?

Thank you for an consideration you can give to abandoning this proposal.

Yours truly,

~

~[;;:)

Gerald A Drake, M.D.

. NUaEAlt REGUlATORY CO MISS!~

DOCKETING & S VICE !",ECT ION OFflCE 0* THE Sr*: E.t..RV OF THE COMMIS5lv J Oocum r.t s,,,.,

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING LoBBY88 OCT 25 p 4 :34 Secretary, US NRC Washington, D.C. 20555,

Dear Sir or Madame:

33 Central Avenue Albany; New York 12210 518/ 462-5526 October 19, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER J so PROPOSED R VF( 3tAJ The Environmental Planning Lobby, a New York State coalition of over ninety environmental groups and 8,000 individual members strongly objects to the NRC proposal in the Federal Register (53 FR 162:31880-31882), that would remove agreement state's authority over 1 icensing of at-reactor disposal of low level radioactive waste and make it a Federal NRC responsibility.

This amendment reasserting the NRC'S authority over at-reactor disposal is an unwarranted 1 imitation of Agreement State's options for waste management.

Since these States have the responsibility for all commercial *1ow-leve1*

radioactive waste within their boundaries they must be allowed to determine how this waste is managed.

They must have adequate options for disposal of this waste. At-reactor storage is an important option that states must be able to utilize quickly and with a minimum of 1 icensing delays if they find such storage to be necessary. This is best facilitated if at-reactor storage can be 1 icensed by states.

Disposal site development in many states may not be completed on schedule.

If this is the case, the states will need to have the option of at-reactor storage for the interim period before the development of their own waste facility can be completed.

It is an unnecessary burden for states to be saddled with *1ow-leve1* radioactive waste that they have not yet developed a disposal site for, or to be penalized by fines if they are not given access to at-reactor storage within their state by the NRC.

This situation might arise under the NRC proposal.

It could occur as a result of NRC 1 icensing delays.

These delays would not arise if agreement states retain the ability to 1 icense at-reactor storage.

States must have the ability to approve at-reactor storage as they need it. Please see attached letter of January 7, 1985 from the NRC to Assemblyman Richard Gottfried affirming agreement state's rights to pursue at reactor storage as long as it does not negatively impact on the safe operation of the reactor.

It is an unacceptable invasion of state's authority that under this proposal the NRC could license disposal methods which states have prohibited.

New York State has prohibited the use of shallow land burial for "low-level" waste facilities within the state.

In the past the NRC has advocated shall01.AJ land burial as a disposal method.

This proposal could allow the NRC to do exactly what New York has hoped to prevent.

It is unacceptable that the NRC under this proposal would be able to approve this form of disposal without state knowledge or concurrence The Environmental Planning Lobby, "EPL, is a nonprofit statewide environmental advocacy coalition whic ~re nttilil 90 organizations and thousands of individual members. EPL is the only fulltime environmental lobby in New l'ita1e ncITi'$

played a major role in protecting the state's natural resources for over seventeen years.

\. 4' printed on recycled paper

kf\Owleoged by card*' '* **

Isl. NUclEAR REGULATORY COMMfSSIOf,4 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION OocU1n n1 Statistic, Postma,~ 0,11 Copie, ~tK

., J Add' I Copies R

I D J>t

>~,.

I o-~o --r r

( --

..3

/b:::b,s.

S-,-e:rw,1{

Since it is states that will eventually end up i,,Jith contaminated reactor sites and their implications for the publ ic-'s health and safety we feel much more confident that the states will carefully control what is disposed of in at-reactor disposal.

The NRG proposal to deregulate up to 401/. of "low-level" radioactive waste and treat is as Below Regulatory Concern and thus fit to be disposed of as regular garbage indicates that the NRC is not deeply concerned with disposal impacts on public health and safety.

The states are thus much better qualified to license at-reactor storage, This proposa 1 is bad from another perspective.

Some reactors may be in environmentally sensitive areas.

State officials and many citizen's would strongly object to any disposal at reactors.

The proposal by the NRC would give the NRC the authority to permit disposal at these reactors over State's and citizen's objections.

This is improper.

These objections outweigh the NRC ' s argument that it needs authority over at-reactor disposal licensing in order to have more complete information about what materials are at the site at decommissioning.

This information could be obtained simply by requiring agreement states to provide it.

It seems unnecessary to limit state authority to obtain information that could be much more simply obtained by other methods.

The other NRG argument that this proposal would allow for more centralized consistent regulatory review is not an adequate reason for establishing this proposal.

Consistent and centralized regulatory review will not meet the needs of states at this crucial period of disposal site development.

For the reasons listed above the Environmental Planning Lobby would again 1 iKe to register its strong objection to NRG proposal (53 FR 162: 31880-31882),

! ~!vi/ Jt/ffe/

Larry fti~p i ro Executive Director Environmental Planning Lobby Sincerely,

/

Kaia Dercum Environmental Associate Environmental Planning Lobby

GE Stockholders' Alliance Against Nuclear Power @

P.O.Box 966 t Columbia, MD 21044 t 13011 381-2714

~

t -l t.i-:-

U lNi*C Chairman Patricia T. Birnie Board of Advisors (In Formation)

Larry Bogart Citizens Energy Council Leo Goodman (1 910-1982)

Split Atom Study Group a

Judith Johnsrud, Ph.D.

W' Vice President Solar lobby Charles Komanoff Komanolf Energy Associites Claude Lenehan, OFM Corporate Responsibility Advisor Paul L. Leventhal President. Nuclear Control Institute Grigsby Morgan-Hubbard Writer and Energy Consultant John R. Newell Bath Iron Works President (Ret.)

i:t:!s H. Robinson, M.D.

Citizens for Health Information Nathan H. Sauberman Professional Engineer

!Ret.)

John Somerville, Ph.D.

President, Union of American and Japanese Professionals Against Nucle;ir Omnicide Irving Stillman, M.D.

Physiciins for Sociil Responsibility Faith Young Energy People, Inc.

Affiliations for ldentif,cation Purposes, only.

• aa OCT 25 P 4 :26 Secretar,

"RC U.S.

uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBER Commen on 53 FR 162:31880 -

31882PR POSED RULE

____________.........,. _________ ~-----"--=--'--"-...a;......~-----~

5,

Dear Sir:

We oppose the RC's propo ed rule o

ake back authori: from Agreemen States for disposal of low level radj oac i e 1*as e at nuclear power plants and/or o her federall: licensed facil-i ies that generate radioacti *e waste, We believe that those s ates have greater famiJiari *y l*j *h local environmen al and site-specific physic-a] limita ions, and greater sensitivity to the populations nParby than the NRC.

We believe the states are more Iii ely o require more stric regulations; and to oversee and moni or compliance wi h

.he regulations, The NRC has demonstrated its ~illingness o compromise safe in favor of economic e*pediency.

The 'RC's preferred method of s orage, shallow land burial, could lead o con amination of groundwater.

We believe that abo e-the-ground s orage on site is he safest me hod of sto~age so far devised, We urge he RC not to requjre transport of low level wagte o an interim regional depository, for this provides more Iii elihood of pu lie exposure he more of en these radioactive tastes are hauled around on public highways, We urge he NRC to drop this proposal, and 1Pa e of low leve waste o

he discre ion of greemen he ispo~a Sta es, Sincere].*,

Pa ricja T. Birnie NO\I - 1,9sS Acknowledsad by card. * * * * * * * * *.......,.,.......

~

...,.*~

t' t.,.:.,~ -~~,. :

~\~r.

---t, :~~::

r,,

)I.

~~ t, *'

• r..4 ';:"~t( i,,,_

0. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF Tl-1E SECRETARY OF THE COMMISS ION Oocume t 5ti!tisl ics Postmark Date Copies Rec~* **

dd' 1 Cop,

~

P,,CI I

?b/l

,/

J

a.s. NUCLEAR ltfGUlATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING ~ " VICE SECT ION OFHtE,'f rn ~~CRET>.ay

(); THI

• '¥\'SSION

, *i. ics

Ecology Task Forcell.ff U" n Southern California Ecumenical Council Post Office Box 32305, Los Angeles, California *8:P°tN 24 A10 :49 18, 1988 0ff 1 *

(J-7,I,.

October Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC, 20555 OCKcl t

, I I

,:;:rf..V HA. Ni;~

DOCKET NUMBEtlR ROPOSED RULE _ *------~-

S31="~3, s- ~

Subject:

53 FR 162:31880-31882, At-Reactor Disposal of Radioactive Waste Gentlemen:

Church people in Southern California are discussing the need for our society to change its ways if we are to avoid irreparable damage to the environ-ment.

This proposed rule takes away from the states our local control of waste management and makes it even more difficult for citizens to have a say in our own safety and well being.

As you well know, the more you federalize nuclear energy production, the less we know about what is happening to us and the more likely we are to suffer contamination as a result of poor decision making at the upper levels. Three Mile Island, Chernabyl and now the disc losures of what has been happening at Savannah River lend no credibility to the skill of the experts in making infallible decisions.

Furthermore, the tendency toward deregulating so called low level waste tends in the direction of calling it regular trash and garbage, to be disposed of without special care and regulations.

We understand your intention to foist nuclear power on us, whether we like it or not.

You need to understand that we protest your disregard of our safety.

We want to retain what options we have for control of the disposal of radioactive waste.

Inasmuch as we live with it, it is likely we will be more careful with it.

convenor OC1 i l 1988

0.1. NlJCLEAR RfGULAlORr COMMISSIO DOCKETING & SU!VICf SECTION omn ~ 1**t *:::rt.FTARY OF il-!E CO.'v\.\\\\ lSSION Postm:11~

"'e

/0-1 f--rt_ _

Copic-.

..1 l

/

Add' I

, * ~.....,_,,o~uced

.,3, Spec,el ~'. h,tion Jt:::z::.~

i?T>~

7 ---

Commonwealth Edison One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555:

Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch October 20, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

• 88 OCT 24 Al 1 :25

Subject:

NRC Proposed Rule to Reassert Authority Over On-Site Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes (53 Fed. Req. 31880, August 22, 1988)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This provides Commonwealth Edison Company's (Edison) comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposal to reassert NRC regulatory authority over the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) at reactor sites.

Edison supports the proposed rule for the reasons discussed below.

However, Edison's support is based in part on its belief that the NRC will couple this reassertion of jurisdiction with a commitment to process expeditiously requests to dispose of LLW at reactor sites and to interpret its statutory authority to preclude any attempts at redundant, dual regulation by either Agreement States or Compact Commissions.

Currently, the NRC is authorized to regulate the disposal of LLW at reactor sites located in non-Agreement States.

In Agreement States, however, the NRC has receded from it regulatory authority over such disposal, thus permitting the Agreement States themselves to regulate such disposal in accordance with their agreements with the NRC.

Because Agreement State regulation need only be compatible with the NRC's, and not identical to it, this decentralization of regulatory presents the possibility of differences in regulatory requirements between the NRC's and each Agreement State's and between the regulations by different Agreement States.

These differences in regulatory requirements can impose significant differences in costs to ratepayers, both now for the on-site disposal of LLW and later when all nuclear power reactors will be required to meet the NRC's decommissioning requirements, which may include actions related to prior on-site disposal of LLW.

The potential for substantially higher costs to some ratepayers with no commensurate increase in public health and safety imposes an inequitable burden on those over-charged ratepayers.

Thus, although the costs fo r disposing of LLW on-site in Illinois have not been established, to preclude any possibility that those costs may impose an inequitable burden on the ratepayers of Illinois, Edison supports the NRC's reassertion of authority over the on-site disposal of LLW.

Edison also supports the NRC's reassertion of jurisdiction over LLW disposed of in either the protected or exclusion areas of a nuclear power reactor.

/:,. kn it, lc.Jged by

(.; I,; I 19811, rd

• * **....,.,,.,..,.,_,~,..,.

• S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOII f DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFf!re G~ i '.!f S~C::RETARY o, *:H~.:oMv.tSSfON Postmark o,.,_,

__ //)_ -;2_ /- F;:£ Copies P.1~te,-.r.:!

/

Add' I Cc~i~< ~.... rc*',.rd

_3 Special Distribution /t..:;:: D.S

/

- --~,---S~w14-1q-_~

2 -

These areas are natural areas for the NRC's reassertion of jurisdiction because of the broad current extent of the NRC's regulatory authority in these areas and the future exercise of that authority for the purposes of decommissioning.

Moreover, consistency in regulatory requirements in those areas, especially consistency of radiation protection regulations, will be enhanced by the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRC.

The reassertion of NRC jurisdiction in those areas now will preclude the possibility of disagreements over inconsistent regulations later.

Because Edison's support for this proposal is based on considerations of ratepayer equity and regulatory consistency, that support assumes that the NRC will exercise its authority to assure the realization of ratepayer equity and regulatory consistency.

Actions necessary to the attainment of these goals include the expeditious processing of requests for approval of on-site LLW disposal, judging all requests by a uniform set of regulatory requirements based exclusively on considerations of public health and safety and granting such approval to the maximum extent possible consistent with the protection of public health and safety.

Thus, a viable regulatory process should include adequate resources for considering both petitions under 10CFR20.302 and under the Policy Statement for Low-level Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern.

It also should include the adoption of approval criteria which recognize previous grants of authority under 10CFR20.302 by the NRC and by some Agreement States under their compatible regulations.

Finally, the regulatory process should ensure that the reassertion of NRC authority is not undercut by state attempts to limit the scope of the NRC's authority.

The NRC should make clear that the scope of its reassertion of authority is plenary, i.e, that it once again completely and exclusively regulates the on-site disposal of LLW.

In particular, the NRC should state that because its regulation of decommissioning includes the ultimate disposition of LLW disposed of at reactor sites, there is no basis for redundant approval authority by either Agreement States or Compact Commissions.

Such NRC statements should be supported by an interpretation of Section 4(b)(3) of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLW Amendments Act) to the effect that any attempted redundant approval of on-site LlW disposal by either States or Compact Commissions is impermissible interference with the NRC's jurisdiction and, thus, is pre-empted by the LLW Amendments Act.

rf 5252K Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely Yours

~F~

Henr4' Bliss Manager of Nuclear Licensing

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Telephone (617) 872-8100 TWX 710-380-7619

['OCI\[ i C FYC '.~.!:()13 GLA 88-115

(~)

1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts l1Mo1 OCT 24 Pl2 :06 October 18, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED.*

Secretary of the Commission

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule Regarding Reassertion of NRC Authority for Approving OnSite Low Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States (53FR31880)

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule which reasserts NRC authority over onsite low level waste disposal.

YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachu-setts.

Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee and Seabrook.

The EEI Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group ( UNWMG) is filing a detailed response to the subject NRC proposed rule.

YAEC is an active member of UNWMG and, in general, endorses its comments.

We would also like to take this opportunity to add the following observation.

We strongly endorse the reassertion of NRC authority for approving on-site low level waste disposal.

The NRC's June 1988 policy statement concerning "Coop-eration with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities (53FR21981 )" specifically mentioned a concern that "independent" state regulatory activities could misdirect a licensee's attention in a manner inconsistent with NRC safety requirements.

The resulting misinterpretation of NRC safety requirements could have the effect of dual regulations.

We believe that this concern is valid and, ap-plies in particular, to regulation of the disposal of radioactive wastes.

The issue of proper disposal of radioactive wastes is one which needs dispassion-ate, informed technical analysis and consistency of approach.

We believe that

' ICf.

'1 'I. 1 198&

Acknowled&ed by card.'tt............ --.-

J. S. NUCLEAR RF.GULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & ~ERVICE SECT ION OFFICE OF T~E SECRETARY 0~ THE COMMISSION Document Stat ht ics Postmark Date Copies Rec'!,ved

~ =--.dt~ ~r

__ j

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 October 18, 1988 the NRC is better equipped to perform this regulatory function than state and/or local officials.

We, therefore, endorse this proposal.

JMG/dma Very truly yours,

,;}Jd~

Donald w. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs

Nuclear Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

l '\ ~. i.

• N~ I

• aa OCT 24 Pl2 :04 OP !,

DOCK[i 1*1,.

• *. f Oc §~~r' 20, 1988 C300-88-0469 GPU Nuclear Corporation One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

DOCKET r:UMBER ~

PROPO~tu RULE

__ / So ~_:)

'53F~ 31 'i-f}!j Suhject :

Proposed Rule, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal rn Agreement States 11

( IO CFR 150)

The Commission requested comments on the subject proposed rule as noticed in 53 FR 31880, 8/22/88.

GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) supports the proposed revision to 10 CFR 150.15(a) as appropriate and prudent.

Currently, GPUN facilities are not located in Agreement States (NJ and PA).

However, this may change in the future.

JLS/PC/pa(7570f) cc:

CAR IRS

~7!!.JJi:"rs, J. L. Sulliv~

Jr.

Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

ll.S. NUCLEAR REGll! ATORY COMMISSIOH DOCKETING & SE~VICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE !ECRETARY OF THE COMM rss ION Docurr,ir,1 C:.* r 1 1 ics Pc,stmar~ Date

/ 6 -;;i (J-if Copies Rec:01v d

/

Add' I Copie5 Rep,

._3 Sp,, al i ri uh r /4-Xb ~,-

)

__s__ 7:EWAIQ:J-

10CFR150 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company P.O. Box 88 Ollie S. Bradham Vice President Nuclear Operations Jenkinsville, SC 29065 SCE&G (803) 345-4040

,.,r ~.. i

... ~- ~ N-;.\

A SCIUUI Compi!nv October 19, 1988 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 "88 OCT 24 P\2 :05

SUBJECT:

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-395 DOCKET NUMBER PR 0-o PROPOSED RULE ~ !>FIi.. 31 ttiJ ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Operating License No. NPF-12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States {53FR31880)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) has reviewed the notice of Proposed Rulemaking, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States," (53FR31880, August 22, 1988) and offers the following for your consideration:

1)

SCE&G agrees that the backfit rule 10CFR50.109 should not apply if, in fact, previously approved low-level waste disposal exemptions and requirements for the exemptions are not modified as a result of the action.

2)

The rulemaking does not address onsite low-level radioactive waste disposals previously approved by agreement states.

In such cases the NRC should recognize agreement state approvals which have been issued prior to the final rulemaking and allow them to remain in effect.

SCE&G appreciates the opportunity to comment at this time.

Should you have any further questions, please contact me at your convenience.

0. S. Bradham SBW/OSB:bgh c:

D. A. Nauman/J. G. Connelly, Jr./0. W.

E. C. Roberts W. A. Williams, Jr.

J. J. Hayes, Jr.

General Managers C. A. Price/R. M. Campbell, Jr.

W. R. Baehr LA.Blue.

Dixon, Jr./T. C. Nichols, Jr.

W. F. Bacon D. C. Blanks NSRC NPCF RTS {PR 880026)

File {811.02/F#l50.001)

De. I '- 1 198/r

p C

A

. 5. NLI lf, R REGULATORYC011.*.Mt5510N D ~ " *' :~ & S&RVICE SECTION

-ip: ICf Os: THE SECRET ARY

• 4r,-OMMISSION

J'&tistics l

• as OCT 24 P\2 :l 4 STATE OF ILLIN0IS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAF~l ' : l.

l 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE

• 11.M, **

• lERRY R. LASH DIRECTOR Secretary of the Commission SPRINGFIELD 62704 (217) 785-9900 October 21, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RUL o-0.._':')

31=,e._31&~

RE:

Proposed Rule, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States"; 10 CFR Part 150; 53 Federal Register 31880-31882 (August 22, 1988).

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (

11 IONS 11 )

hereby submits its comments on the above referenced proposed rule concerning regulatory authority over onsite disposal of radioactive materials.

The proposed rule deeply concerns IONS because I 11 inoi s has 13 operating power reactors at 7 sites within its borders.

Illinois also has a spent nuclear fuel storage facility and other major facilities handling radioactive materials.

Currently onsite disposal of low-level radioactive waste at these facilities is regulated by IONS under an Agreement between Illinois and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") pursuant to 42 USC §2021.

Our first objection to the proposed rule is that it is beyond NRC's authority to adopt it.

As the Atomic Energy Act clearly states: "during the duration of (an agreement under Section 274) it is recognized that the State shall have the authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards."

( 42 USC 2021 (b).)

The Agreement between the State of I 11 i noi s and NRC now provides Illinois with regulatory authority over disposal of low-level radioactive waste at facilities in Illinois l icensed by NRC under 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 70.

The proposed rule would, in effect, terminate those portions of the Agreement.

The NRC may terminate the Agreement, however, only if 11 (1) such termination or suspension is required to protect the public health and safety, or (2) the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of (Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act).

11 (42 USC 2021.)

Neither condition is applicable here.

OCT 2 1 1988

J. S. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY COMMI SSIOH DOCKETING & SERVICE SF.C'TION OFflCE OF THE SECRfi *'-RY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stat isl ics Postmark Date IQ -,;)_/ - ~r Cop:e$ Received

/

Add' I Copies Reproduced _

.3 Special Di tribution _/{:z:;;l)5

_E~/l. 1 Sf: C W C4. /'- ;

---

...... --'"'--';..;.;:i:i;:i.x...,_,...... *.a....;;.

The Secretary of the Commission Page 2 October 21, 1988 Our second major objection is that the proposed rule appears to revoke Illinois' regulatory authority over offsite disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

The proposed rule reasserts NRC I s regulatory authority over "contiguous property established for activities carried out under licenses issued pursuant to Part 70 ***

11 (emphasis added).

Again, the NRC has no authority under the Atomic Energy Act to so revoke Illinois' authority.

The NRC claims that the proposed rule is necessary to 11 (p)rovide a more centralized and consistent regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities."

{53 Federal Register 31880.)

If centralized and consistent review of activities regulated under the Atomic Energy Act was, in itself, the primary goal of Congress, there would have been no purpose in establishing the Agreement State program.

This "rationale" could be applied, with equal persuasiveness, to every activity currently regulated by the Agreement States.

As NRC has recognized, however, 11 (w)e {the NRC) know of no statutory provision which permits, let alone requires, that what might be claimed to be

'elementary management considerations' should control in such instances, at the expense of the application of statutes and the right of a state to assume regulatory authority *** "

{In the Matter of State of Illinois Section 274 Agreement), Docket No. MISC-87-1, August 5, 1988.

Consistency in regulatory matters is already assured through NRC's requirements for entering and continuing in Agreements.

NRC's second justification for the proposed rule is to avoid duplication of regulatory effort by NRC and the Agreement States.

This argument makes no sense.

At present, onsite disposal is regulated in an Agreement State only by the state; there is no role for the NRC and no "duplication of regulatory effort.

11 Although NRC claims in its Federal Register notice that "the proposed rule is intended to provide greater assurance that onsite radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned,"

it is noteworthy that the NRC does not claim that the proposed rule is needed to accomplish that purpose.

Nor is it clear to whom such assurances are being provided.

IDNS's understanding is that at some point during the decommissioning process, after special nuclear materials are no longer present onsite in quantities sufficient to form a critical mass, the regulatory authority over;these facilities will vest with the Agreement State. Under the proposed rule, Illinois would be faced with the prospect of providing regulatory assurance of safety for as many as eight different disposal sites; sites that were not selected for their characteristics for safe low-level radioactive waste di sposa 1 and where radioactive materi a 1 s wou 1 d have been disposed of without any regulatory control by the State.

The proposed rule, if adopted, would therefore provide less assurance to the regulatory authority most concerned with long-term safety of low-level radioactive waste disposal.

NRC al so has requested comments on the draft regulatory analysis on the proposed rule.

The analysis fails to establish any meaningful justification for the proposed ru 1 e.

In many instances, the analysis is mis 1 ead i ng.

For example, the analysis claims that the proposed rule is a "clarification" of NRC policy.

This is not the case, as the NRC's policy was clearly and unequivocally established on February 14, 1962: "Control over the handling and storage of waste at the site of a reactor, including effluent discharge, will be retained by the Commission as a part of the control of reactor operation.

The Secretary of the Commission Page 3 October 21, 1988 The states wi 11 Federal Register proposed change clarification."

have contra 1 over 1 and buri a 1 of 1 ow 1 eve 1 wastes, 11

( 27 1351.)

It is patently inappropriate to characterize this in the current regulatory system as a

"pol icy The analysis claims that "it is necessary to provide a more efficient practice at licensed nuclear reactor sites in order to facilitate and ensure that deconunissioning is properly accomplished," but the analysis utterly fails to describe how the proposed rule would accomplish that purpose.

The brief, two-paragraph section Necessity and Urgency for Addressing Issue of the analysis contains but a single sentence that could be considered as an attempt at justifying the rule:

"Continued NRC jurisdiction in this area is essential in order to provide a comprehensive and consistent review of all onsite waste management activities and to avoid the potential of complicating decisions and duplicating activities associated with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the release of closed sites for other uses."

This justification is wholly unsatisfactory for two reasons.

First, this is not a matter of "continued NRC jurisdiction"; it is a matter of revoking the authority of the Agreement States.

Second, the statement merely asserts that the action "is essential" to accomplish two purposes; to provide a "compre-hensive and consistent review" and to II avoid the potent i a 1 of comp 1 i cat i ng decisions." The section not only fails to explain why the rule is "essential" to the accomplishment of these purposes, the section fails to describe how the rule would even further those purposes.

The analysis claims that "(u)ncertainty as to the jurisdiction of LLW disposal at NRC licensed facilities is a detriment to generators of radioactive waste, 11 since 11 (i)ndustry cannot plan ahead for efficient and cost-effective onsite disposal. **

11 As noted above, until NRC issued this proposed rule, there was no uncertainty.

The section of the analysis purporting to describe the impacts on the public discusses only the impact on the regulated community and the regulators.

In fact, applications for onsite disposal of radioactive materials at nuclear power plants have caused considerable concern on the part of the public, and these concerns must also be addressed.

Finally, the analysis approaches absurdity in opining that

"(a)s a more well defined waste disposal system would be of benefit to the Agreement States, NRC relations with these entities should be improved as NRC would be viewed as resolving a current issue in a timely manner."

It is hard to imagine how this attempt by NRC to revoke the Agreement States' authority unilaterally would be expected to improve NRC's relations with those states.

Given the absence of meaningful justification offered by NRC, IONS is at a loss to explain NRC's desire to adopt the rule.

The proposal is particularly troublesome in light of developments in response to the Low Level Radioactive Waste Po 1 icy Act of 1980, as amended, 42 USC 2021 ( b) et seq. (

11 Act 11

)

• Although the Act expressly declined to alter the existing regulatory regime, the Act did establish that disposal of low-level radioactive waste is a state, not a federal responsibility.

The Act did not distinguish between onsite disposal and offsite disposal.

IONS urges NRC to consider carefully this federal policy and the impact of its proposed rule on the new regional facilities being developed.

Under the Act, 11 (e)ach State shall be responsible, either by itself or in cooperation with other States, for the disposal of {low-level radioactive waste)."

{42 USC 202l(c).)

The Act does not say that each generator is responsible for disposal, nor does it say that

The Secretary of the Commission Page 4 October 21, 1988 NRC is responsible.

Even in states that have not assumed NRC' s regulatory authority, the state must determine how to dispose of the low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders.

IONS also points out that in Illinois and Kentucky, it is a violation of the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact "for any person to dispose of waste at a facility other than a regional facility,"

unless otherwise authorized by the Compact's administrative Commission (Ill.

Rev. Stat., ch. 127, par. 63 v-1, art. IX(b)(4).)

The Compact has been ratified by Congress.

Regardless of who regulates onsite disposal of low-level radioactive waste, such disposal is illegal in Illinois and Kentucky under State and federal law unless specifically authorized by the Compact Commission.

For the above reasons, IONS believes that the proposed rule is ill-considered.

IONS also suggests that the proposed rule is poorly timed, given the current efforts by states and regions to establish new disposal facilities under the federal mandate of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended.

IONS strongly recommends that the proposed rule be withdrawn.

TRL/vh

~

• as OCT 24 P\2 :16 Nuclear Information and Resource service 1424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-00&~CKE '

1

~

1 t,11.,..;

Secretary Chilk US NRC Washington, DC 20555

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Oct 20, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE Enclosed are NIRS ' comments on NRC's proposed rulechange 10 CFR PartlS0, Reass rting NRC' s Authori ty for A proving Onsite Low-Level Wast e o

• s_osa which appeared in the Federal Register on August 22, 1988, 53FR31880.

Dian~ D' Arrigo ~

Radioactive Waste Project Director OCT 2 7 1988 AC"-""'""'~v ~u uy eoro **.* * * * * * * ----*---

dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.

Po I r11.

ll C Pl t I;>

~

A J:

11 EGULATORY COMMISSIQI

( VICE SECTION F TMf

£CRfTARY t 0.:--+/-1-r.

~

I

--...3 J

ew.4-r

• ea ()Cl 24 P\2 :l 6 Nuclear Information and Re~oLtrce.s~rvice 1424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328- 002 * 'i... t-\

Comments on NRC Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 150 Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States 53FR162:31880 Monday Aug 22, 1988 Nuclear Information and Resource Service Diane D'Arrigo October 20, 1988 I. would first like to register my complaint against the NRC for providing misleading information and guidance for several weeks on this proposed rule change. There seemed to be no one available who was aware of the overall previous regulatory history of low-level waste, very low-level waste, decommissioning and the BRC proceedings which are currently underway. Further, I and others were subsequently denied an extension of the comment period, once the true intent of the proposed rule came to l ight.

Herewith are our comments:

The first comment is a question. Why should any waste be disposed of at reactor or 10 CFR Part-70 licensee sites? If those sites are not waste dumps or to become de facto waste dumps, no waste should be dumped there at all, be it regular garbage or radioactive.

Secondly, if NRC promulgates this rule in any form, it must clarify exactly what waste might be disposed of on site. Are you talking about resins, sludges, filters, or other Part 61 waste?

Or parts of dismantled reactors that are too bulky or expensive to move when the site is returned to unrestricted use? Or waste that may be deregulated as Below Regulatory Concern? Liquid waste that doesn't qualify for "low-level" waste disposal sites? Mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes?

From the information currently available and discussions with Commission staff, there appears to be no need for this rulemaking.

Agreement states must adopt and enforce standards and regulations at least as stringent as the NRC. If the states are to be trusted with disposing of "low-level" radioactive waste, as dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.

is currently the case under federal law, there is no reason to reassert NRC authority over some parts of the disposal which is done in those states. If the concern expressed in the proposed rule is sincere, regarding NRC's intent to have "control over the decommissioning process," the NRC could "maintain a consistent regulatory review and avoid duplication of regulatory effort" by allowing Agreement states to decide, through an NRC-approved and publicly-approved process, whether or not radioactive waste may be disposed at reactor or 10 CFR Part-70 licensee sites.

The NRC is requiring many aspects of Agreement states' low-level waste disposal regulations to be "compatable" with NRC's 10 CFR Part 61. It is perfectly consistent to require states to meet NRC criteria in granting or refusing disposal onsite at reactors and Part-70 facilities.* NRC could develop a reporting system for states that approve onsite disposal or long-term storage, so that NRC would have all the necessary information at decommissioning time.

It is a flaw in the national and state "low-level" waste programs and policies that decommissioning is not included in "low-level" waste disposal planning. As things stand today, there is a possibility that up to 15 new "low-level" radioactive waste sites could be established by 1993, not one of which is incorporating decommissioned reactors into its calculations for source term or volume. These sites will operate for from 20 to 50 years. Then, again, the nation will be in search of new waste sites. Meanwhile, at least 70 reactor sites (with over 100 reactors) will be ready for decommissioning.

This whole issue (decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal) should be addressed wholistically, now, before any new sites are sacrificed to nuclear waste. We could end up with 30 more waste sites in the next decade, in addition to the 70+ reactor (and Part-70 licensee) sites.

Allowing any burial or permanent disposal at a reactor (or Part-70) site is inconsistent with the NRC's expressed intent in its final decommissioning rule to return the site to unrestricted use. Since NRC considers onsite disposal an option, the Agreement States, which are left with the site after NRC terminates its licenses, should have the right to disapprove at-reactor disposal, or approve it as part of the state's plan for "low-level" waste disposal. What NRC determines is suitable for unrestricted use may have higher levels of contamination or potential exposure than some states might allow. Therefore, it

• s justifiable that Agreement states have the right to disapprove at-reactor disposal.

An economic and environmental consideration is that a state (or compact) may want all the waste generated in the state (or region) to go to its "low-level" waste facility. NRC's appr oval

of at-reactor (or Part-70 licensee) site disposal could reduce the volume and curies intended for the waste site.

A similar problem will arise when (and if) NRC begins deregulating radioactive waste as Below Regulatory Concern, BRC.

Does NRC intend to deregulate reactor and Part-70 licensee waste and then allow its disposal onsite? If up to 40% or even 50%

(according to recent estimates) of the current "low-level" waste stream is deregulated as BRC, what regulated waste does NRC foresee applying for onsite disposal?

For the record, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposes the BRC policy which only "linguistically detoxifies" radioactive waste. The BRC policy should be abandoned. NRC staff have tremendous amounts of work and should not be wasted on promulgating such environmentally questionable procedures. In no case should BRC (deregulation on radioactive waste) be a compatability requirement for Agreement States.

The NRC is correct in its view (used to justify this proposed rulemaking) that any disposal that is approved should be in conjunction with decommissioning of the site in mind. But this does not justify NRC taking back that authority which now resides with Agreement States.

If Agreement States choose reactor (or Part-70 licensee) sites for retrievable disposal or long-term storage, those options should be available, provided there is public approval. In the long run, it could deminish the number of contaminated sites in the country. There are questions regarding the feasibility of decommissioning and dismantling every site in the country. Until those questions are answered, no new waste sites should be established, and no irretrievable disposal should be approved.

If Agreement States refuse at-reactor (or Part-70 licensee) on-site disposal requests to maintain a cleaner, safer site, that should be their perogative.

In conclusion, NIRS opposes the proposed rule to reassert NRC's authority over onsite disposal of radioactive waste in Agreement states.

I Duke Power Company PO. Box 33198 Charlotte, N.C. 28242

~,BT_ 1(71)

Vice President {.!__y Nuclear Production (704)373-4531 DUKEPOWER OctdJer 18, 1988

• aa OCT 24 P 2 :39 The Secretary of the Q:mnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatoz.y Co.rrmi.ssion washington, oc 20555

-~

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPO~E.Ll R~ -

Ll,!...J J-ls:n,J,_:W,--~

e F~ 3 r~&-o ATiml'ICN:

Docketing and Service Branch SUbject:

NRC Prqx>sed Rule Ieasserting NRC's AutlDrity for Approving Cnsite Iow-Ievel waste Disposal in Jlg:reeneot States Duke PcM!r Ccllpany O iiient".S

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Register (53FR31880) dated August 22, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Cl:mnission pJblished for ccmte1t a proposed rule to reassert NRC's jurisdiction for onsite low-level waste disposal for waste generated onsite at all reactors licensed by NRC in Agreenent States.

Duke Power carpany has reviewed the proposed rule and in general supports the proposal to re-establish NRC jurisdiction over onsite disposal of very low level radioactive waste.

Ibwever, the following points need to be clarified:

1)

The proposed rule adds the following:

" ( 8) '!he disposal, within the protected and exclusion areas of a nuclear reactor licensed by the cxmnission, of radioactive wastes generated at the reactor site." The tenns "protected areas" and *exclusion areas* are defined in 73.2 (g) and 100. 3 (a) respectively (ercplaSis added)

• Ccmrent:

'llle protected area is the area within the security double fence. This area is always within the exclusion area, therefore, it is unnecessaz.y to specify both areas.

If the regulatory intent is to require that disposal be within the protected area, then "within the exclusion area" should be deleted.

However, if this is the case, disposal of any waste will be virtually

inpossible because there isn' t any room available within the protected area for disposal.

If the regulatoz.y intent is to require that disposal be within the exclusion area, then another potential problem exists in that exclusion areas are defined differently at each station. kcording to the standard technical specifications, the exclusion area for radiological effluents is a 2500 ft. radius. However, the exclusion area for Q::anee Nuclear Station is defined as a one-mi.le radius. 'llle exclusion areas for~

and catawba Nuclear Stations are both defined as a 2500 ft. radius.

CC1 'I. 1 \~HS Acknowledged by card *. * *. *........,....,....,._

0.S. NUCLF..i\R REGULATORY COMMISSIOA DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE Sf(RET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stat1stic:s Postm11rk Dale

_t ()-/£ -:..%,-( ___

Copies hc:--*;vd

/

Add'! Co;-.1**~

~ -~* J

.3_ _ _

Special Di r,I:,

t.z; b _.$ __ _

~

S 6-e..

(l f' c --

Ix>cketing and Se:r:vice Branch October 18, 1988 Page 2 Therefore, the exclusion area must be better defined. Duke fuwer pro:poses that the new rule read that the dis:posal be within the site boundary. 'Ibis will provide consistency in the use of the tenn "onsite dis:posal".

The site boundary is the fenced area of the station.

Portions of the exclusion area are not fenced and, therefore, access cannot be controlled as well. Using the site boundary to enccrrpass the allowed dis:posal area will give a nore consistent definition of what is considered onsite and what is considered offsite.

2)

No matter which :portion of the owner controlled area of each site is designated for onsite dis:posal according to this proposed rule, the existing burial, landfill and landfanning sites must be addressed.

Duke Power is presently licensed by agreement States to dis:pose of low level waste in different areas at the sites. One area is outside the station site boundary but within the exclusion area, while another has a

portion within the exclusion area and a :portion outside the exclusion area. Direction on how these existing areas need to be addressed or licensed in the future needs to be given. Will it be necessary to reapply for NRC approval of these areas or will they remain under the Agreerrent States' jurisdiction?

Very truly yours,

~/.3_~~

Hal B. Tucker tM/345/nmf

DOC~tT NUMBER PR~ ).

PROPOSE RUh ~~

99 Hannah Branch Rd.

Burnsville~ NC 28 7 14 October lti, 1988 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash i ngton, DC 20555

Dear Secretary,

I am very concerned that you are considering t h e possibility of allowing utilities to manage their own on-site incineration of radioactive waste.

We are constantly reading about h ow poorly

,.11 c*mailaged these s i tes are.

Several of these sites are in the news now and the contamination of the drinking water in the surrounding areas is out of control and very hazardous to the people living in those areas.

The states must be able t o have some control of what i s going on in their states.

Neither you nor the utilities h ave a very good record now of managing this disposal i n a safe way.

This proposal must be changed.

States must be involved in any plans for the disposal of radio-active waste in their states.

Sincerely, OCT 2 7 1988 Aeknow1eqgeo oy card.**. * * * *

• O *. NUCLEAR REGULATOlfY COMMISSION DOclCETI G & S£RVJCE SECTION om C OF THf SfCRHARY OF THE COMMISSION Postrn rt Date Copies Add'I Ce I

1 S:arist ics

'"-~ £-a __

{_

l.

~ -

~

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTtf;:

4815 WEST MARKHAM STREET

• LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 TELEPHONE AC so1 661-2000

• 88 ocr 24 P 2 :45 BILL CLINTON GOVERNOR October 21, 1988 Secretary of the Co11111ission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing & Service Branch Re:

Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 150.15 M. JOYCELYN ELDERS, M.D.

DIRECTOR Pursuant to our review of the proposed rule to re-assert NRC's jurisdiction over onsite low-level waste disposal of wastes generated at NRC licensed reactors and 10 CFR Part 70 facilities in Agreement States, we have the following conments:

While the reasons given for promulgation of the proposed rule have validity, we have serious reservati ons about changing any aspect of onsite low-level waste management.

A prevalent theme among citizen groups interested in this issue is that all low-level wastes should be disposed/stored onsite.

NRC approval of appropriate disposal of wastes onsite may be misinterpreted.

Additionally, such approval outside of state jurisdiction, when the state has previously had that jurisdiction, may cause added problems for states addressing responsibilities under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act as amended.

We therefore recommend that Agreement States maintain jurisdiction over onsite disposal.

However, in recognition of the Conmission concerns regarding decommissioning, consistency, and non-duplication of regulatory efforts, it would be appropriate for the Co11111ission and an Agreement State to enter into a MOU.

This avenue can resolve the issues of concern to the Commission while maintaining state jurisdiction over all low-level waste disposal.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal rule.

s* erely,

~a-/J,WJ}

ta J. Dicus, Director Division of Radiation Control & Emergency Management cc: Office of the Governor ocl 2 1,9sa er JMI: 5678E

,-c,mow1eogeo oy C9rd.* * * * * * *....... ~...,.--.,

J I

I r

I I

• .J w ~.J I

0.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI~

DOCKETING P.,. 5f~VICE SECTION Cf f :~-r.... ~'I" -;: ~,, ~T ARY O' :-,~ *,:,, * -~!ON Pos tmar~. i) *,.

Copir.,.

Add'/ r_,

Special o; r 16-~ 1-rr--r 3

i.:z:-b S sr-s,-L-v ri-lf...-7:... *---

., *lu I I

\

I e

• f -

r

.J t

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PB_, so

[i_3,=~ 31~8'a --

• aa OCT 24 P2 :54 Secretary U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Secretary:

October 17, 1988 In regard to NRC regulation proposed 53 FR 162: 31880-31882, taking back agreement state authority over at-reactor disposal of low-level radio-acitve wastes; I am opposed to this change.

The agreement states have historically had this authority and should continue to have it. Keeping these decisions as local as possible will increase local oversight and responsibility. We are working hard to make our state of Kansas more responsible for its radioactive waste arid this change would limit our opttons. As long as an agreement state meet:

other regulatory requirements it should have control oter at-reactor disposal.

It seems quiterreasonable for NRC to have reporting requirements of agree-ment states in regard to at-reactor disposal or storage, and this could be dooe without taking state power as the proposed regualtion would.

u~~

David Ebbert PO Box 83 Whiting, KS 66552

J.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOft DOCKETING & StitVICE SEC ION OFFICE CF TPf <:ft:RF.T A.RY OF THE C:'.'>MMl5SION Postmark Date

/ 0 */ tj -

(j1f" Copies Received

/

Add' I Copies Re,r r1 ic,I 3

Special Distribut "

~.X'r;, s,.p,i;)..&._

6.he<..tJ

~

DOCKET NUMBER PR

,;-o PROPOSED LE k:., ~)

--3p I!. 3,- 8-b-ty Secretary of the Commission USNRC Washington, DC 20555 October 21, 1988 85 4 Henley Place Charlotte, NC 2~

70CT 24 P2:54 Comment Re 10 CPR Part 150 The writer is opposed to the reassertion of the NRC's authority for approving on-site low-level waste disposal in agreement states for the following reasons:

1.

Several host states, including North Carolina, are requiring levels of containment for llrw reaching beyond the provisions of 10 CPR 61.

As the waste is in their yard, it is within reason that their requirements are more stringent than those of Part 61.

After all, Maxey Flats, Morris Illinois and West Valley New York were all under AEC or NRC regulation and each has performed, in the short, in a way to disturb the public.

2.

Reactors will probably provide the largest amount of llrw which the generator will prefer to dispose of onsite.

Nuclear stations uniformly are near water for cooling purposes.

The site was not chosen with the retardation of diffusion of radionuclides by the soil as a requirement.

It is rather unlikely that any of the generator sites will be as well qualified for shallow land burial as Barnwell.

3.

The use of Part 61 requirements will undercut a state's endeavor to establish higher standards for a compact facility.

Indeed the present proposed rule may be a precursor to a subsequent rule which will take from the state any regulatory authority in regard to a compact facility.

4.

The recent disclosures at the Savannah River plant, the Rocky Flats plant and the Fernald operation have led to an increasing public conviction that the federal bureaucracy is incompetent in its management of contractors and that parties involved have deliberately withheld adverse and essential information from the public.

5.

The NRC is perceived as being more concerned with licensee economic benefit than public safety and health.

Given these considerations I urge the NRC to withdraw this proposal from consideration as a rule.

~rel~

.0esse L. Ri@, Chair, Nuclear Subcommittee of National Energy Committee OCT ~ J 198B.

Acknowlcagcd by cara.........* *.., *.**.* __.

,. t ~. "

'> CC,I _II A TORY COMMI SSloR

~. ~ft:! 11CE SECTION

,:y,H:,;~CQETARY

. r, ! '

('~;,1,fA I SS ION

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE The association of electric companies 111119th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-3691 Tel: (202) 778-6400 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch JOHN J. KEARNEY, Senior Vice President

~OCK:.i ED t.:Sllr,C "88 OCT 21 P 4 :23

{jft' OOCK[ i I' '

.. h.. !{ 'H October 20, 1988

'1CKET NUMBER 0 0SED RULE

Subject:

Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group Comments on Proposed Rulemaking, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States," 53 Fed. Reg. 31880 {August 22. 1988)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The following comments are being submitted on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rulemaking, "Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States," published in 53 Fed. Reg. 31880 (August 22, 1988).

EEI is the association of investor-owned electric utilities, whose members serve 73 percent of all ultimate electric utility customers in the nation.

UNWMG is a group of 46 publicly-owned and investor-owned electric utilities that provides active oversight of the implementation of the federal statutes and regulations related to radioactive waste management.

The Commission's proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 150.15 by clarifying that the disposal within the protected and exclusion areas of a commercial nuclear reactor site of low-level wastes generated at the reactor site is subject to exclusive NRC jurisdiction. It would also clarify that NRC retains exclusive jurisdiction over the disposal of special nuclear material within restricted areas and contiguous property established for activities carried out pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70, when such waste is generated at the licensee's site.

Under the proposed rule, Agreement State regulatory agencies would have no authority to regulate such activities.

We have limited our comments below to the portions of the proposed rule related to onsite disposal at reactor sites.

EEI and UNWMG strongly endorse the commission's proposed rule.

As the Statement of Considerations accompanying the OCT i 1 1988 ACKnow1eogeO l>Y cara **** * ******.... - *----

J.S. NUCLEAR R~GUtATORY COMMISSI DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMl~SION C,:,cu:nr~I Siatist ic1 Postrnar~ D11:0 Copi.!s R~ce:,*d H

I ----

Add' I C-,pi<,s ~ci::ra ~,.. :, d _ _,.3 _____ _,

6peci~I Oistribuhor,

/<;,;;__o__4 p 'l)L JJ.£Wl:l:1<7:

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 20, 1988 Page 2 proposed rule recognizes, clarification of the Commission's exclusive authority over onsite disposal activities in Agreement States will provide a more "consistent regulatory review" of such activities and will "avoid duplication of regulatory effort by the NRC and Agreement States **.* " (53 Fed. Reg. at 31880-81.)

Licensees have, in fact, been instructed in the past to obtain approval from both the Commission and their Agreement State regulatory agencies when seeking authority for onsite disposal pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302. (See IE Information Notice No. 86-90, "Requests to Dispose of Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302" (November 3, 1986) at 1.)

Accordingly, we believe that the proposed rule will help ensure sensible, coherent and non-duplicative regulation of onsite radioactive 9

waste disposal activities.

Moreover, we agree with the Commission that the proposed rule will increase the Commission's control over the decommissioning process.

The Commission is currently in the process of establishing a regulatory framework governing the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

(See 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, June 27, 1988, establishing the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear facilities.)

The goal of decommissioning is to ensure that such facilities can be removed safely from service and the residual radioactivity can be reduced to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. (See 53 Fed. Reg. at 24019.)

Without effective control over the use of radioactive materials at nuclear power plants, NRC will find it difficult to ensure that onsite disposal activities do not inadvertently undermine its decommissioning requirements.

Thus, we believe that clarification of Commission responsibility and authority over onsite disposal as proposed will promote the Commission's decommissioning objectives.

In addition, the Commission has undertaken a number of important initiatives related to the development of standards for below regulatory concern (BRC) disposal of very low-level waste, both on and off the site of generation.

These include: (1) publication of a proposed rule authorizing onsite disposal through incineration of radioactively contaminated waste oil at commercial nuclear power plants; (2) promulgation of a policy statement governing the expedited processing of BRC disposal rulemaking petitions; and most recently, (3) consideration of a proposed generic BRC policy.

We believe that failure to clarify the Commission's exclusive authority over onsite disposal could seriously jeopardize the efficacy of these initiatives, and cause uncertainty and create impediments to licensees' efforts to implement the new BRC standards.

Promulgation of the rule as

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 20, 1988 Page 3 proposed is important to preserve the viability of the Commission's BRC initiatives.

Finally, the Statement of Considerations accompanying the proposed rule states that in "Agreement States, the.** Commission did not reserve jurisdiction under 10 CFR 150.15(a) for onsite low-level waste disposal at NRC licensed facilities." (53 Fed.

Reg. at 31881.)

To the contrary, we believe that the Commission's original intent in promulgating section 150.15 was to establish Agreement State authority over offsite commercial disposal activities only, and not over onsite disposal of a licensee's own waste.

In the 1961 Statement of Considerations accompanying the proposed section 150.15, the Commission made clear that it had not yet determined whether to relinquish to the States its authority to regulate commercial disposal of atomic waste by burial.

The Statement of Considerations indicated, by reference to the proposed rule, that such disposal meant "burial by any person of byproduct, source or special nuclear waste received by such person from any other person for disposal" (emphasis added). (26 Fed. Reg. 9174, September 29, 1961, at 9176.)

The Commission sought comment on whether it should retain or relinquish to the States its authority to regulate the commercial disposal by burial of atomic wastes.

After considering the comments received, in finalizing the rule, the Commission decided that "[t]he states will have control over land burial of low-level waste."

(27 Fed. Reg. 1351, February 14, 1962.)

The Commission also clarified, presumably in response to public comments received, that "control over the handling and storage of waste at the site of a reactor, including effluent discharge, will be retained by the Commission as a part of the control of reactor operation."

(Id at 1351.)

The Commission did not include the word "commercial" before "land burial" in the particular passage quoted above, and so left somewhat ambiguous how onsite disposal was to be regulated.

However, given the Commission's emphasis in the notice of proposed rulemaking on commercial disposal of waste generated by and received from another party (versus onsite disposal of a licensee's own waste), we believe that the Commission was not relinquishing control over reactor onsite disposal.

Instead, we believe that the Commission was merely clarifying that until the waste was transferred out of the possession of the reactor licensee, the Commission retained authority for waste management activities (including disposal) conducted at the reactor site.

Therefore, we strongly endorse the clarification in the proposed rule.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 20, 1988 Page 4 Finally, there are several other points which we believe should be reflected in the final rule or addressed in the accompanying Statement of Considerations.

First, the proposed rule refers to disposal "within the protected and exclusion areas.... " (53 Fed. Reg. at 31882 (emphasis added).)

We suggest that this phrase be change to "within the protected or exclusion areas" in order to assure that disposal activities in either location are subject to exclusive NRC jurisdiction, as is apparently intended.

Secondly, we suggest that either the rule or the accompanying Statement of Considerations clarify that the rule will not affect petitions previously submitted under 10 CFR 20.302 and approved by Agreement state regulatory agencies, even if all disposal activities under that authority may not yet have been completed.

We understand that the Commission does not intend to disrupt these existing, approved petitions.

Last, we encourage the Commission to move forward promptly to issue the final rule in order to provide licensees with clear and timely guidance on this subject, so that this disposal option not be precluded by regulatory uncertainty.

In conclusion, EEI and UNWMG encourage the Commission to adopt the proposed rule with the modifications suggested above.

The proposed amendment will improve NRC's regulatory control over onsite disposal and decommissioning activities, and will provide needed clarification of the Commission's authority.

Sincerely yours, JJK/bfm

• as OCT 24 Al 1 :25 NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

-f't".

IJ.

r OOC L 1 1

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE '*

21 October 1988 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DOCKET NUMBER p OPOSED RULE

/..:::,-V Secretary of the Commission 3 I=;( 3 1 &--i-)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Amendment to IO C.F.R. ~ 150. 15(a)

Reference 53 Fed. Register 31880 -

1882, August 22, 1988

Dear Sir:

In response to the above referenced Federal Register Notice, the Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste of the North Carolina General Assembly would like to express its opposition to the proposed rule changes.. The Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste is the North Carolina General Assembly's permanent statutory oversight committee for matters concerning the handling and disposing of low-level radioactive waste.

The Committee recommends that the present system whereby Agreement States have licensing authority over disposal of all civilian low-level radioactive waste within those states be maintained. Moreover, the Committee specifically rejects the argument advanced by others and alluded to in the background statement in the Federal Register, that the authority of Agreement States to regulate disposal of waste covered by the proposed rule is in doubt, or that it was not intended that such authority be transferred to Agreement States in the first instance.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes to ensure uniformity in the licensing of onsite disposal in Agreement States and that certain minimum standards for such C

2 7 1988 Acknowledged by card...........

r

1

• • 11'('.lffi~ l'.f:(fl Al'ORY COMM!SSIC>li D ~ i ~~l I 'G ?, 5' " 1!CE SECT ION

.:,r--:~-E CF *pt: ;~~.. Q.Ei ARY o; rr1~ cc,,./:-l:,_J~~,... JN Po C

r /'9:X.-. L _fJ - ;? '1,---f/

• -. I __

1

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 21 October 1988 disposal are enforced, this can best be accomplished by the issuance of licensing and disposal guidance documents. If the NRC does assert authority over onsite disposal of certain types of radioactive waste, then a rule change should be proposed which would narrowly define such waste and the circumstances under which onsite disposal could occur, in order to ensure that waste which would ordinarily go to a regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facility is not included.

Our reasons for opposing the proposed changes in the rules are as follows:

l.

The proposed changes are contrary to long-standing federal policy as expressed in the Agreement of July 1964 between the Atomic Energy Commission and the State of North Carolina, as well as the agreements with the other Agreement States.

North Carolina was an early Agreement State whose policy for nearly 25 years has been to actively exercise jurisdiction in this area to the maximum extent possible.

2.

The proposed rule changes have the potential of being in opposition to federal policy as contained in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which require the states to provide for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and encourage them to create multi-state regional facilities to accomplish this.

NRC's John C.

Stewart, in discussion with our staff, stated that NRC's present purpose in seeking the proposed mle changes is to regulate "very low-level waste" which could not be economically disposed of in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, nor which should have to be because of the low levels of radioactivity.

However, the proposed rule is so broadly stated that it would permit the licensing of onsite disposal of any low-level radioactive waste, thereby contravening the Congressional intent, as evidenced by the

Secretary of the Commission Page 3 21 October 1988 1980 and 1985 Acts, that there be a limited number of disposal sites, and that those sites be operated and regulated pursuant to state and regional authority. Furthermore, the stated rule changes have the potential of depriving the Congressionally mandated state and regional facilities of a substantial part of the waste stream necessary to make them economically viable, since licensed nuclear reactors contribute the majority of low-level radioactive waste to these disposal facilities.

We would point out to you that North Carolina is a member of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, an eight member compact of states with its second regional facility scheduled to open in January 1993 in North Carolina.

3.

The General Assembly of North Carolina has mandated certain minimum requirements for the licensing of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. These requirements are more stringent than those contained in the present NRC regulations. The proposed rule changes have the potential of weakening the protection which the North Carolina General Assembly has deemed necessary for the people of our State.

4.

The issue of public confidence in the regulatory scheme for nuclear facilities and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste cannot be ignored. Public perception of the proposed changes will be that the NRC is attempting to weaken the traditional control of the Agreement States and, in the process, removing from the people the ability to control their destiny with regard to facilities which have not enjoyed a high level of public support. The NRC wilt introduce a situation ripe for litigation whenever it issues an onsite disposal license, with the state in which the site is located being one of the potential plaintiffs.

Secretary of the Commission Page 4 21 October 1988

5.

If the NRC feels that uniformity must be brought to the licensing of isolated instances of onsite disposal of "very low-level" radioactive waste in order to ensure that it can meet its stated requirement that the sites of decommissioned facilities be available for unrestricted use, then the NRC can provide guidance documents or other assistance to Agreement States for their use in the issuance of onsite disposal licenses without disturbing the long standing authority of Agreement States to regulate disposal and without contravening national policy established by the Congress of the United States.

We feel that the states of the Union, and particularly the eight states belonging to the Southeast Compact, have proceeded to comply with the mandated national policy in good faith and the NRC must show equal faith in our ability to continue regulating in this area.

We therefore request that the proposed regulatory changes not be adopted or, if the regulations must be changed, that they be more narrow_ly drawn so as to accomplish only the stated purpose and not disturb the longstanding regulatory authority of the Agreement States.

If you have any questions in connection with our position, or if amplification is required, please contact our Committee Counsel, George F. Givens and Steven Rose, at (919) 733-2578, or at 545 Legislative Office Building, 300 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 l. Please notify our Committee Counsel of any actions you take regarding this rule.

Sincerely,

~

Cochairmen Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste 88S-SR-386

\

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 21 October 1988 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Amendment to IO C.F.R., 150. IS(a)

Reference 53 Fed. Register 31880 -1882, August 22. 1988

Dear Sir:

In response to the above referenced Federal Register Notice, the Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste of the North Carolina General Assembly would like to express its opposition to the proposed rule changes.. The Joint Select Committee on

• Low-Level Radioactive Waste is the North Carolina General Assembly's permanent statutory oversight committee for matters concerning the handling and disposing of low-level radioactive waste.

The Committee recommends that the present system whereby Agreement States have licensing authority over disposal of all civilian low-level radioactive waste within those states be maintained. Moreover; the Committee specifically rejects the argument advanced by others and alluded to in the background statement in the Federal Register, that the authority of Agreement States to regulate disposal of waste covered by the proposed rule is in doubt, or that it was not intended that such authority be transferred to Agreement States in the first instance.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes to ensure unifonnity in the licensing of onsite disposal in Agreement States and that certain minimum standards for such

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 2 J October 1988 disposal are enforced, this can best be accomplished by the issuance of licensing and disposal guidance documents. If the NRC does assert authority over onsite disposal of certain types of radioactive waste, then a rule change should be propose~ which would narrowly define such waste and the circumstances under which onsite disposal could occur. in order to ensure that waste which would ordinarily go to a regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facility is not included.

Our reasons for opposing the proposed changf:!s in the rules are as follows:

I.

The proposed changes are contrary to long-standing federal policy as expressed in the Agreement of July 1964 between the Atomic Energy Commission and the State of North Carolina, as well as the agreements with the other Agreement States. North C~rolina was an early Agreement State whose policy for nearly 25 years has been to actively exercise jurisdiction in this area to the maximum extent possible.

2.

The proposed rule changes have the potential of being in opposition to federal policy as contained in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which require the states to provide for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and encourage them to create multi-state regional facilities to accomplish this.

NRC's John C.

• Stewart, in discussion with our staff, stated that* NRC's present purpose in seeking the proposed rule changes is to regulate "very low-level waste" which could not be economicaJly disposed of in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. nor which should have to be because of the low levels of radioactivity.

However. the proposed rule is so broadly stated that it would pennit the licensing of onsite disposal of any low-level radioactive waste, thereby contravening the Congressional intent. as evidenced by the

Secretary of the Commission Page 3 21 October 1988 l 980 and I 985 Acts, that there be a limited number of disposal sites, and that those sites be operated and regulated pursuant to state and regional authority. Furthennore, the stated rule changes have the potential of depriving the Congressionally mandated state and regional facilities of a substantial part of the waste stream necessary to make them economically viable, since licensed nuctear reactors contribute the majority of low-level radioactive waste to these disposal facilities.

We would _point out to you that North Carolina is a member of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact/ an eight member compact* of states with its second regional facility scheduled to open in January 1993 in North Carolina.

3.

The General Assembly of North Carolina has mandated certain minimum requirements for the licensing of a low-level ~adioactive waste disposal facility. These requirements are more stringent than those contained in the present NRC regulations. The proposed rule changes have the potential of weakening the protection which the North Carolina General Assembly has deemed necessary for the people of our State.

4.

The issue of public confidence in the regulatory scheme for nuclear facililies and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste cannot be ignored. Public perception of the proposed changes will be that the NRC is attempting to weaken the traditional control of the Agreement States and. in the process, removing from the people the ability to control their destiny with regard to facilities which have not enjoyed a high level of public support. The NRC will introduce a situation ripe for litigation whenever it issues an onsite disposal license, with the state in which the site is located being one of the potential plaintiffs.

Secretary of the Commission Page4 21 October 1988 S.

lf the NRC feels that uniformity must be brought to the licensing of isolated instances of onsite disposal of "very low-level" radioactive waste in order to ensure that it can meet its stated requirement that the sites of decommissioned facilities be available for unrestricted use, then the NRC can provide guidance documents or other assistance to Agreement States for their use in the issuance of onsite disposal licenses without disturbing the long standing authority of Agreement States to regulate dispos~t' and without contravening national policy established by the Congress of the United States.

I We feel that the states of the Union, and particularly the eight states belonging to the Southeast Compact, have proceeded to comply with the mandated national policy in good faith and the NRC must show equal faith in our ability to co~tinue regulating in this area. We therefore request that the proposed regulatory changes not be adopted or, if the regulations must be changed, that they be more narrow_ly drawn so as to accomplish only the stated purpose and not disturb the longstanding regulatory authority of the Agreement States.

If you have any questions in connection with our position, or if amplification is required, please contact our Committee Counsel, George F. Givens and Steven Rose, at (919) 733-2578, or at 545 Legislative Office Building, 300 Nort~ Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 I. Please notify our Committee Counsel of any actions you take regarding this rule.

Sincerely, I

Cochairmen Joint Select Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste 88S-SR-386

CCT 21 '88 12:37 NYS ENV. CONS. ALBANY NY New York State Department of Envlronmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7255 P. 2

/ Ou.;, i LC*

...i'.,N1.,,

• aa OCT 21

~

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

~

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o.c. 20555 OFF!L;,

OOCKtT October 21, I.

Pl2 :4 7 Thomas C. Jorllng H

VIC. Commi11@

DOCKET NUMBER PR 'So ROPOSED RULE ~

Pf'.. ~

Attention:

Docketing and service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule:

10CFR Part 150 -

Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving on-site Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States.

This letter is in response to Mr. Nussbaumer's letter transmitting the Federal Register publication of the subject proposed rule.

We do not support the NRC proposal to amend 10 CFR Part 150 to reassert Commission's authority to regulate disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) on NRC-licensed

~eactor sites and to clarify the Commission's authority to egulate disposal cf waste containing less than critical mass 1antities of special nuclear material (SNM) on Part 70 licensed

~ t es in Agreement States.

The commission's proposal, as stated, would remove the regulatory authority over on-site LLW disposal currently held by New York as an Agreement State.

The subject proposed rule contains no provision for Agreement state policies to be considered in NRC decisions that could result in LLW disposal on-site.

The Department.anticipates t hat, upon completion of decommissioning activities at affected sites, the NRC would terminate licenses and return control of the sites to New York State.

This would create a situation where that state would be responsible for LLW disposal sites, without having any regulatory control over the siting, design, construction, and operation.

If the State must ultimately be burdened with the environmental consequences of NRC-licensed on-site disposal actions, then the state should not have authority over such actions.

OCT 2 7 1988 Aeknowledged by card ***** * *. * *........ -

uCT 21 '88 12: 37 N'iS ENV. CONS. ALBANY NY P.3 While the NRC is see.king to gain 11centralized and consistent" regulation of on-site waste management activities in individual Agreement states, it is worthy to note that on-site waste disposal in New York State will conflict with this State's goal of centralized and consistent State management of low-level waste.

The proposed rule could have the effect of populating the State with multiple shallow land burial sites, wherever reactors or Part 79 licensees exist.

In contrast, the state, in complying with the Federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended, passed the New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act, which set the s~ate on a course of actions that will lead to the centralization of in-state LLW disposal in one or two facilities to ensure t~at the best possible site(s) will be selected.

Furthermore, the Act specifically prohibits the use of conventional shallow land burial as a disposal methodology, and requires instead that alternative technologies be considered, including the use of engineered structures, The on-site disposal actions foreseen under the proposed rule would, therefore, decentralize LLW disposal in New York State, and could work contrary to this State's goal of providing the most suitable site (s) for in-state generated low-level waste.

We conclude that adoption of the proposed rule would constitute a circumvention of an established system of State environmental protection mechanisms designed to manage the state' s low-level waste disposal problem.

We oppose the adoption of the subject proposed rule on the grounds that it leaves the state out of a decision that has the potential to cause significant impact on the state's environment, that it could lead to actions that would result in a legacy of LLW burial sites that are incompatible with State environmental regulations specifically designed to regulate the same, and that it, therefore, does not serve the best interests of environmental protection in the State of New York.

CEJ/jmk cc:

J, McGrath, USNRC, Region l F. Bradley, NYSDOL K. Rimawi, NYSDOH sincerely,

~e~D Director, Bureau of Radiation

OCT 21 '88 12:36 NYS ENV. CONS. ALBANY NY New York State Department of Environmental Co"'.r Jtlon SO Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7255 TO:

Samuel J, Chilk, US NRC, Washington DC (301) 492-1672 P.1 Thomas C. Jor11"g Commissioner Radiation FROM:

Paul J. Merges, Ph,D,, Director, Bur. of TE~HONE.?ruMBER:

(51A} 4sz-$9i,5.

DATE t October '21, 1988 NUMEER OF PAGES: ------------

OUR TELECOPIER - RAPICOM 230 - (518} 457-1088 OUR OPERATOR'S TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (518) 457-2377 Approved by:

DIVISION:

Hazardous Substances ~egulat1 on DIVISION -* ~

DIRECTOR:

~

10/21 / 88 De.te Do you wa.ut origin&g or destroyed?

LAW OFFICES Ot *, iH BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS IJ,.l?.l' 1400 L STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005*3502 (202) 371-5700

• aa OCT 21 P 4 :34 (J)

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL October 21, 1988 TELEX, 440574 INTLAW UI TELECOPIER, (202) 371-!19!!>0 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch

E

l.

,,...... n

~()l,1 I

1.'luL.I\

/ :;t)

OPOSE.D RUL~

,.,-i("'-3/ -

Re: Proposed Rule on Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-level Waste Disposal in Agreement States

Dear Mr. Chilk:

on August 22, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register (53 Fed. Reg. 31880) a notice inviting public comments on a proposed rule to reassert NRC authority over the onsite disposal of low-level waste at NRC-licensed facilities in NRC Agreement States.

On behalf of Washington Public Power Supply System, TU Electric and Arkansas Power & Light, we respectfully submit the following comments in full support of the proposed rule.

1.

Summary currently, the handling and storage of onsite low-level waste at nuclear reactors is regulated by the NRC in all states.

See 10 C.F.R. § 150.15.

However, the omission in§ 150.15 of low-level waste disposal as a function reserved to the federal government arguably implies that this regulatory authori ty has been relinquished to the Agreement States.

See 27 Fed. Reg. 1351 (1962) (Statement of Considerations).

The present lack of clear NRC jurisdiction over disposal of onsite low-level waste in Agreement States means that Agreement States arguably regulate this activity.

(For non-Agreement States there is no jurisdictional issue: the NRC regulates handling, storage and disposal of low-level waste.)

The proposed rule would amend 10 C.F.R. § 150.15 to reserve NRC jurisdiction over disposal of low-level waste generated onsite at Part 50 and Part 70 licensed facilities in Agreement States.

The NRC's proposal would result in one regulator, the NRC, overseeing the related activities of handling, storage and disposal, in order to enhance efficiency, OCT 2 7 19Si Acknowledged by card.. * * * *. * * * * *

• I I., ' * -,.,

(OMMI SSION SECTION ET i\~Y fON J./.~ ---

1-

~ ~ *----

1<.x ____ __ _

BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission October 21, 1988 Page 2 consistency and public safety, especially in conjunction with the decommissioning process.

2.

Need for a More Centralized and Consistent Revi ew of All Onsite Waste Management Activities Reassertion of NRC's jurisdiction over low-level waste disposal at Part 50 and Part 70 licensed f aciliti es woul d e nable a more comprehensive, consistent, and centralized review of all onsite waste management activities, and allow the NRC to retain control over the entire decommissioning process.

Sole NRC jurisdiction would allow for uniform review procedures and recordkeeping of onsite disposal, thereby enhancing efficiency and consistency, and providing greater assurance that onsite radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a late r date after a site is decommissioned.

Reassertion of NRC jurisdiction in this area will also avoid potential duplication of regulatory effort by the NRC and Agreement States.

The current lack of a clear statement of NRC jurisdiction over ons i te low-level waste disposal in Agreement States means that Agreement States must provide a regulatory effort at sites where a ll other activities are under NRC regulation.

3.

Need for Clarification of Regulatory Authority The proposed rule would eliminate uncertainty as to the jurisdiction over low-level waste disposal at NRC-licensed facilities, currently a detriment to generators of radioactive wastes in terms of planning.

The proposed rule would allow licensees to plan ahead for efficient and cost-effective disposal by resolving the uncertainty about which governmental enti t y will be responsible for approving disposal, what method will be required for disposal, and what acceptance criteri a wi l l be applied.

4.

Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, we believe that the NRC should adopt the proposed rule discussed in the Federal Registe r notice.

Regulation of handling, storage and disposal by the NRC in all states will ensure a more comprehensive and inte g r ated regulatory review of what are essentially three related was te management activities for all reactor and Part 70 lice ns ees.

Adoption of the proposed rule will provide for uniform r evi ew procedures and recordkeeping; will reduce potential duplication of regulatory effort; and will clarify for industry the current

BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission October 21, 1988 Page 3 uncertainty surrounding the jurisdiction over low-level waste disposal onsite.

Respe Nicho Marci BISHOP, C

& REYNOLDS PURCELL

DOCK r rwM ER PRoPo~'"J.rnLli c~;,so (oc.. L:f:.

oc ober 19, 1988 e.FI. 3/t$"KD,

,. N<-,

CO HM ENT S OF OH I O C I T I ZENS FOR RESP ON 5 I B E ENE R G V,

I NC *

(

1 ~

Errs-2 p 3 :)Q ON PROPOSED RULE,

• REASSERTING NRC' s AUTHOR I V FOR APP ltt/VI~

1 ONSI E LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WAS E DISPOS L IN AGREEHENT STATES", 53 FED. REG. 31880 ( AUGUST 22, 1988 )

,is proposed r gulation would amend 10 CFR 150.15 to establi tat the NRC etoin authori y to approve or disposal or low 1 v l waste on the sites or nuclear reactors and Part 70 license~.

he stated purpose ror the proposed rule is that it would etain NRC control over the decommissioning process.

Th draft regulatory analysis ror the proposed rule also cites the rb11owtn9 purported ad vantage of the proposal: having one egulato oversee the related activiti s or handling, storage,

and d

• sposal or low l vel wast ;

uniform standards, review proc dures, and recordkeeping; and the reduction of regulatory and jurisdictional uncertainty, said to bead triment to LLW generators, OCRE oppos s this proposed rule.

Attainment of these purported goals and advantages through the ule is doubtful, Rathe than clarifying jurisdiction, th ule raises a

jurisdictional con rodiction.

The 1980 Low Level Radioactive waste Policy Act and 1985 Am~ndments Place th responsibilit y ror disposal or W generated ithin thei borders upon the stats.

It is ot cl ar that the NRC ha th authority o

encroach upon a

re ponsibilitY entrusted to the states bY congress.

The rule would also work to prohibit agreement tates From applying more stringent requirements tan the NRC's ror LLW disposal.

Sine the states hove the responsibility under th low ror di posal or LW, th stats should ave the out oritY to adopt more stringent requirements iF they demit necessary or the protection of the public, In fact, agreement states do ave t e authority under section 274(0 ) or the Atomic Energ y ct o adopt regulatory standards more stringent than those or tt-,e NRC.

The sated concern about decommis ioning is not

valid, For onsite d

• sposal or L W to present a

decomm*s

• oning problem only i approved by agr em nt tates, but not when appro v ed b Y th~

NRC, it must be assumed that the agreement states '

standard and po1*cies fall short of or are not compatible with

~he NRC's.

Thi is impo iblei n

order to be granted agreement stat status, a state mus~ under Section 27 (d) and (o) o t e Atomic Energy Ac have a

regulatory program compatible with the NRC's, a opt more string nt than the NRC '

tandard equivalent and have a

program health and safety ad uate b the NRC o protect th pu lie, Any cone rns the NRC may have about the to or dee ed o

the ev ntual decommissioning of a site could solved by establi hing minimum tandard for onsit LLW disposal and a reporting r quirem nt upon ith r the agreement state or th lie nsees, or

both, oc z \~ai

~knowledged by card. * * * * * * * *,

• ___,

vu

• I. t,nJClEAlt REGU\ ~ lOllY coMMISSIOM OOCl<E.l l 'G & SiltVICE S£Cl\0N OH Cl: Of 'T 'f SECltH Y

Of lMf.. CO"'

,ss10~

Postmark D t Copies

~ ~*

.A.dd'I *a,* -

such that the NRC is noti ied or any ag eemen t state app oval or onsite LLW disposal.

he argument that sole NRC J urisdiction will pro v id for uniform standards and recordkeepin g could we be an argument against the entire agreement state concept and th state e ponsibilitY and interstat compact sys em established b y congress in the Lo Le v el Radioacti v e waste Polic y Act.

Establishing a reporting r equi ement, a mentioned above, would allow the NRC to keep uniform and suffic i ent r ecords.

Similarly, tn a gument that handling,

storage, and disposal are related activities, and thus hould be r egulated b Y only one agency, i-again a

c a11enge to th e ystem of state responsibility For LLW disposal established by Congre s.

I Congress had intended for handling, sto age, and disposal of LW to be overseen bY one agency, then the states would not nave been granted that responsi bility.

Finally>

the concern about the ff ct of regulatory and

• urisdictional uncertainty o waste generators i-not a proper concern of the NRC.

Th NRC is supposed to be a regulator and not a protector, or the industry it regulates.

It is also not apparent that th re would be an y such uncertainty under the present system.

Licensees in agreement sta es know that it is the state which regulates th onsite disposal of LLW, Licensee-in non-agreement states know that the NRC regulat s this matter.

With eithe the state or the NRC the licensee knows or should know the regulations and standards it must meet.

There

$imply is no uncertainty, In conclusion, the NRC ho not demon trated any merit to the oposed rul

• The proposed rule ould infringe upon the ri ghts of agreement states to enac standards more stringent that the NRC '

for L W disposal, The proposed rule should not be ac:lopted, Re pectfullY subm

• tted, USQn

• Hiatt OCRE Representati ve 8275 Munson Road M ntor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158

(j)

OCT 20 P3 :38 e energy alternatives October 17, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE r JR I ~-o RE:

53 FR 162:31880 -

31882 4'tnear Sirs:

~,e-,,_ 3 i~

We strongly object to the NRC's proposed rule change which would take back from Agreement States, authority over a -reac or disposal of ow level ra ioactive waste for nuclear power plants and other federally licensed waste generation sites (Part 70-licensees),

According to the 1980 Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the 1985 Amendment Acts, Agreement States presently have this authority over low level radioactive waste.

I

• sour conviction that the public interest is better served for states to retain this authority.

We believe the states will provide more stringent requirements for safe isolation, will exercise more s rict oversight and moni oring of th's p ocess, and will know better the optimal preference of disposal options for their particular environmental and geophysical 9 condi ions.

Wi h the technology still not perfected for ultima e disposal o f low or high level radioact*ve waste, we believe that, in mos

cases, ra ioac ive contamina ion of the environment can be minimized by pro "ding a -reactor above-ground retrievable mporary s orage. If the NRC assumes au hority for hese d cisions, there is no assurance tha si e-spec'fic conditions will be considered, nor that these materials won't be required to be ranspo ted long distances to what could st*11 be emporary disposal si es.

The NRC' s advocate shallow land burial could become a

non-nego iable requirement, and could lead to leaching of radioactive contamination as has happened at many existing bur*a s*tes.

Therefore we s rongly oppose this proposed rule chang.

Sincerely, (7'~7-61~.. ~

P.O ffiX 902/COLUMBIA,MD/21014

~ &- D ~~

(301) 381-2714/ 433-4674

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING SCRVICE SECTION OFFICE OF P*~ '"t<"RET ARY OF Tl-l ',.rn\Ml!;:; ION Postmark D111e Lo - L fr:-,...3 Copies R ce, d

_ /_

Add' I Copies Rcpro uc: d ~

Speci1I D, tribution _,..__,__...., ~

---~ J £i:.ewa.nc

Conservation Council Of North Carolina c ocK*"iL-*

U-:-NP.L "88 OCT 20 P 3 :39 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill North Carolina 27514 (919) 942-7935 October 17, 1988

-v I f.

Secretary Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE r~- l§O {;,~

~.31=R.3J~

Re: At-Reactor Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) 53 F.R. 162:31880-31882 (August 22, 1988)

Dear Sir:

The Conservation Council opposes the proposed rule which limits a state's options for the safe management of LLRW.

We urge the N.R.C. to continue to allow Agreement States like North Carolina the ability to license LLRW facilities anywhere in the state, including at-reactor sites.

The Conservation Council is a statewide environmental group with 50 member groups and 600 individual members.

Among other actions, we have intervened on nuclear plant sitings, testified before the Southeast LLRW Compact and state agencies, and more specifically related to this docket, successfully petitioned the N.C. Radiation Protection Commission to develop e

rules for long-term storage of LLRW wastes.

As you know, our state was designated "host state" for the Southeast Compact.

In response to this a LLRW Management Authority was established to site a long-term storage facility which must meet North Carolina regulations.

These regulations go beyond the 10 C.F.R. Part 61 rules and require separation of wastes from the environment and engineered barriers.

The Authority needs to have the freedom to consider all sites in the state.

One important option being investigated by the Authority is near-reactor storage of the wastes.

This option eliminates transportation and handling to a large extent and with the many serious unknowns associated with decommissioning, on-site storage may turn out to be the best option.

The Conservation Council's other concern about the proposed rule change is that the N.R.C. may require disposal and burial of the wastes under 10 C.F.R. Part 61 without the environmental safeguards found in the state rules.

Not all nuclear plants may sited in areas where the wastes can be safely managed over a long period, especially if the burial options are pushed.

oc r ~ 1 1988 Acknowledged by card ********* ***--

Dedicated to a healthy and beautiful North Carolina

0. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFr(f OF T E SECRETARY OF TH!; COMMISSION o~.,,,.,,., I Sratistics Postmar( D I~

' C -a=-.

Cc p' s, *. c,,eJ

/ -

A d' I Cc,oi.5 Rep*oduce,i _....,3 S *c1al Distribution Pl>'<,

In conclusion, the present authority held by an agreement state such as North Carolina needs to be preserved.

The proposed rule is a step backwards in protecting the public and the environment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Please notify us of any actions which you take regarding this rule.

Sincerely,

~~

John Runkle General Counsel cc.

Rep. George Miller, N.C. General Assembly Sen. Joe Johnson, N.C. General Assembly George Givens, Counsel to N.C. Joint Select Coomittee on LLRW Dayne Brown, N.C. Radiation Protection Section Paul B. Stam, N.C. LLRW Management Authority

.,._~----....,...;J,ji..r;.;,-

,.i *..J,,.....

~l*

~

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM

,, u P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington Way

• Richland, Washington 99352 0 3

• .AZ

'88 QC:f 20 J;. _

M October 14, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

Subject:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE REASSERTING NRC 1s AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ON-SITE LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL IN AGREEMENT STATES DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE/";;

I so :-~

\.!!~F~ 5tti8'_5 The Commission has proposed (53FR 31880, August 22, 1988) an amendment to its regulations to reassert NRC's jurisdiction for on-site low level waste disposal for waste generated on-site at all reactors licensed by the NRC in Agreement States.

As noted in the Federal Register Notice for this proposed rule, the NRC views the proposed rule as necessary to:

1) provide a more centra 1 i zed and consistent regulatory review of a 11 on-site waste management activities; and

2) avoid duplication of regulatory effort by NRC and Agreement States.

The Supply System, as an NRC licensee, supports the proposed rule.

We have been particularly concerned with the duplication of regulatory effort, and the potential that fragmentation of the regulatory authority for a licensed opera ti on can result in conflicting di rec ti on to the licensee.

The action being taken by the Cammi ssi on in this case underscores the concern that we have expressed in our comments on the recently issued (53FR 21981)

"NRC Policy Statement Regarding Cooperation With State Governments at Nuclear Power Pl ants".

This policy, to an even greater extent than that being amended in the subject proposed rule, would result in duplication of regulatory effort by NRC and the stat~s.

Should you have any questions on our comments, please contact me at (509) 372-5238.

Very truly yours G. C.

orensen, Manager Regulatory Programs cc:

NS Reynolds/BCP&R DL Williams/399

u. S. NUCt.u,r REGIJt.ATORY COMMISSfOtil DOcnr, 'C & SERVJCE SECTION 0 F"f 1_ r rHE SrC.iEr AlY

• i

er I

• • iH!.:C,V.M*!SfON

'<'l

./ o... -:L &-r -

J *-

'?',

d

..3_ -

t I

¥ J.,.~

R..:z:. ')i..,

-- 5"'

';,F

t-e ~

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY ki it GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go...mor DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BRANCH 8455 JACKSON ROAD, SUITE 120 SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 "88 OCT 18 PS :08 October 5, 1988 19161739-4053 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 26555 Attn:

Docketing & Service Branch

Dear Sirs:

The State/""'Of California Department of Heal th Services is concerned-with the proposed amendment of 10CFR Part 150.15 (a) which prevents Agreement States from controlling the the burial of low-level radioactive waste at NRC-licensed reactors and facilities.

We agree with the intent as stated, "The uniform review procedures which will accrue from the proposed rule are intended to provide greater assurance that onsi te radioactive material will not present a hea hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned."

/

The state objects to having regarding safe burial removed allow the NRC to make the appropriate State Agency.

cc:

John H. Hickman Rueben Junkert Paul A. Szalinski DJW:kmf the authority to make decisions and requests that the Commission decision in concert with the

orf, tal Management Branch

.J. S. N\JC.lb\R REGIJlATORY COMM!.

0 DOCKETING & s:RVICE SECTtm OFFICE CF THE sErRfT t..RY Of THE COMMl~~ION

, ostmnr t" '"

ST A TE OF CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DIVISION L 0( ~~*I

! ' t'":

'88 OCT 17 P 6 :24 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention Docketing and Service Branch October 7. 1988 Review by Connecticut state agencies of proposed rules and regulations published in the Federal Register is coordinated by this office.

The following reflects comments that we received on 10 CFR Part 150 (Federal Register dated August 22. 1988) from the Connecticut Siting Council:

As proposed in 10 CFR 150. 15(a)(8) and (9). without clarification whether the disposal would be temporary or permanent, the proposed ru le may circumvent efforts by Agreement States to site a permanent low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in an area more desirable than the reactor site. or to permit any Agreement State action to develop a permanent low-level radioactive waste disposal facility within the restricted area of a reactor.

To avoid frustrating any attempts by Agreement States to objectively site such a facility in the most desirable location, NRC can assert its jurisdiction over onsite temporary disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated in Agreement States at NRC - licensed reactors.

In fact, the Connecticut Siting Council is now considering how best to distinguish in their propo$ed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Regulations between permanent management facilities, for which Connecticut and the Connecticut Siting Council's compact have siting responsibility, and temporary management which is going on at each of our nuclear power plants. as well as at certain medical and industri al entities.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these proposed rules.

Sincerely,

1. fta_c-c_ ~ flv_

HHB/JS :djm Horace H. Brown Under Secretary cc: Gloria Dibble Pond, Chairperson, CT Siting Council Frederick G. Adams, Commissioner. CT Siting Council Ann Sullivan, Director. CT Washington Office Phone:

80 Washington Street

• Hartford, Connecticut 06106 An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 1988

• <:g('(f * * * *

• c

-~---

0.5. NUCLEAR REGUL~TORY CCMMIS ION OOCKET'NG t. SERVICE SECTION OfflCf 0.F TH£ SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION D-,curn nr Statistics i>ostmark Date

/ O -J,;J.-,..Q.-.......__

Copies Rece.i *4

~

L Add' I Copi ~ Reprodured _3 __ _

Special Distribution

ECOLOGY/ALERT BOX 621 BLOOMSBURG 178 ~

E Nemethy, ~ec ' y Sec'y -

l'lRC

• as OCT -5 ATT: DOCKETI G & SERVICE BRA CH Gentlemen -

Sept 18 - 88

{j)

Re: 8 roposed rule - Approving PJ?o~- level waste disposal Fed Reg

- Aug 22-88, p 31880

, I.f We concur with this proposal - if onl y on t he t heory t hat two heads are better than one.

PROVIDED:

NRC makes no attempt to "relax" state regula tions.

(For example, PA pronibits the land buraal of low-l vvel waste, and requires it to be stored in concrete structures:)

OCT 1 3 1981 Acknowledged by tll°d: : :. *. : : : * *,. *.

I. : NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMM! SSKlN DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistic:$

Postmark Date J O -..3-::_i'"~ --

Copies Received 1 ___ _

~dd' I Copi,s Re~rc '

~

J_

pe<ial Dutr,bulion _R.~ t> ~~ ---

~;_.!o~~~

- ~ 7 ~...,...~1---

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental~~lntrol 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 Commissioner Michael D. Jarrett September 29, 1988 Secretary of the Commission

{)CT -3 p 2 :33 Harry M. Hal~:=~~ Jr., Chairman Toney Graham, Jr. M.D., Vice-Chairman John B. Pate, M.D., Secretary

~ * * -

Oren L. Brady, Jr.

K--***

\JIU

' t ! !I i*.1 _

Moses H. Clarkson, Jr.

~!K-~ NL Euta M. Colvin, M.D.

Henry S. Jordan. M.D.

DOCKET NUMBER Attention: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 PROPOSED RULE lll_

-o ~~~

~t=R31~

Reference:

10 CFR Part 150 Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approval Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States.

Dear Sir:

In regards to the above referenced proposed rule, the following comments are offered:

1.

The State of South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Radiologial Health supports the proposed rule to avoid duplication of effort by the NRC and Agreement States.

However, the State of South Carolina would reserve the right to participate in all approval processes with full review priviledges and expect our concerns to be addressed by the licensee.

2.

The licensee should be aware that other permits may be required of a state, e.g. solid waste, industrial waste water, etc.

This should be considered during the review process and coordinated with the applicable state authority.

3.

Although some waste may be below regulatory concern, specific criteria and requirements should be established for site selection, preparation of waste disposal area, and emplacement of waste.

This Agency has establised a formal protocol for such disposals which includes geo-hydrological studies and site visits to verify construction and final disposal.

All disposals should be well documented as to date, location, and specific details of waste for future reference.

All locations should be surveyed and coordinates plotted on the facility's master plat plan.

OC1 _ ~, 198S

,._cxnowledged by card**** ** ~...............,_.....

u.*. NUCLEAR REGUI A T0~Y COMMISSIC>ti DOCKETING & S:VICE SECTION orFICE OF it-:~ Si CRH ARY or THE CC;Mt-',ISSION 0

I

>r

• I S '

'*:~11,bi..loon

__ £.,,,..,...""-"'-.,_..,,.--__ _

_ f n..L.7:r---...S~,,....ie.-"M:.n;A"----

Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments.

Very truly yours,

~

Bureau of Radiological Health VRA/ac cc: Joel Lubenau, State Agreements Program

DOCKET NUMBER p

~

PROPOSED RULE

@Fl<. 318'Y!O ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sirs:

September 26, 1988 CWM:88:122 CORPORATE LICENSING

• aa OCT -3 P2 :32

Subject:

REASSERTING NRC ' s AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ONSITE LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) has reviewed the proposed rule on reasserting NRC 's authority for approving onsite low-level waste disposal in Agreement States. *The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register in Vol. 53, No. 162, August 22, 1988 (p. 31880).

Our comments are given below.

ANF is a f abri ca tor and supplier of low enriched uranium reactor fue 1 s and related services.

As such, we are involved with the processing and containment of low enriched uranium and any associated low-level wastes generated in those activities.

We believe that the proposed rule is necessary to the nuclear industry for insuring that a uniform and predictable basis will exist for the onsite disposal of low-level waste and future decommissioning activities.

The purpose of this memo is to support the Commission in this action.

Concurrent with the proposed rule, we urge that the Commission intensify its efforts to establish practical and measurable guidelines for the concentration-; of nuclear materials and associated radior.uclides that are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC).

We appreciate this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely, c~~~

Corporate Licensing CWM:jrs I - 4 1988 G}KWU

J S

"*t* I< "'EGUlATORY COMMISSION DOCKETJNG & SERVICE SECTION OfflCE OF THf SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics

,ostm,{; Date

opies Received

~dd' I Co;:nas R produc d

pec,a/ 01ilr1buti00

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 September 30, 1988 NOTE FOR EMILE JULIAN, SECY/D&S The attached letter from Mr. Marvin Lewis was received (opened) in this office on September 30.

It is his comments on the proposed amendments to Part 150 which would reassert some of the NRC's regulatory in Agreement States.

Frank Ingram, GPA

Attachment:

As stated

CANE Marvin Lewis 7801 Rooa*velt Blvd. #62 Philadelphia, PA 19152 Ackno Qied bi,

a q

~

............-R- ~luih.COl'Y\~ISSIOh DOCKEllNG & SERVICE SECTION OfflCE OF THE SECRETARY 0

lHt C t,; tSSIOK Postma.k Date Cop" s ltec:e,v d

~dd' l Copies R prod,.

4 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE OCl'£i£D us re

[7590-01]

"88 AUG 30 P 4 :27 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.r:,: '

10 CFR Part 150 DCC" Reasserting NRC's Authority for Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to reassert NRC's jurisdiction for onsite low-level waste disposal for waste generated onsite at all reactors licensed by NRC in Agreement States.

For facilities licensed pursuant to Part 70 of this chapter for special nuclear material activities, the Commission believes it prudent to clarify and to establish in the regulations that the onsite disposal of non-critical waste quantities of special nuclear material remains an NRC licensing function in order to retain control over the decommissioning process.

The proposed rule is necessary to:

(1) provide a more centralized and consistent regulatory review of all onsite waste management activities and (2) avoid duplication of regulatory effort by the NRC and Agreement States. The uniform review procedures which will accrue from the proposed rule are intended to provide greater assurance that onsite radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date after the site is decommissioned.

1

[7590-01]

DATES:

Comment period expires October 21, 1988.

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration can be given only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES:

Mail comments to: Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John C. Stewart, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3618 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commission believes that jurisdiction for onsite disposal in Agreement States of low-level waste generated onsite at NRC-licensed reactors should be vested in the Commission.

For facilities licensed pursuant to Part 70 of this chapter for special nuclear material activities, the Commission believes it prudent to clarify and to establish in the regulations that the onsite disposal of non-critical waste quantities of onsite special nuclear material remains an NRC licensing function in order to retain control over the decommissioning 2

[7590-01]

process.

In non-Agreement States there is no jurisdictional issue; the NRC licenses and regulates the onsite handling, storage and disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

However, in Agreement States, the NRC licenses and regulates only onsite handling and storage of low-level radioactive waste for reactor licensees. Onsite disposal of low-level radioactive waste is regulated by the state regulatory agencies in Agreement States.

In Agreement States, the Atomic Energy Commission did not reserve jurisdiction under 10 CFR 150.15(a) for onsite low-level waste disposal at NRC licensed facilities. The Statement of Considerations accompanying that regulation when it was promulgated states that "the states will have control over land burial of low-level wastes," and that the Commission decided against "control over land burial of waste" in Agreement States by relinquishing jurisdiction of onsite disposal of low-level waste to the states while retaining AEC jurisdiction of high-level waste disposal (27 FR 1351; February 14, 1962).

In 1981, in revoking 10 CFR 20.304 (which previously allowed for the disposal of certain small quantities of radionuclides without prior NRC approval), the Commission determined that case-by-case regulation of onsite low-level waste disposal was needed because these materials could potentially cause significant radiation exposures if mishandled, improperly buried, or disturbed after disposal (45 FR 71761; October 30, 1980).

Under current law Agreement States have the authority to regulate the disposal of low-level waste products onsite.

In order for the NRC to retain control over the entire decommissioning process, it is necessary to amend 10 CFR 150.15(a) to return jurisdiction over onsite disposal to the NRC.

3

[7590-01]

Proposed Rule The Commission is propos.ing to amend 10 CFR 150.15 to reassert NRC jurisdiction over onsite low-level waste disposal generated onsite in Agreement States at NRC-licensed reactors and 10 CFR Part 70 facilities.

The two new paragraphs below would be added to 10 CFR 150.15(a):

11 (8) The disposal, within the protected and exclusion areas of a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission, of radioactive wastes generated at the reactor site."

11 (9) The disposal, within restricted areas and contiguous property established for activities carried out under licenses issued pursuant to Part 70 of this Chapter, of special nuclear material waste generated at the licensee's facility.

11 The terms restricted areas, protected areas, and exclusion areas have the same meanings as defined in§§ 20.3(a)(14), 73.2(g), and 100.3(a),

respectively.

Environmental Impact Categorical Exclusion Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, this proposed rule is within the categorical exclusions in§ 51.22(c)(l) and therefore neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

4

[7590-01]

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements 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 3150-0032.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.

The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from John C. Stewart, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 492-3618.

The NRC requests comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

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

5

[7590-01]

605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule clarifies jurisdiction for disposal of radioactive waste at nuclear reactors and Part 70 facilities operating under licenses issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

Generally, the operators of nuclear reactors and Part 70 facilities do not fall within the definition of a small business adopted by the NRC (50 FR 50241; December 9, 1985). Accordingly, there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.

Backfit Analysis The 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 for this proposed 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 in 10 CFR Part 150 Hazardous materials - transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear Materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material.

PART 150 - EXEMPTIONS AND CONTINUED REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN AGREEMENT STATES AND IN OFFSHORE WATERS UNDER SECTION 274 6

[7590-01)

1.

The authority citation for Part 150 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 u.s.c. 5841).

Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued under secs. lle(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114).

Section 150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073), Section 150.17a a1so issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152), Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 2282).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); §§ 150.20(b)(2)-(4) and 150.21 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); § 150.14 is issued under sec 161i, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and

§§ 150.16-150.19 and 150.20(b){l) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

Section 150.15 is amended by adding paragraphs (a) {8) and (9} to read as follows:

§ 150.15 Persons not exempt.

(a) *

(8) The disposal, within the protected and exclusion areas of a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission, of radioactive wastes generated at the reactor site. The terms protected areas and exclusion areas have the same meanings as defined in §73.2{g) and §100.J(a),

respectively.

7

r *.

[7590-01]

(9) The disposal, within restricted areas and contiguous property established for activities carried out under licenses issued pursuant to Part 70 of this Chapter, of special nuclear materia1 waste generated at the licensee's facility.

The term restricted areas has the same meaning as defined in §20.3(a)(14).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August, 1988.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Secretary of the Commission.

8