ML24045A173
| ML24045A173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/2024 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 20231325 | |
| Download: ML24045A173 (17) | |
Text
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting Summary And Answers to Questions
Title:
Regulatory Concepts for Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Wast e Disposal Rulemaking
Meeting Identifier: 20231325
Date of Meeting: January 23, 2024
Location: Webinar
Type of Meeting: Informational meeting with a Question-and-Answer session
Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this public meeting was to describe the draft regulatory concepts being addressed in the Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal rulemaking and to provide a forum for members of the public to make presentations and ask questions on this rulemaking.
Note: All NRC staff positions expressed at this meeting and in this document are preliminary.
Proposed and final requirements may continue to develop based o n public input and internal considerations.
General Details: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted a public webinar on January 23, 2024, to discuss the NRCs Integrated Lo w-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal rulemaking. This was the second public meeting on this rulemaking; the first public meeting was held on May 17, 2023. This meeting was intended for the NRC staff to briefly present the regulatory concepts addressed in this rulemaking an d to provide a forum for members of the public to make presentations on this rulemaking. The meeting started at 2:00 p.m. ET and concluded at approximately 4:15 p.m. ET. There were approximately 150 participants, including NRC staff and management, other Federal government agencies, State representatives, industry, non-governmental organizations, trad e press, and other members of the public.
George Tartal from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Sa feguards (NMSS) started the meeting by welcoming all attendees and describing the purpose, agenda, and meeting logistics.
Mr. Tartal noted that the meeting was being recorded and that t he NRC was not accepting formal public comments at the meeting, rather that would happen at a later point in the rulemaking process. All of the Microsoft Teams chat questions a sked during the meeting have been answered and included in this summary. Jane Marshall from NMSS provided opening remarks for the meeting, welcomed attendees, and provided some insights on the public request for the meeting.
NRC Presentation: David Esh from NMSS made a presentation with slides. He start ed with a quick overview of the history of the rulemaking and how two sep arate rulemakings have been integrated into the current rulemaking. He presented on the saf ety case, which is a high-level summary of the information and analyses that support the demons tration that the land disposal facility will be constructed and operated safely, and that disp osed material will not endanger ML24045A173 public health and safety. He then discussed the technical asses sments, including intruder, performance, site stability, and operational safety. He then di scussed timeframes and compliance period, describing the staffs proposal to require a compliance period of 1,000 years without significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides, and otherwise 10,000 years and a performance period. Mr. Esh then discussed the draft requiremen ts for Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) waste criticality and physical protection, whereby near-surface disposal would require a minimum of 5 m depth and an intruder barrier, up to a 10,000 nC i/g threshold. He then discussed waste acceptance, whereby a licensee could use the si te-specific results of technical analyses to determine the waste acceptance criteria. Finally, h e discussed exception criteria that would apply to existing licensees who dont plan to accept GTCC waste or a significant quantity of long-lived radionuclides. Following Mr. Eshs prese ntation, the NRC invited participants to ask questions.
Wyatt Padgett from Urenco USA asked if the revised regulatory a nalysis will be made available before the proposed rule goes to the Commission. The NRC staff responded that the revised regulatory analysis will not be made publicly available before the rulemaking package goes to the Commission, though there have been significant changes made to it since it was last made available for comment, and that it considers the previous comme nts submitted. The NRC staff also added that the rulemaking process allows for public commen ts to be submitted and that prior rulemaking efforts resulted in significant changes betwee n the proposed and final rules.
Karen Hadden expressed concern for ever-hotter materials being disposed and that criticality is a concern where explosive, corro sive chemicals of many kinds ar e present.
Mike Woodward from Hance & Scarborough law firm asked if there will be an easy way to determine what the term significant quantities of long-lived ra dionuclides means. The NRC staff answered that, although there is no quick way to make this dete rmination, Appendix H to the draft guidance will help a licensee determine what a significan t quantity is.
Connie Kline read a short quote from an unreferenced NRC docume nt that there is no way to guarantee that any disposal facility for any waste will not rel ease some amount of radioactivity.
The NRC staff generally agreed with this and made an analogy to the institutional control period for waste facilities. The NRC staff added that small amounts of radioactivity will get out of those facilities over time, and that the NRCs regulations ensure tha t what does get out will not pose a safety concern.
Connie Kline then asked if any of this is being proposed for on site at reactor low-level radioactive waste containment. The NRC staff responded that thi s is for removal of material to a disposal facility.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Presentation: Daniel Shrum from the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum made a presentation with slides. His pr esentation focused on questions on how the rulemaking will address GTCC waste, questi ons on the compliance period and recommending the compliance period be no longer than 1,000 years, questions on why a performance assessment is needed for the intruder analysis as t he approach should be reasonable and flexible and not a barrier for the next facility to be built, questions on why the NRC needs to include an exception clause and that the existing rule is sufficient in this area, and how his concerns with regards to the regulatory analysis fr om the 2016 version of the
ML24045A173 rulemaking would be addressed in the new rulemaking. Following Mr. Shrums presentation, the NRC invited participants to ask questions.
NRC staff clarified that for the performance period it's an As Low As Reasonably Achievable-like criteria, so that impacts are reduced to the extent practical.
Steven Sondheim had three concerns: 1) that radioactive waste b eing dumped in Memphis garbage dumps about 10 years ago with no monitoring or checking of the trucks that brought the waste in, 2) that radioactive waste could be left at the si te where its produced, and 3) a lot of foreign waste has been sent to Memphis and other local place s. NRC staff responded that regulatory control and oversight is necessary in the management of radioactive materials and radioactive waste, and that the generators and disposal facilit y operators are being relied upon to do the right thing. The regulator ensures that in the circum stances where things don't go right they get corrected. As for leaving waste where its generated, staff mentioned that it found that such a process would not provide public health and safety at ce rtain sites.
Department of Energy (DOE) Presentation: Amie Robinson from the U.S. Department of Energys Office of Waste Dispos al in Environmental Management made a presentation without slides. Her office is responsible for cleanup of sites all over the country. Waste from these sites can be stored on-site or at other facilities. DOE has a vested interest in and continues to support the NRC's effort to update regulatory requirements for disposal of GTCC and low-level wastes.
DOE agrees with NRC that near-surface disposal is a suitable op tion for GTCC waste disposal when the waste acceptance criteria are developed based on site specific performance analysis that considers the actual site conditions and the characteristi cs of the waste to be disposed.
Another suggestion is that NRC should provide analysis for site s based on their climate or demographics, such as the more arid sites, which are typical of radioactive disposal locations.
Another suggestion is that the NRC should include accompanying guidance for sites on individual waste stream analysis and inventory tracking to add regulatory flexibility based on site-specific information. She reiterated that DOE agrees with the NRC that near surface disposal is a suitable option for GTCC waste disposal when the waste acceptance criteria are fully developed based on a site-specific performance analysis t hat considers the actual individual site conditions and characteristics of the waste to be disposed. Following Ms.
Robinsons presentation, the NRC invited participants to ask qu estions.
The NRC staff added that the NRCs criteria do not apply to DOE disposal facilities. The DOE has its own criteria that applies to their facilities, whereas the NRCs criteria apply to commercial low-level waste disposal facilities.
Urenco USA Presentation: Wyatt Padgett from Urenco USA made a presentation with slides.
Mr. Padgett described Urencos uranium enrichment business line, including a pilot project to dispose of a limited quantity of tails and a contract in place for disposal at one of the US disposal sites, which is expected to be completed early this ye ar. Urenco USA is committed to endorsing and actively supporting well-researched and thought-o ut regulation that contributes to the overall welfare of the industry, fosters fair competition, and ensures the highest standards of ethical business practices. Urenco USA stated they had provided comments on earlier versions of the regulatory analysis supporting previous rulemaking effor ts. During that analysis, assumptions were made on the direct impact to four licensees an d Agreement States. Urenco USA believes that pass-through costs were not included, and the ir perspective is that the cost
ML24045A173 estimate falls significantly short of the total impact to the i ndustry. Input from Urenco USA and industry members is needed for the regulatory analysis to be pr operly completed, as Urenco USAs estimates were more than 10 times the NRC's analysis alon e. Urenco USA stated that the NRC has never publicly addressed these comments and that th e NRC should ensure previous comments are addressed in this rulemaking. Following M r. Padgetts presentation, the NRC invited participants to ask questions.
Connie Kline stated that the NRC's mission is to regulate nucle ar power and to protect public health and safety. She was concerned with the discussion of the burdens on the industry or the negative impact on the industry, and that the NRC should not co nsider those kinds of costs.
[This comment was responded to by Perry Robinson, and that ques tion and answer are addressed later in this summary.]
The NRC staff then clarified that there are differences between Class C waste and GTCC waste, as described in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(4) that talks about wast e that's not generally acceptable for near surface disposal and is reserved to the NRC at the moment, and it's also carved out in the Low Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. There are additional considerations for disposing of GTCC waste.
Energy Solutions Presentation: Tom Magette from Energy Solutions made a presentation with slides. Mr. Magette said Energy Solutions operates two of the four low-level radioactive waste disposal sites in the U.S. He encourages the NRC staff to maintain the current schedule for the rulemaking, as they have seen the schedule slip in the past. He said the NRC needs to employ an independent review, including all four of the sited s tates and a compact representative, to minimize unintended consequences. He believe s that 1,000 years should be a time limit for a compliance period for ensuring stability and longer time frames are more appropriately addressed qualitatively since uncertainties incre ase over time. Mr. Magette stated he does not like the term exceptions since it infers that som ething is not being addressed that maybe should be, and the rule should instead refer to criteria in 10 CFR 61.1(b). Following Mr.
Magettes presentation, the NRC invited participants to ask que stions.
Larry Camper asked if the NRC is considering revising the table s in 10 CFR 61.55 given that the cutoff for transuranic waste today is 100 nanocuries per gram, and if not, how will it be addressed. He also asked how the NRC staff is addressing securi ty issues associated with the near-surface disposal of transuranic waste. The NRC staff respo nded that the approach of using a site-specific technical analysis alleviates the burden of the fixed limits in the table. The table was based on the radionuclides of waste analyzed in the 1980s, and fusion and advanced reactors could have differen t radionuclides. The NRC staff added that some of the GTCC waste are of concern from a physical protection standpoint in the pro posed rule because of the concentrations of certain materials. The rulemaking includes di scussion of what has been considered in the different types of waste and what would need special physical protection requirements or less physical protection requirements depending on the type and concentrations of the waste. There are some limitations in term s of special nuclear material that Agreement States can regulate under section 274 of the Atomic E nergy Act and also incorporated into 10 CFR Part 150.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) Presentation: Diane DArrigo from NIRS made a presentation without slides. Ms. DArrigo is a radioacti ve waste project director at NIRS.
ML24045A173 She questioned whether burying long lasting, concentrated radio active material in trenches 30 to 100 feet deep provided adequate isolation from the environme nt. She stated that although there have been improvements, she believes there is a constant pressure to weaken public protection and environmental protection. Ms. DArrigo noted tha t the current proposal would allow much higher radioactive concentrations that are long-live d and that people do not want cancer-causing, immune-compromis ing radioactive materials leaki ng into their water, soil, or air, even if it is at a legal level of exposure.
Ms. DArrigo stated that the proposed rule would allow more tha n 33 times higher radioactive releases and exposures from low -level waste sites than from the high-level waste facility formerly proposed at Yucca Mountain. She added that Federal reg ulations for the high-level repository allow a release of radioactivity of 15 millirem per year for the first 10,000 years, while this proposal is for 25 millirem during operation, but up to an d beyond 500 millirem per year from the radioactive waste disposal sites. Ms. DArrigo stated this 500 millirem release is a risk of 1 in 25 adults exposed getting cancer according to the EPA's rules and the National Academy of Sciences risk assessments assuming a lifetime dose.
Ms. DArrigo noted that an NRC differing opinion paper outlines the legal, technical, security, and policy violations of permitting GTCC waste and depleted ura nium into these facilities, but rather should go to federally licensed high level waste radioac tive facilities. Government regulators and members of the public pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to gain access to and learn to use computer codes that claim to be able to predic t the doses to members of the public in years, decades and centuries to come. She believes th e probabilistic performance assessments are black boxes that are being used to justify long er-lasting and more-intensely radioactive waste going to sites that are not capable of isolat ing the waste for as long as it's dangerous.
Ms. DArrigo commented that over the various iterations of this rulemaking there have been efforts to deregulate nuclear waste, calling it below regulator y concern. She noted that while the below regulatory concern provision or very low-level waste is n ot within the scope of this rulemaking, she opposes the deregulation of waste. She opposes the movement of higher concentration and longer lasting waste into these facilities. T he technical concerns on this have been repeatedly presented to the NRC by the state of Utah, by t he Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and others.
Ms. DArrigo stated she believes the regulations in 10 CFR 61.4 1 to 44 [from Subpart C, Performance Objectives], protection of the general public fro m releases of radioactivity, in this proposal expressly allow doses of 500 millirem effective dose e quivalent per year to members of the public, although the existing concentration tables that dis tinguish the classes A, B, C, and GTCC are based on allowing 500 millirem per year. The current l imit is 25 millirem per year and the risk at that level is 1 in 500 people getting cancer for ex posed men getting cancer. For females, children and babies, it's a much higher risk, 7 times more for baby girls at the same level as compared to a standard man. At 500 millirem one in 25 people exposed over their lifetime will get cancer. Ms. DArrigo finds the existing rule unacceptable, but the new rule would be even worse, as it would allow higher concentrations, 33 time s higher than would be allowed under the rules for the high-level waste facility. The 500 mill irem limit is 20 times higher than releases allowed from operating nuclear power reactors by the E PA and its 40 CFR 190 limits.
ML24045A173 This amount of exposures would come from a facility that would be closed for decades, centuries or millennia. Ms. DArrigo opposes the proposed rule changes that would do this.
Ms. DArrigo is concerned about the creation of compliance, per formance and protective assurance periods that cannot be guaranteed. Changing the 100 y ears of institutional control to other longer periods doesn't do anything to isolate the waste d uring that time. The radioactive waste concentrations are plugged into computer models that have never been fully verified or validated. The computer models are allowing GTCC waste, deplete d uranium, and other long-lasting and intense materials into the 10 CFR Part 61 sites. In the history of existing sites, the first six of them have leaked, and some are continuing to leak. Dr. Arjun Makijani and Bryce Smith of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research pr ovided numerous technical challenges to the allowance of GTCC waste and depleted uranium into these facilities, specifically into the Waste Control Specialists facility. Ms. D Arrigo called on the NRC staff to review those papers, the differing opinion, and the 2015 commen ts from NIRS.
The uranium health risks are higher than assumed. Ms. DArrigo believes this is a major federal action that requires an environmental impact statement. There's been pressure to keep the rulemaking on schedule, however, she believes the 90 days for p ublic comments needs to be extended. She is concerned about the shift in the Department of Energy saying it agrees with the NRC that GTCC waste can go to low-level waste burial sites. Following Ms. DArrigos presentation, the NRC invited participants to ask questions.
An NRC staff member added to the discussion of the differing op inion that was mentioned by Ms. DArrigo, stating that it addresses some of the concerns ra ised by Ms. DArrigo about dual regulation, the issue of disruption of the compact system, and the issues that were raised on security.
Pat Marida stated that waste continues to be generated when the re really isn't a good solution for its disposal. A specific radioactive particle will disinteg rate, but it forms isotopes of other radioactive elements, and those all have their own decay period half-lives, and then they also give out neutrons and alpha particles that hit other normal reg ular elements and make them radioactive, so they continue to generate new radioactivity. He stated that we're creating compounds and dangerous materials that threaten life on Earth, and we cannot be too careful with them. In fact, we cannot really be generating any more of them.
Larry Camper asked about the relationship with 10 CFR Part 150 in addressing GTCC waste and whether that would be dealt with primarily through statemen ts of consideration language or changes to 10 CFR Part 150. The NRC staff responded that there are some limited changes being proposed to 10 CFR Parts 150 and 73.
NRC Presentation (continued): Mr. Tartal then presented on next steps for the rulemaking, whereby the project schedule would have the NRC staff deliver a proposed rule to the Commission for vote in May 2024. He emphasized that, if the Com mission approves, a proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register, and th at notice will describe how members of the public can comment on the proposed rule. Mr. Tar tal then adjourned the meeting. All of the meeting presentations given with slides are available in ADAMS (see References below).
ML24045A173 The participants asked numerous questions in the Microsoft Team s chat during the presentations, and those questions and answers are summarized h ere. The NRC staff answered some of the questions during the meeting, while others were answered after the meeting had concluded. Both sets of questions and answers are i ncluded in this summary.
Summary of Questions and Answers from the Meeting Chat that wer e Answered During the Meeting:
In addition to the topics discussed in the meeting, the NRC sta ff received several questions electronically via the Teams chat. The Teams chat in NRC public meetings is usually reserved for logistics issues, but in this case the NRC staff offered th e chat as another means for asking questions. The following are questions that were asked and answ ered during the course of the meeting in the Microsoft Teams chat.
Q: Tim Gannaway - Is the GAO correct in determining that GTCC d omestic sealed sources currently have a viable pathway for disposal while GTCC sealed source material of foreign origin does not?
A: NRC staff - The licensee can analyze the disposal of GTCC and submit that to the regulator under the current regulations.
Q: Tim Gannaway - Waste Control Specialists (WCS) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) representatives have claimed that there is no difference in Class C or Greater Than Class C criteria. Is that accurate and, if so, why isn't GTCC just classified as Class C waste?
A: NRC staff - The proposed criteria are not yet issued. Howeve r, what TCEQ said is mostly accurate. The fundamental technical analyses would be the same. GTCC waste would be required to have a 500-year intruder barrier AND be buried 5 m deep, whereas Class C waste is required to have a 500-year intruder barrier OR be buried 5 m deep. There are other technical considerations for certain types of GTCC, such as heat generati on and radiolysis. But those would not apply to all types of GTCC.
Q: Tim Gannaway - Have any sites aside from the WCS facility in Texas expressed interest in GTCC disposal? How many commercia l low-level radioactive waste sites currently operate in agreement states? How many of those are licensed for disposal o f Class A, B, and C waste?
A: NRC staff - No sites besides Texas have expressed interest in GTCC waste disposal. There are currently 4 operating sites. Three of the four are licensed for A, B, C. [To be clear - the typed answer NRC staff provided during the meeting stated that the Te xas site expressed interested in GTCC, not the State of Texas. WCS is the licensee, and the S tate of Texas is the regulator.]
Q: Connie Kline - How many Agreement States are there?
A: NRC staff - Most US states are NRC Agreement States - there are currently 39 Agreement states and 3 letters of intent to become Agreement States. See https://www.nrc.gov/agreement-states.html.
Q: Monica Perales - Will you avoid critical infrastructure and major resources such as oil and gas development when determining disposal sites?
ML24045A173 A: NRC staff - There are siting characteristic requirements pro vided in 10 CFR 61.50. These have been revised in the proposed rule but are mostly the same as in the existing rule. The requirement at 10 CFR 61.50(a)(3) talks about consideration of future developments.
Q: Roger Seitz - The United Kingdom uses a strict dose constrai nt for a compliance period of several hundred years and continues calculations beyond that fo r risk guidance levels (not strict dose limits). The longer-term calculations are quantitative in the UK but are compared to a risk guidance level and are not interpreted as strict compliance wit h a dose constraint.
A: NRC staff - UK regulators were present when the NRC staff pr esented this information at DISPONET (October 2023). They stated that they rely on long-ter m technical analyses to make licensing decisions. For instance, the low-level radioactive wa ste site (Drigg) is expected to be fully eroded in 2,000 to 5,000 years. The UK regulators stated that they would expect the analyses to be longer if this erosion were not to occur.
Q: Monica Perales - Cardelia, but you know that it was TCEQ and WCS that started this entire process. The industry has made that very clear. They were the i mpetus. And, you are aware that the NRC and WCS have challenged other actions of Texas. Fo r example, despite the State of Texas saying NO to spent nuclear fuel, the NRC is pushing on in court. Therefore, I am not sure I have faith in your statements, Cardelia.
A: NRC staff - Yes, the NRC staff is aware that it started with questions from WCS through TCEQ. However, neither WCS nor TCEQ can speak on behalf of the State of Texas. This was made clear to the NRC by meetings with the Texas Office of the Governor and letters from the Governor to the NRC and DOE. Please check out the Texas equival ent of 10 CFR 61.44(a)(4).
As required by all Agreement States, the State of Texas acknowl edged NRCs authority for GTCC waste disposal in its regulatory program by adopting regul ations compatible with those of the NRC in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(iv). The Texas Administrative Code 3 36.362(a)(2)(D), states:
Waste that is not generally acceptable for near-surface dispos al is waste for which form, and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringe nt, than those specified for Class C waste. Disposal of this waste is regulated by the Unite d States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The adoption of this regulatory language by the St ate of Texas was required by the NRC as a matter of compatibility in an October 2, 2003, let ter from Mr. Paul H. Lohaus, Director of the Office of State and Tribal Programs, to Ms. Sus an Jablonski, Technical Advisor, TCEQ (ADAMS Accession No. ML032760041).
Summary of Questions and Answers from the Meeting Chat that are being Answered After the Meeting:
In addition to the topics discussed in the meeting, the NRC sta ff received several questions electronically via the Teams chat that were not addressed due t o time limitations. The Teams chat in NRC public meetings is usual ly reserved for logistics issues, but in this case the NRC offered the chat as another means for asking questions. The fol lowing questions were asked in the Microsoft Teams chat but not discussed or answered and, the NRC staff is providing them here with the meeting summary.
Q: Tim Gannaway - What are differences in the two GTCC sealed s ource streams identified by the NRC and why is one included in the rulemaking proposal for near-surface disposal while the other is not?
ML24045A173 A: NRC staff - The proposed rule is applicable to all GTCC wast e being considered for near-surface disposal. Whether or not a certain GTCC waste is accept able at a specific site (i.e.,
meets the regulatory requirements) will depend on a number of f actors such as site characteristics, waste form stability, and the quantity and typ e of GTCC waste to be disposed.
The U.S. Department of Energys Final Environmental Impact Stat ement for the Disposal of GTCC Waste grouped sealed sources into two broad categories: sm all, sealed sources and large Cs-137 irradiators. The large Cs-137 irradiators are enca sed in large devices with a volume of 0.71 m3 (25 ft3), whereas multiple small, sealed sources could fit inside a 20 8-liter drum (55-gallon drum). DOE estimated that the total volume of G TCC waste from the large Cs-137 irradiators was 1,000 m3 and 1,800 m3 for the small, sealed sources. The total volume of GTCC was divided into two groupings, based on information in DO Es FEIS, to better understand the potential hazards of sealed sources. The more si gnificant difference between these two groups is the concentration of alpha emitting transur anic nuclides with half-life greater than 5 years in the sealed source. NRC has estimated (based on information in DOEs FEIS) that the small, sealed sources have a concentration on the orde r of 85,000 nCi/g compared to the Class C limit in Part 61 of 100 nCi/g. The NRC is consideri ng that a concentration of 10,000 nCi/g for alpha emitting transuranic nuclides with half-life gr eater than 5 years as an upper limit for near-surface disposal of GTCC waste, beyond which would nee d to be evaluated by the Commission on a case-by-case basis, and thus has indicated the potential difficulty for near-surface disposal of the small sealed sources; however, with spe cial technology or designs, a licensee may be able to justify that performance criteria could be met even with quantities in excess of this limit.
Q: Tim Gannaway - Why was a study completed on suitability of t he Waste Control Specialists site in Texas for GTCC disposal in 2018 when it is prohibited b y existing rules? Would a new study be completed if NRC finalize the proposed rule changes?
A: NRC staff - WCS as a licensee can complete technical studies as desired. The completion of a technical study by a licensee does not obligate the regulator to review or approve. At that time, it wasnt clear to the State of Texas (regulator) if base d on existing language in 10 CFR Part 61 that they could approve GTCC waste disposal or if the N RC would need to approve.
That was the subject of analysis and eventually resulted in the rulemaking discussed at the meeting.
Q: Tim Gannaway - TCEQ Commissioner Bobby Janecka stated at a r ecent hearing in our community (Andrews, Texas) that the NRC has disposed of GTCC wa ste on a case-by-case basis. When, where, and what specific materials comprised those case-by-case disposals?
A: NRC staff - The NRC regulates waste disposal and does not di spose of waste. The NRC is not aware of waste being disposed such that the package prepare d for disposal was GTCC waste, though individual components may have had concentrations above the Class C limit.
Waste classification is not determined until a package is ready to be shipped for disposal.
Licensees can use concentration averaging, consistent with 10 C FR 61.55(a)(8) and its associated guidance in the 2015 Branch Technical Position on Co ncentration Averaging and Encapsulation. Within the constraints of that guidance, a few i ndividual pieces within a package may contain concentrations within the GTCC range, but the overa ll packages average concentrations will still meet Class C limits. For example, the Washington State Department of Health concluded in their 1998 Technical Evaluation Report that the Portland General Electric Trojan reactor vessel with its highly activated internals in pl ace (but without the fuel) met stability
ML24045A173 and performance requirements and could be disposed of at the US Ecology Richland low-level radioactive waste disposal site as Class C waste.
Q: Tim Gannaway - The NRC issued a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility license to WCS which was overturned by the courts as bureaucratic overreach in violation of existing law. The proposed rule change contradicts the existing Low-Level Radioac tive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. How does the NRC justify licensing of activities clearly prohibited by Congress?
A: NRC staff - The NRC performs its regulatory activities consi stent with statutes and Congressional direction. The NRC will abide by final court deci sions and disagrees with the comment that NRC is in violation of existing law.
Q: Tim Gannaway - WCS and TCEQ representatives have indicated t hat much of the GTCC waste comes from medical or oilfield sources. What percentage o f GTCC waste comes from the medical or industrial uses as opposed to the amount from the ge neration of nuclear energy, research, and defense related activities?
A: NRC staff - The U.S. Department of Energys Final Environme ntal Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive W aste and GTCC-Like Waste (FEIS) estimated a total volume of GTCC waste of 8,800 m 3. This total volume is comprised from GTCC waste that has been or will be generated by current activities and facilities (termed Group 1 in DOEs FEIS) and GTCC waste that m ay be generated by future activities and facilities (termed Group 2 in DOEs FEIS). The G roup 1 GTCC waste has an overall volume of approximately 3,680 m3 based on approximately 880 m3 of activated metal GTCC waste (from the generation of nuclear energy at commercial nuclear reactors) and 2,800 m3 of sealed source GTCC waste (sealed sources used in medical an d industrial activities). The Group 2 GTCC waste has an overall volume of approximately 6,120 m3 and does not contain any sealed sources. Thus, sealed sources from medical and indus trial applications make up approximately 75% by volume of the Group 1 GTCC waste and 30% b y volume of all GTCC waste (both Group 1 and Group 2).
Q: Tim Gannaway - WCS holds a contractual agreement with the DO E to transfer ownership of the Federal Waste Facility to the federal government once they cease operations and complete closure of the facility. Would an expansion to include disposal of GTCC waste in the facility affect the current agreement for DOE to eventually take ownersh ip? Would it impact the amount required for financial assurance and decommissioning of the sit e?
A: NRC staff - The GTCC waste disposed in the Federal cell woul d likely be included in the ownership assumed by DOE since they will take ownership of the facility and not particular waste types. Financial assurance and decommissioning should be minimally impacted by the receipt of GTCC waste since site closure. Those aspects are det ermined primarily by surface closure design and overall facility design and are mostly indep endent from waste type (assuming all waste disposed is stable).
Q: Tim Gannaway - Does the proposed rule change on GTCC also en compass waste defined as GTCC-like?
A: NRC staff - The proposed rule statements of consideration in the Federal Register notice will describe the distinction between GTCC and GTCC-like waste. The NRCs regulations under 10 CFR Part 61 apply to domestic, commercial facilities who may de cide to dispose of GTCC
ML24045A173 waste (assuming the rule becomes effective), whereas the DOE is responsible for managing GTCC-like waste in Federal facilities under the DOEs rules.
Q: Steven Sondheim - In Memphis the public and the local admin was appalled that up to
[Class] C waste was dumped in local garbage dumps with no liner s, leakage, and no monitoring of radioactive input. TDEC DID NOT INFORM PUBLIC. We want local input and control! How?
And is there an evacuation plan?
A: NRC staff - The scope of this rulemaking only includes low-l evel radioactive waste disposal facilities.
Q: Connie Kline - Is this rule based on multiple state compacts ? That failed for LLRW in the past.
A: NRC staff - This rule is not dependent on the state compact system. It should work similarly to how the current regulation works in terms of state compacts.
Q: Pat Marida - How does NRC hope to act responsibly when talki ng about 1000 or even 100 years from now? Makes for a lot of guessing and propaganda. Wh at is the real need to get waste off certain people's hands now? Not to mention the danger s of shipment. Radioactivity will last essentially forever. That's a billion years for urani um. This new low-level proposal must be changed to a proposal to stop generating waste when there is no real solution for dealing with it.
A: NRC staff - This rule covers the safe disposal of low-level waste including long-lived radionuclides. The multiple different requirements work togethe r to ensure safety of people today and into the distant future.
Q: Pat Marida - We have been through this many times before. Ad d increasingly higher levels of radioactive waste to landfills. Designate it as below regula tory concern. Make compacts between states to dump all the waste into one state. My state o f Ohio was once designated to take the waste from several other states. Whatever state is wea kest or has leadership willing to take it.
A: NRC staff - All States have to meet certain safety criteria associated with low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Q: Roger Seitz - The 500 mrem/yr limit for intrusion for Part 6 1 was based on 500 mrem/yr cleanup standards in 10 CFR Part 20 at that time rather than co nsidering probabilities.
A: NRC staff - There is no technical basis outside of the consideration of the lower likelihood of occurrence to apply a dose standard of 25 mrem/yr to a person o n one side of the hypothetical buffer zone boundary and apply a standard of 500 mrem/yr to a p erson on the other side of the boundary. Regardless of past discussion and consideration, the dose standards proposed today reflect the likelihood of occurrence.
Q: Monica Perales - DOE should also include seismicity when con ducting their analysis.
A: NRC staff - The NRCs regulations do not apply to the DOE. T he DOE develops their own regulations. In the NRCs requirements seismicity is to be cons idered in site selection.
Q: Pat Marida - Why is NRC's time limited so they cannot answer all the public's questions?
This seems to be NRC standard policy. And why is NRC in charge of making a summary, which usually sums up good reasons for the NRC proposal? Why aren't t hese meetings scheduled to
ML24045A173 allow the public to speak for as many hours as we have question s? We are not paid for being here. Our questions are rarely answered accurately. Often answe rs refer to a paragraph somewhere that provides no real answer. Or questions are "misin terpreted" and an answer is given that does not relate to the question.
A: NRC staff - The NRC uses its best judgement in scheduling pu blic meetings to anticipate presentations, discussions, and questions. The NRC normally iss ues meeting summaries within 30 days after each public meeting. The NRC is answering all of the questions asked during the meeting within this summary regardless of whether they were ask ed verbally or within the meeting chat.
Q: Pat Marida - Will the chat be published online for the publi c to view? For how long?
A: NRC staff - The NRC is answering all of the meeting chat que stions within this meeting summary. The meeting summary is a permanent agency record, wher eas a Microsoft Teams meeting chat is not.
Q: Perry Robinson - [In response to Connie Klines comment afte r the Urenco USA presentation] Consideration of burden on the industry is explic itly required pursuant to Presidential Executive Orders.
A: NRC staff - The Federal government is required to consider a ll sources of public burden in a regulatory analysis. Under Executive Order 12866 each agency s hall consider incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, the costs of enforceme nt and compliance (to the government, regulated entities, and the public) Expanding on this Executive Order, the NRCs draft NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 5, Regulatory Analysis Guideli nes of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, instructs the staff to consider attribu tes such as industry implementation, the projected ne t economic impact on the affect ed licensees to implement mandated changes, and industry operation, the projected net eco nomic effect due to routine and recurring activities required by the proposed action on all affected licensees.
Q: Lexi Tuddenham - At the same time, a qualitative approach sh ould only complement a quantitative benchmark, which if needs to be longer than 1,000 years, then should be.
A: NRC staff - The discussed approa ch is to require 1,000 years if the disposal facility will not contain significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides. If the facility would contain significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides, then the compliance per iod would be 10,000 years followed by a performance period covering longer timeframes. A site-specific intruder assessment would also be required for these timeframes. The app roach would assure that quantitative information (benchmarks) are used to make safety d ecisions.
Q: Lexi Tuddenham - Here in Utah, with facilities continuing to try to take in this ever-hotter waste, citizens like me are very concerned about the prospect o f more of the material being taken into a state that already been victimized by being a down wind state of nuclear testing.
A: NRC staff - The NRCs regulations under 10 CFR Part 61 provi de adequate assurance of public health and safety for land disposal of radioactive waste. The NRC or its Agreement State, as applicable, regulates the licensees responsible for disposin g of radioactive waste to ensure they remain in compliance with these regulations.
Q: Pat Marida - Depleted uranium from the Portsmouth Nuclear si te has transuranics because high-level radioactive waste was run through the gaseous diffus ion enrichment process for decades. There is a lot of Technetium-99 in the cylinders as we ll. This is highly dangerous. It
ML24045A173 would be expected that all significant radioactivity present in a waste stream would be evaluated, so if the DU isn't pure that would be included in th e technical analysis.
A: NRC staff - Licensees or applicants are required under 10 CF R 61.58(b) to provide methods for characterizing waste for acceptance. The methods must ident ify the parameters to be characterized and the uncertainty in the characterization data that is considered acceptable.
The regulations specify that radi onuclide identities, activitie s, and concentrations in the waste be adequately characterized. The NRCs technical analyses would th en be used to ensure that any remaining uncertainties are identified and managed to protect p ublic health and safety. In addition, and if required, appropriate design-specific license conditions may be used to mitigate uncertainties associated with the technical analyses.
Next Steps:
The NRC staff is developing a proposed rule that is currently s cheduled to be delivered to the Commission in May 2024. If the Commission approves, the NRC sta ff will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public comment. After considering the public comments, the NRC staff plans to deliver a final rule to the Commission (date TBD, placeholder at November 2025).
References:
- 1/23/2024 Public Meeting Notice - Public Meeting on the Integr ated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Rulemaking, January 22, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24022A312)
- 1/23/2024 - NRC Staff Presentation on the Integrated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Rulemaking, January 23, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24 022A141)
- 1/23/2024 - LLW Forum Presentation - Integrated Low-Level Radi oactive Waste Disposal Rulemaking, January 23, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24 022A139)
- 1/23/2024 - Severn Nuclear Services LLC Presentation - Integra ted Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Rulemaking, January 23, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24022A140)
- 1/23/2024 - Urenco USA Presentation - Integrated Low-Level Rad ioactive Waste Disposal Rulemaking, January 23, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24 022A142)
ML24045A173 OFFICE NMSS/REFS/MRPB/PM NMSS/REFS/MRPB/RS NMSS/REFS/RRPB/BC NMSS/DUWP/LLW PB/BC NAME GTartal DBearde JShepherd DWhite DATE 2/14/2024 2/14/2024 2/14/2024 2/22/2024 MEETING ATTENDANCE
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS REGULATORY CONCEPTS FOR THE INTEGRATED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL RULEMAKING
WEBINAR
JANUARY 23, 2024, 2:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. (Eastern Time)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sarah Lopas Jen Whitman George Tartal Derek Widmayer Priya Yadav Neil Sheehan Cardelia Maupin Marilyn Diaz Maldonado Boby Abu-Eid Jill Shepherd David Esh Melanie Wong Diane Bearde Harry Felsher Jane Marshall David Brown Tim McCartin Ryan Alexander Lisa Dimmick Suzanne Dennis Lisa London Jackie Cook Sheldon Clark Derek Widmayer Gary Purdy Joe Azeizat Louis Caponi Helen Chang Hans Arlt Keion Henry Aaron Sanders Christianne Ridge Public Name Affiliation (if provided)
Daniel Watts Centrus Energy Joshua Adams Centrus Energy Josie Piccone Jessalynne Wells Andrews County, Texas government Stephen Raines Chris Schwarz Urenco USA Roger Seitz Diane DArrigo Nuclear Information Resource Service Ashley Morris BWXT Brian Christian Darcy Campbell EPRI Mason Bridwell Centrus Energy Adam Summers INL Calvin Manning Framatone Brooke Olson State of North Dakota Keisha Cornelius Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality Kaci Studer State of Indiana Corey Munz TLG Services Wyatt Padgett Urenco USA Enclosure Karen Deibert State of North Dakota Dan Shrum Low Level Waste Forum Jana Bergman Curtiss Wright Larry Camper Janet Schlueter NEI Mike Woodward Hance Scarborough, LLP Lynne Garner South Carolina DHEC Michael Martinez TCEQ Meghan Lyle Nevada DHEC Laila El-Guebaly Perry Robinson Brian Vamvakias Texas DSHS Craig Miller Orano Timothy Gannaway Lamar University Alisha Stallard TCEQ James Kirk SRS Israel Chavarria Washington DOH Aaron White U.S. Department of Energy Amie Robinson U.S. Department of Energy Kimberley Noonan South Carolina DHEC Mark Senderling INL Janell Anderson State of North Dakota Bobby Janecka TCEQ Kim Kweder U.S. Department of Energy Kristen Schwab Washington DOH Christopher Kemp U.S. Department of Energy M ONeill Tom Magette Energy Solutions Cheryl Head State of Illinois Ashley Forbes TCEQ Leah LaVallee VNSFS Alden Brown Nusano Paul Underwood SRS Coleman Miller PG&E Dan Leone Jonathan Major U.S. EPA Douglas Frenette Republic Services Omari Thompson South Carolina ORS David Stradinger State of North Dakota Rich Janati State of Pennsylvania Matt Hendrickson Oregon DOE Cheryl Lively State of Texas Cathryn Chudy Brandon Hurley Ed Everett American Nuclear Insurers Daniel Schultheisz U.S. EPA Marilew Bartling U.S. Department of Energy ML24045A173 Hans Weger TCEQ Yu Chen Huang TCEQ Krista Kyle TCEQ Jalynn Knudsen Utah DEQ Liam Hines MIT Syd Gordon Megan Quijano State of Texas Mary Meumayr Kinsey Boehl Lexi Tuddenham Utah HEAL Gregorio Rosado Washington DOH Steven Sondheim Deron Linkenheil U.S. Department of Energy Connie Kline Justin Marble U.S. Department of Energy Earl Fordham Washington DOH Monica Perales FORL Jzaneen Lalani Nusano Audrey Liter TCEQ Dan Snow Lotus LLC Farrah Court TCEQ Pat Marida Jeff Burright Oregon DLCD Ian Miner Raul Valenzuela Stewart Inc.
Braden Asper State of Utah Daryl Davis Steven Hommel SRS Michael Callaham Brad Broussard TCEQ John Haygood TCEQ Joni Arends CCNS Morse Haynes John Folette Nevada Dept. of Health Michael Keegan Karen Hadden Ryan Williams WCS Texas Jeneane Anderegg Andrews County, Texas government Charlyne Smith University of Florida Cory Ryncarz U.S. GAO Timothy Jenkins Republic Services Maatsi Ndingwan U.S. Department of Energy Larry Kellum Oliver Barrett Note: Attendance list based on Microsoft Teams participant list. This list does not include individuals who did not provide their last name either in registering for the meeting or by a follow-up email.