ML20128C012

Proposed Rule 10CFR30,40,50,70 & 72, Procedures & Criteria for On-Site Storage of Llrw. Rule Would Establish Regulatory Framework Containing Procedures & Criteria That Would Apply to on-site Storage of LLRW Beyond 960101

ML20128C012
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/26/1993
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128B988	List: ML20128B984 ML20128C012
References
FRN-58FR50064, FRN-58FR6730, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 AE22-1-132, PR-930126, NUDOCS 9302030266
Download: ML20128C012 (55)

Text

g m' , .

6 (7590-01W)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 RIN 3150-AE22 Procedures and Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend its regulations for reactor, material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees. The proposed rule would establish a regulatory framework containing the procedures and cr3teria that would apply to on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste (LLW), beyond January 1, 1996. The Commission has determined, under the authority of the Atomic-Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that these changes are appropriate because of potential health and safety concerns associated with the increased reliance upon on-site storage.of LLW. The proposed

.c rule is intended to support the goals that have been established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Act) and is consistent with the June 19, 1992, United States Supreme court (Supreme Court) decision, in New York v. United States. Comments are requested on this proposed rule.and on strategies and options that the Commission might pursue, in addition to this proposed rulemaking, that would encourage the States and compacts to move forward with development of LLW 9302030266 PR 930128 PDR PDR 30 MISC

A -O- s~ . ,

' disposal facilities.

DATE: ' Comment period expires (60 days'afterfpublication).

Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to:-The-Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

9 Cop.ies of the regulatory analysis, environmental assessment' and findj.ng of no significant impact, and the comments received on the rule may be examined and copied, for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washingten, DC, telephone (202) 634-3273.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Robert Nelson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear: Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-2004.

2

s > , .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Low-Level Radioactive-Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Act) (Pub. L.99-240) establishes a series of milestones, penalties, and incentives to ensure that regional compacts and States make adequate progress toward being able to manage their LLW, by 1993. Section 5(a) of the Act requires the sited States of Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington to make disposal capacity available to LLW generators until December 31, 1992, subject to: the States and compacts meeting the other milestones of the Act, the sites remaining operational, and received waste being within site-specific volume limitations.

To help ensure that the States make adequate progress toward developing new LLW disposal facilities, the Act established six milestones by which the States should make decisions and commit to certain actions. The majority of the States met the requirements of the three milestone dates that had passed, by January 1990. Only the Central, Central-Midwest, and i Southwestern Compact States met the January 1, 1992, milestone requirement, because their host States, Nebraska, Illinois, and

! California, respectively, submitted a facility license application to their State regulatory authorities before that date. The State of Texas conformed to this milestone on March 2, I-o 3

l l

1 l

s > . .

1992. The remaining milestones of the Act, as it was-enacted, are:

. January 1, 1993 - If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1993, generators can request the State to take title to, and possession of, the generated waste. The State also becomes liable for damages as a consequence of failure to take possession of the waste.

In 1993, States may avoid taking title and possession of the waste and assuming liability, but will forfeit the surcharge rebates established by the Act.

January 1, 1996 - If a State or compact cannot provide for disposal of its LLW after January 1, 1996, the States,_upon i proper notice by the generator or owner, shall take title i

t to, and be obligated to take-possession of, LLW. The State l-I will also be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by the generator or owner if it fails to take i

! possession as soon after January 1, 1996, as the generator l

j or owner notifies the State that-the waste is available for shipment.

l The section of the Act requiring the States to take title to, and possession of, the generated waste by January 1, 1996 l

(often referred to'as the "take-title" provision), was held to be unconstitutional, by the Supreme Court on June 19, 1992, in a 4

t, 1 5' .,- .

lawsuit; brought by the State of New York (a non-compact State) and two'of its counties. The constitutionality of the take-title provision,Jas-applied to compact States, was not before the Supreme Court. Even though the take-title provision was' held unconstitutional, clearly a goal of the'LLRWPAA is the development of new LLW disposal facilities by January 1, 1993, and in no case later than January 1, 1996.

Because no new LLW disposal facilities were operational on January 1, 1993, and the compact commissions that control the existing LLW disposal sites either closed their site or set restrictions or conditions on receiving LLW from outside.their regional compacts effective January 1, 1993, some licensees who generate LLW may be forced to store their LLW on-site, until disposal capacity is available, unless-other arrangements for storage or disposal can be made. Nearly all the Governors' Certifications submitted to meet the 1990 milestone of the Act indicated that the State planned on interim storage by waste generators from 1993 through 1996. .However, many States do expect-to have access to the Barnwell LLW disposal facility.from January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.

Early in 1990, the Commission directed the NRC staff to provide the Commission with information on the issues concerning the waste title-transfer and possession provisions set forth in the Act, so that the Commission might determine what role, if 5

e: D . .

any, the NRC-should play with regard to these provisions. - Th e -

Commission was also: interested in the adequacy of its existing- =

regulatory framework for implementing theftitle-transfer-provision. 1Dn September:12, 1990, the NRCJstaff,sent the Commission an analysis of the issues associated--with=the waste title-transfer and possession provisions of theTAct (SECY 318). Major issues related to these provisions included.-States taking possession of commercial LLW after 1993:or 1996, and:

Licensing of this possession by the NRC and Agreement-States.

The Commission discussed the issues associated;with the--

waste title-transfer and possession provisions of the Act and the recommendations presented in SECY-90-318, in a public meeting,;-on October 29, 1990. In response to a request from the_ Low-Leveln

~

5 Radioactive Waste' Forum, the Commission decided.to solicit public

. and State comments on the NRC staff's recommendationsLprovided'-in SECY-90-318 and on eight questions addressing the title-transfer' provision of the Act. The Commission requested'that the NRC' staff provide the Commission with an analyF i S of:the comments received in response to the letter dated November 28, 1990,cfrom Samuel J.~Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, to Mr. Jerry.

Griepentrog, Convenor, Low-Level Radioactive Waste' Forum,=and from the Federal Register. notice soliciting public comments.:

The Commission-solicited public comment on the NRC staff's recommendations provided in-SECY-90-318 and the eight questions

. 6

. . - . - - _ - . ._. . .. -..a... - -.. --.

i . . .

in the Federal Register notice-published December 4,-1990 -(55-FR 50064). The comment period expired on March 2, 1991. Seventy-four individuals or organizations responded.

'The commenters raised many specific issues. Most can be grouped under the single, broad issue of NRC's role it.

implementing the Act. The eight questions, a comment summary, an analysis of those comments, and conclusions are provided as Appendix A to this proposed rule. In response, the Commission directed the NRC staff to develop a proposed rulemaking that would establish a regulatory framework containing the procedures and criteria applicable to on-site storage of LLW after January 1, 1996.

Although LLW can be safely stored,1000 believes that the protection of the public health and safety and the environment is enhanced by disposal, rather than by long term, indefinite storage of waste. Disposal of waste in a limited number of-facilities, licensed under the requirements of.10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations, will provide better protection of the public health and safety and the environment than long-term storage at hundreds or thousands of sites around l .-

the country. Stored waste packages need to maintain sufficient l integrity to prevent dispersal of the waste during storage, t

transport, and handling, up to and including emplacement for

! disposal. Because of the variability of certain storage l

l l 7 l

. o- . .

environments, waste packages may suffer-degradation over.the extended storage period. A2nong the ways 'in which a storage -

environment can cause waste package degradation _are_ temperature-fluctuations (in heated facilities in areas with cold winters) and corrosive atmospheres .(e.g., industrial and marine atmospheres as well as acid deposition). Other waste package concerns during storage include external and internal corrosion, radiolytic generation of gases (predominantly hydrogen) and corrosive substances, radiation induced embrittlement of '

polyethylene containers, and biodegradation of institutional wastes. These processes may accelerate internal corrosion and failure of common storage containers, even if the waste is stabilized prior to storage. Waste form degradation could result in spills or releases during handling for disposal, if the i

degradation goes undetected. In addition, vaste package deterioration prior to disposal will require repackaging of the LLW and cleanup of any spills. As a result, workers will be i

potentially exposed to additional doses of radiation. The NRC contractor document, " Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Potential Problem Areas," NUREG/CR-4062, provides a _.

1 detailed discussion of these concerns.1

' Copies of NUREG documents may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.  ;

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies' are also -i available from the National Technical Information Service,5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

8

i l

Storage also involves a number of-activities that,could increase radiation doses to the public. First, storage of LLW will result in potential increased worker exposures, from unloading the waste from storage, for disposal. Second, waste  ;

i forms may need to be repackaged or otherwise processed, again, as 1

a result of waste form failure or to meet-waste acceptance j l

criteria for a new disposal facility, once one becomes available, j i

This additional handling by workers will also cause increased ]

exposures. The site-specific conditions at a new disposal facility may necessitate these new waste form criteria and these criteria may not be known when LLW is placed_into storage.

Third, radiation surveys and inspections of LLW in storage will result in potential additional doses to those involved in performing these activities. For these reasons and to support the goals of the Act, the NRC is proposing this rulemaking, which makes storage of LLW an option of last resort. The Commission specifically invites comment on the above public health and safety rationale, as well as on the comparative risk of potential releases as a result of an event or accident at numerous LLW storage sites around the country, as opposed to the potential release from a limited number of disposal sites designed to meet the siting and design requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations.

The proposed rule, as it was originally drafted and sent to tho' Agreement States for comment, included a requirement for the 9

. o. . ,

licensee to request that the State take title to, and possession of, the waste, pursuant to Section 5(d) (2) (C) (the "take-title" provision) of the Act, before LLW could be stored on-site after January 1, 1996. The text of the rule has been revised to delete the requirement for the generator to request-the State to take title to, and possession of, the generator's LLW. In view of.the_

recent Supreme Court decision in New York v. United States, the Commission will not require this action as a prerequisite for storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996.

Coordination with NRC Agreement States The NRC Agreement States were informed of the NRC's-intent to issue a proposed rule and were provided the draft regulatory text, by letter dated February 7, 1992. The letter explained that the Commission is taking this action in view of.the potential health and safety concerns associated with an increased reliance upon on-site storage and in light of the framework that has been established by the Act. This initial notification reiterated the Commission's position that it will not look favorably on generator on-site storage of LLW, after January 1, 1996. Supplementary information, which included a summary of the related provisions of the Act and a discussion of ?.he proposed revisions, was forwarded to the Agreem9nt States on February 14, 1992. The Agreement States were asked to provide comments by L March 14, 1992.

10 l

l

The Agreement States of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada, New' York, North Carolina, Oregon, Sout! Carolina, Texas, and-Washington, and the Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission responded to the NRC staff's request for comments. One State supported the proposed rulemaking, and three States opposed it.

Two States, although not opposing any provisions of the rule, stated that the rulemaking should not proceed until the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of the Act and the title-transfer provision. Three States and the one commission provided comments and questions without taking a position on the proposed rulemaking. One State reserved comment and four States had no comments. Fifteen Agreement States did not respond.

Response to NRC Agreement State Comments Comment. The revisions do not appear to be based on protection of public health and safety or any technical arguments.

Response. As previously discussed, the potential risk to the public hoalth and safety, from on-site storage of LLW, is greater than for disposal, because storage involves a number of conditions and activities that could increase radiation' doses to the public. Although LLW can be safely stored, _the NRC believes that the protection of the public health-and safety and the environment will be enhanced by disposal.

11

l i

l Comment. There appears to be no substantive rationale _for prohibition of on-site storage after January 1, 1996. ,

l Response. The proposed rule would prohibit-on-site storage l after January 1, 1996, only if the generator hau not exhausted other waste management options. As discussed in response to-the~

l previous comment, disposal is preferred over storage, to enhance the protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Therefore, generators should exhaust all disposal  ;

o,ptions before storing their LLW on-site.

Comment. The proposed r, visions would improperly establish NRC as the enforcer of the "take-title" provisions, contrary to the Act.

Comment. It is inappropriate for NRC to require, as a condition for on-site storage, that licensees request the State in which they are located to take title to, and poasession of, the waste, pursuant to Section 5(d) (2) (C) of the Act, because the Act gives licensees the option not to request the State to take possession.

Comment. One State has a different law regarding title:

" Title to any LLW shall at all times remai.. in the generator of such waste...." The proposed rule conflicts with State law.

Beaconse. The text of the rule, which-had-been provided to the Agreement States for comment, has been revised to delete the requirement for the generator to request the State:to take title to, and possession of, the generator's LLW. In view of the 12

recent Supreme Court decision in New York V. Un_itfdLEtatsa, _ the commission will not require this action as a-prerequisite for storing LLW on-site after January l 1.- 19hd.

qqmmgni,- What legal authority does the Commission have to impose the prohibition of possession of-LLW, by the State, at a generator's facility?

Comment. How can "the prohibition" of State possession of LLW, at the generator's facility, be reconciled with the language q l

of the Compact Act, which authorizes "... management of waste-on l the site where it ir * .erated if'such is otherwise lawful?"

Response. It is not envisioned-that a State would teke-possession of LLW at a generator's facility.

Comment. .It is inappropriate for NRC to require, as a condition for on-site storage, that licensees exhaust the contract option of Section 5(e) (1) (F) of the Act as a condition for on-site storage. This section of the Act applies to States,.

not licensees.

Resconse. The NRC agrees that Section 5(e) (1) (F) of the Act applies to States but not licensees. The text of the rule, which l.

was provided to the Agreement States for comment, has_been revised to eliminate the reference to this section of the Act.

Comment. The rule is silent with regard to financial surety l

l aspects of extended storage, and " totally ignores" the L 13 L

1 requirements-that would be placed on States that take title to, and/or possession of, LLW, after January 1, 1996.

Respqnga. Financial assurance requireme;its for the affected-licenses are contained in 10 CFR 30.35, 40.36, 50.75, 70.25, and 72.30. Financial assurance guidance for fuel cycle and materials licensees is provided in Information Notice 90-09, " Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle and Materialo Licensees."

Comment. If NBC continues to pursue the "no on-site storage" option past January 1, 1996, as the NRC staff proposes, it will be NRC's responsibility to provide for emergency access to operating LLW disposal facilities for the LLW it prohibits from on-site storage.

Resoonse. The NRC is not pursuing a "no on-site storage" option. The NRC recognizes that some generators will have to store LLW on-site. The NRC seeks to minimize the amount of LLW placed in storage, by requiring generators to exhaust all other reasonable waste management options. The guidance governing implementation of the emergency-access provision, of the Act, contained in Information Notice 91-65, " Emergency Access to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities," will remain in effect. The NRC does not anticipate any situation where the provisions of this rule, in addition to a lack of access, would create a serious and immediate threat to the public health and safety or common defense and security, thereby requiring 14

b n L emergency access.

Comment. A more immediate concern, directly related to the-storage of waste, is the authority of a generator to accept its processed waste after this waste has-been sent off-site for treatment.

Response. The NRC has amended its regula ions governing the condition of licenses for production and utilization facilities i to allow a reactor licensee to receive back byproduct and special nuclear material that is produced by operating the reactor after the material has been sent off-site for processing, such as compaction or incineration. The final rule was published on October 21, 1992 (57 FR 47978). The rule became effective on November 20, 1992.

Comment. Any rulemaking on this issue must incorporate-maximum flexibility, consistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the environment.

Response. Maximum flexibility has been considered. The proposed rulemaking does not preclude on-site LLW storage, as long as other waste management options are exhausted.

Comment. NRC's guidance would be expected to be consistent and compatible with NRC actions taken with respect to indefinite storage of high-level radioactive waste (HLW).

Resoonag. The LLW situation is significantly different from 15

that of HLW. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the Federal government is developing a facility for d'.sposal of HLW. In the LLW program, it is the Commission's judgment that the NRC's regulationr will encourage disposal by-requiring generators to seek available disposal options.

Furthermore, unlike HLW, commercial LLW disposal sites are currently operational, and development of new LLW disposal facilities continues, with two new facilities scheduled to be i operational by January 1, 1996. The risk to public health and safety from hundreds or thousands of temporary storage facilities is greater than that from a limited number of well-controlled disposal sites in the country.

Comment. There should be a definition that describes when radioactive material becomes waste.

Response. The term " waste" is defined in 10-CFR 61.2.

Waste is considered to be any material or component for which the licensee foresees no further use. The NRC continues to believe that the licensee is in the best position to determine the continued utility, of radioactively contaminated material and components, to its operations. The NRC will continue to rely on the licensee to determine when material and. components become waste and will periodically review the licensee's conclusions, to determine if they are reasonable and appropriate.

16

Comment. Does any provision of the Act_ prohibit'a State from e.xercising its powers of eminent' domain, and thereby moving to condemn existing licensee-facilities, to establish a LLW management program for generators at the site.-

Resoonse. Although the NRC knows of no such provision, any exercise of a State's power of eminent domain would have to comply with applicable law.

H Cpmment. There should-be a maximum time limit, for "short-term," that would apply equally to all forms, including decay-in-storage. This commenter recommends a maximum storage time of one year. This commenter also states that this will allow sufficient time for isotopes with short half-lives to decay sufficiently-for disposal in-a sanitary landfill.

Response. Generally, for non-medical LLW, radioactive material with a half-life of less than 65 days can be' held.in q storage before disposal as non-radioactive material. If allowed by the license, LLW disposed.of in this manner must be held for i

decay a minimum of 10 half-lives. Decay in storage for-medical waste is governed by 10 CFR 35.92. The proposed rule would not-affect this practice.

I Comment. To whom does the revision apply? As the State is required by the Amended Act to take possession, is the-proposed

( language intended'to cover that time interval between the l

licensee requesting the State to take possession and the State 17 L.-

actually taking possession?

Response. The proposed rule would applyLto all LLW generators licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72.

As discussed in response to an earlier comment, the text of the rule, which had been provided to the Agreement States for comment, has been-revised to delete the requirement for the generator to request the State to take title to, and possession of, the generator's LLW.

4 Comment. Will NRC licensees be required or encouraged to ship all wastes before January 1, 1993, that will reb 7h five years in storage, between January 1, 1993, and January 1, 1996?

Response. Guidance on storage, which is optional,-in Generic Letters 81-38 and 85-14, and Information Notices 89-13 and 90-09, includes consideration of keeping storage to limited periods of time (i.e., five years or less) and emphasizes shipment of LLW for final disposal. It is the NRC's policy that licensees should continue to ship LLW, for. disposal, to the maximum extent practicable. Although the NRC has not set specific dates or. deadlines for LLW shipments, Generic Letter 81-38 states that a Part 30 license should be obtained if the time in storage exceeds five years.

18

Issue of Compatibility with Agreement States opinion varied among the 14 Agreement States.that responded, on the issue of compatibility. Two States commented that this rulemaking should not be a matter of compatibility; one State recommended Division 1 (regulation must-be adopted verbatim); two States recommended Division 2 (language identical to that in NRC-rules is not necessary, provided that the underlying principles are the same); one State recommended Division 3 (States are encouraged to adopt the regulatory approach taken by the NRC, but are not required to do so); and eight States did not comment on compatibility.

The NRC considers the proposed implementation of these amendments to its licensing conditions to be-directly related to the basic regulatory function of protecting the public health and l safety and the environment. Unless the proposed rule is made a matter of compatibility, the waste management practices in both-Agreement States and non-Agreement States could be inconsistent, I

and the Commission's goal to encourage disposal would be frustrated. Therefore, the amendments contained in this proposed rule would be a matter of compatibility for'NRC Agreement States.

l The additional license conditions for LLW on-site storage, after January 1, 1996, in 10 CFR 30.34, 40.41, and 70.32, are l considered to be Division 2 categories of compatibility.

l-Although Agreement States must adopt Division 2 rules in their 29 I

i regulations, the use of language identical to that in NRC rules is not necessary,-provided that the underlying principles are the same. The-Agreement States may adopt more restrictive requirements.

The Commiscion is currently considering a re-evaluation of its compatibility policy and may decide to revise its. general requirements regarding compatibility for'the Agreement States.

The Commission's compatibility determination, on this proposed rule, may be re-examined in light of any change to the general policy.

Discussion of Proposed Revisions The proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria, for on-site storage of LLW, that would apply to all categories of LLW generators. On-site storage of LLW would not be permitted after January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term-storage necessary for decay, or for collection-or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), unless'the licensee can document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options. The NRC's proposed regulations would require that the licensee attempt to-contract, either directly er through the State, for the disposal of its waste. In addition, reactor licensees would have to document that on-site storage activities 20 8

l would be consistent with, and not compromise, the safe operation  ;

1 of the licensee's activities, and would not decrease theilevel of

.1 safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements. In view l of the recent-Supreme Court decision in New York v. United States, the Commission will not require the generator to request that the State take title to, and possession of, the waste, as a i

prerequisite for storing LLW on-site after January 1, 1996.- Even l though the take-title provision was held unconstitutional, l 4

clearly a gmal of the LLRWPAA is the development of new LLW disposal facilities by January 1, 1993, and in no case later than January 1, 1996. To support the goals of the LLRWPAA and its legislated preference for disposal over storage of LLW, the NRC has concluded that action is necessary to require licensees to

-exhaust other reasonable management options before on-site storage of LLW will be permitted after January 1, 1996.

The exemption for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site is limited to those licensees that have access to an operating LLW disposal facility. Without this limitation, licensees not having access to a disposal facility could avoid or delay the actions required by the proposed rule, by " collecting-or consolidating for shipment off-site," when disposal facility access becomes available.

The proposed rule would make these requirements standard-license conditions for every license issued for reactor, 21

materials, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees. The rulemaking would amend 10 CFR 30.34, 40.41,

,10.54, 70.32, and 72.44. These sections of the regulations identify standard conditions for reactor, materials, fuel cycle, i and independent spent fuel storage licenses. The licensee would not be required to make a formal submittal to the NRC, to show compliance with these conditions. The proposed rule would require that all relevant documentation of the steps taken to satisfy the requirements of this rulemaking be maintained by the licensee, and be made available to the NRC, for inspection.

To show compliance with this proposed rule, che NRC would expect the licensee to nake an annual request for access to each operating commercial LLW disposal facility, for disposal of the licensee's LLW. Adequate documentation of the licensee's efforts to exhaust other reasonable waste management options would consist of copies of all correspondence t. LLW disposal facility operators and responses to these requests. This documentation shall be retained for at least three years. The NRC Will verify comp)i.cnce, by reviewing this documentation, during periodic inspections, and at other tices, as may be necessary, to determine whether additional inspections or other regulacory attention is required. Absent a willful act, any non-repetitive violation of these requirements would normally be considered a Severity Level IV violation under the Commission's Enforcement Policy, contained in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2.

22

l l

On-site storage of LLW resulting from reactor operations can be undertaken pursuant to the existing authorities and procedures, such as 10 CTR 50.59, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. Material, fuel cycle, and independent spent fuel storage licensees may )

store LLW on-site if storages (1) is authorized under the i existing liennse conditions; and (2) is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage.

The Commission crntinues to hold the position that it will not look favorably on generator on-site storage of LLW, after January 1, 1996. It considers the on-site storage of LLW to be a last- resort measure. The Commission's preference is that LLW be permanently disposed of as soon after it is generated as possible, ,

This proposed rule would supplement, but not supersede,-the existing regulations and guidance applicable to storage of LLW.

The conditions in themselves would not authorize on-site storage.

The existing regulatory and licensing framework will continue to be applicable. The following seven documents, in conjunction with the regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, provide this framework for LLW storage. However, note that the generic letters and information notices are informational and not-binding. These documents are available, for inspection and 23 l r

l-w e m . ~, .r. -,,-- -,, , - - . - -,,m-m- rm , -v ,, - r e.rs .----r -- g, ,-

4

copying, for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Applicable Licensing-Framework Documents '

for On-Site LLW Storage Iyng Hm. Title Generic Letter 81-38 " Interim Storage of Utility Licensee-Generated Low-Level Radioactive Waste at-Reactor Sites" G.eneric Letter 85-14 " Commercial Storage-at Power ,

Reactor Sites of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Not Generated by the Utility" Information Notico 89-13 " Alternative Waste Management Procedures in Case of Denial of Access to Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites" Information Notice 90-09 " Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste-by Fuel Cycle and Materials Licenseos" Regulatory Guide 1.143 " Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems, Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants" Standard Review Sec. 11.4 " Solid Waste Management Plan (NUREG-0800) Systems" Inspection and 80-18 "10'CFR 50.59 Evaluations for Enforcement Changes ~to Radioactive Waste circular Management Systems" 24

i i

. o . .

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact Availability l The Commission has determined, under the National l Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission l regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This proposed  !

rulemaking would supplement, but not supersede, the existing regulatory framework applicable to the storage of LLW. The additional conditions of this rulemaking, in themselves, would not authorize on-site storage. These amendments would add administrative and verification requirements to existing regulations governing the licensing of byproduct material, source material, production and utilization facilities, special nuclear material, and independent spent fuel storage. The proposed rule would encourage disposal as opposed to storage, and this should have beneficial environmental effects. The proposed rule would not result in any increase in radiation exposure from transportation of LLW, compared to that expected from the ultimate disposal of LLW envisioned by the Act. Any environmental impact of operating an on-site LLW sto age facility will be addressed, as required, as part of the licensing action for that facility, under previously established regulatory requirements. The unvironmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, on which this determination is based, may be 25

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

J

.- == . .

I examined and copied, for a fee, at the NRC Public Document. Room, -

i 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, telephone (202)  !

634-3273.

l l

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement l This proposed rule amends information-collection I requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980-(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rulemaking has been submitted to-the office of Management and Budget for' review and - -

approval of the paperwork requirements.

]

The public reporting burden for-this collection of information is estimated to average 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per response, ,

including.the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining-the data needed, and I

completing and reviawing the collection of information - Send-comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for $

reducing-this burden,Eto the Information and Records Management

. Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, '

Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk' officer, office of j Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEoB-3109 (3150e0017,--3150 , ,

0020, 3150-0011, 3150-0009,.and 3150-0132),- Office of-Managenent=.

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.  :

26- ,

M T

y r-g +--M- y~,--mn.- 4,n,g--- .v,,. , . , , - - .yy...- , , w s g y-- cm ,,,,.. y y -~,r,ynme,r,y, c-,-,,- g w- -,gs a. -y e-4 p., , , v

l j

i Regulatory Analysis I

The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on these proposed amendments. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis may be examined and copied, for a fee, at the NRC public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC, telephone (202) 634-3273. 1 The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC, as indicated under the " ADDRESSES" heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the-Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5-U.S.C. 605 (b) ) , the Commission certifies that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a ,

substantial number of small entitles. The proposed rule affects i

approximately 6200 NRC licenses under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, ,

70, and 72. Of this total, approximately 2000 are small ,

entities. The proposed rule will require licensees planning to-store LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (except for other than

-reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site in the case where the licensee has access to.an operating LLW disposal 27

. ,_ _ . _ . ._ _, _ . _ _. . __ _ . - . 2, _ . - _ . _ . . _

facility) to document that other reasonable waste management options have been exhausted. The required documentation and i

maintenance of these records will require minimal administrative resources. Licensees will need to prepare and mail letters to appropriate LLW management authorities, retain all relevant documentation, and make these records available for NRC ,

inspection. The annual recordkeeping burden imposed by the proposed rule is estimated to be 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for the average licenace. The NRC does not believe that this burden will have a significant economic impact on small entities.

Backfit Analysis The proposed rule does not constitute "...the modification of or addition to systema, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility...." Therefore, the proposed action is not a backfit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109. The proposed rule primarily addresses the off-site disposal of low-level radioactive waste, generated as a result of reactor operation. The existing regulatory framework, applicable to assuring the safety of'on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste,-generated by reactor operations, remains unchanged. The NRC is seeking public comment on the backfit analysis. . Comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear.

28

i

{

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attn Docketing and '

Service Branch. t

]

List of subject Terms 10 CFR Part 30 l t

Byproduct material, criminal penalty, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear. materials, t Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. l 10 CFR Part 40 Criminal penalty, Government contracts, Hazardous materials  ;

- transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping-requirements, Source material, Uranium.

10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information,. Criminal penalty, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and-reactors- Radiation ,

protection, Reactor-siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping' requirements.-

t 29

._. _ . _.._ - ,._ a- _ . _ _.=___ -..a.. _ ,_ ._ __. a__.._._.._ _._;_.___ __..__._ _ _.c,_ _

10 CFR part 70 Criminal penalty, Hazardous materials - transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, security measures, special 2

nuclear material.

10 CFR Part 72 Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, security measures, spent fuel.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the-following. amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72.

30

, , , _ ,_ - _.; . 1_ , _..- _ _ . . _ - - _ . _ . ~ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ .. _ -. .a

PART 30 - RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF BYPROCUCT MATERIAL

1. The authority citation for Part 30 is revised to read i

as follows:

l i

l Authority: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as l

amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); j secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34 (b) also-issued under q sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.34(j) also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat.

1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Section 30.61 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); SS30.3, 30.10, 30. 34 (b) , (c), (f), (g), (1), and (j), 30.41(a) and (c), and 30.53 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); S30.10 is issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and 5530.6, 30.9, 30.34 (g) . and (j), 30.36, 30.50,_30.51, 30.52, 30.55, and 30.56(b) and-(c) are issued under sec'.161o,-68 Stat. .

950,-as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

31

~ a, . - . .

a * . .

2. In S30.34, - paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:

530.34 Terms and conditions of licenses.

(j) The following conditions are contained in every license issued under the regulations in this part.

(1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) may.be stored on-site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996  ;

(other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in'the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), the licensee shall document that it has exhausted l other reasonable waste management options which.would include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly.or j through the State, for disposal of LLW.

(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation regarding -the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (j)(2) of this section, for at least three years, and shall make the 32 1

i

documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL

3. The authority citation for Part.40 is revised to read as follows:

Authorityt Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183,-186, 68 Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs.

11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2 014 (e) (2 ) , 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242,.as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as 4

amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).

Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.41(h) also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C.

2021). Section 40.46.also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); 5540.3, 4 0. 2 5 (d) (1)-(3) , 40.35(a)-(d) and (f),

33

- 4 0. 41 (b) , (c), and (h), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under.sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201 (b) ) ; S10.10 is issued urader sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and 5540.5, 40.9, 40.25(c), (d) (3) and (4), 4 0. 2 6 (c) (2) , 40.35(e), 40.41(h), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64, and 40.65 are iscued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as j amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)). l l

l

4. In 540.8, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised as follows:

$40.8 Information pollection recuirements: OMB aDoroval.

l (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Dudget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

OMB has approved tho' information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0020.

(b) The approved information collection requirements  ;

contained in this part appeer in SS40.25, 40.26, 40.31, 40.35, 40.36, 40.41, 40.42, 40.43, 40.44, 40.60, 40.61, 40.64, 40.65, and Appendix A.

34 I

4

• * *

• a i

5. In $40.41, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

540.41 Terms and conditions of licenses.

(h) The following conditions are contained in every license issued under the regulations in this part.

(1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) may be stored on-site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of.the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in-the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal facility), the licensee shall document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options which would include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly or-through the State, for disposal of LLW.

.(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation <

35

'l i

regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section, for at least three years, and shall make the documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

6. The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182,.183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242,.as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under

-secs. 101, 185,-68 Stat. 936, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.13 anf,50.54(dd) also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat.

939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also_ issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a, and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102,' Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and-50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.

36 i

n

f 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Section 50.54 (ff) also issued under Pub.

L.99-240,-sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Sections "

50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 81  ;

also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2234). Section 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939,  !

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).  ;

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42

• U.S.C. 2273), SS50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) and (ff) are ,

issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(b)); $550.5, 50.7(a), 50.10(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e), j 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50. 4 7 (b) , 50.48(a), (c), (d), and-(c), 50.49(a), 50. 54 (a) (1) , (i) (1) , (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (V),

and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c),

50.60(a), 50.62(b), 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.80(a) and ' (b) are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(1)); and SS 50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50. 54 (w) ,. (z) , (bb),

(cc), (dd), and (ff), 50.55(o), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50.62(b),

50.70(a), 50.71(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b),

50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

37

--s--c-,r-o- y- v--+w .v we-+-,-e., e --e ---*e--r +e 4n- , .--ee --,,,,--,e- -

m--- -w------e-wn,---ev'-

l

7. In 550.54, paragraph (ff) is added to read as follows: l

$50.54 conditions of licensag.

]

(ff) (1) On-site storage of low-level radioactive vaste (LLW) may be undertaken pursuant to existing authorities and j procedures (such as 10 CFR 50.59) and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may

• not be stored on-site by thw generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (f f) (2) of this section..

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the ,

case whetc the licensee has access to an operating LLW disposal .

facility), che licensee shall document that --

(i) The licensee has exhausted other reasonable _ waste f

ma*.1agement options which would include taking all reasonable steps to contract, cither directly_or through the State, for the disposal-of LLW; and (ii) on-site storage activities will be consistent with, and not compromise, safe operation of the licensee's activities, nor-decrease the level of safety provided by applicable regulatory requirements.

'(3)' The licensee shall retain.all relevant documentation 38

regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraphs (ff)(?)(1) and (ii) of this section,- for at least three years, and shall make the documentation available for NRC inspection.

PART 70 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR KATERIAL j j

8. The authority citation foi Part 70 is revised to read as follows: i

-l l

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, l

948, 953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42L -

U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282); secs. 201, as I

amended, 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).

Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155,  !

10161). Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, ,

92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Secticn'70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L.93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Section 70.32(1) also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 *

'U.S.C. 2234)'. Section 70.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, Stat. 955 (42:U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also issued i

under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

39 i

.a

i For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); $$70.3, 70.10, 70.19(c), 70.21(c), 70.22(a), (b),

(d)-(k), 70.24(a) and (b), 7 0. 3 2 (a) ( 3 ) , (5) and (6), (d), (i),

and (1), 70.36, 70.39(b) and (c), 70.41(a), 70.42(a) and (c),

70.56, 70.57(b), (c), and (d), 70.58(a)-(g)(3), and (h)-(j) are losued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948 as amended (42 U.S.C. >

2201(b)); $$70.7, 70.10, 70.20a(a) and (d), 70.20b(c) and (e),

70.21(c), 70.24(b), 7 0. 3 2 (a) (b) , (c), (d), (e), and (g), 70.36, 70.51(c)-(g), 70.56, 70. 57 (b) and (d), and 70.58 (a)-(g) (3) and (h)-(j) are issued under sac. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201( j ) ) ; and 5570.5, 70.9, 70.20b(d) and (e), 70.32(1),

70.38, 70.50, 70.51(b) and (1), 70.52, 70.53, 70.54, 70.55,

70. 58 (g) (4 ) , (k) and (1), 70,59, and 70.60(b) and (c) are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

9. In 570.32, paragraph (1) is added to read as follows:

L-570.32 Conditions of Licenses.

(1 ) The-following conditions are contained in overy license i issued under the regulations in this part: ,

(1) Low-level radioactive vaste (LLW) may be stored on- ,

site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of the license, and storage is consistent with existing authorities and 40

• >-- - - ,e r, -, ..m. ,e, , -.,- v.w-- ,y e- r - -- , . , < ~ ~ - - - - ,

+

< , e L

procedures, and all relevant licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage, LLW may not be stored '

on-site by the generator beyond January 1, 1996, except as specified in paragraph (1)(2) of this section.

(2) For on-site storage of LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary for decay or -

for collection or consolidation for shipment off-site, in the case where the licensee has access to an operating LLW aisposal facility), the licensee shall document that it has exhausted other reasonable waste management options which would include taking all reasonable steps to contract, either directly or through the State, for disoosal of LLW.

(3) The licensee shall retain all relevant documentation regarding the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (1)(2) of this l

l section, for at least three years, and shall make the i

o documentation available for NRC inspection.

l PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF l

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE l

10. The authority citation for Part 72 is. revised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as L

41

I amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2095, 2095, 2099, f 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, ad amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. I 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 f (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat..

i 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42  !

U.S.C. 4332); Secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec.'148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 )

l S, tat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142 (b) and 148(c), I (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236-(42 U.S.C.

10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.44(h)-also issued under Pub. L.99-240, sec. 102, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021).  ;

bection 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J a3no issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117 (a ) , 141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a),

10161(h)). Subparts-K and L are also' issued under sec. 133, 98 3 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); $$72.6, 72.12, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28(d), '

72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a), (b) (1) , (4), (5), (c), (d) (1) , (2), (e),

i 42 l

I

- - . , ~ . , _ , . _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . , . , . , - _ . . . . , _ _ , . - , _ _ , . . - - . , . . . . __u_. _ - _ _ _ _ . . . - - _- _

.. . ..~ -- - ._ . - - - -

(f), (h), 72.48(a), 72.50(a), 72.52(b), 72.72 (b) ,- (c) , 72.74(a),

(b), 72.76, 72.78, 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c), 72.148, 72.134, 72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22 01 (b) ) ; $$72.10(a), (e), 72.12, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a), (b) (1) , (4), (5), (c), (d) (1) ,

(2), (e), (f), 72.48 (a), 72.50(a), 72. 52 (b) , 72.90(a)-(d) , (f),

72.92, 72.94, 72.98, 72.100, 72.102(c), (d), (f), 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130,-72.140(b), (c),

72,142, 72.144, 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154, 72.156, 72.158, 72.160, 72.162, 72.164, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.186, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(i)); and SS72.10(e), 72.11, 72.16, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44 (b) (3) , (c) (5) , (d)(3), (e), (f), (h),

72.48(b), (c), 72.50(b), 72.54(a), (b), (c), 72.56, 72.70, 72.72, 72.74(a), (b), 72.76(a), 72.78(a), 72.80, 72.82, 72.92(b),

72. 94 (b) , 72.140(b), (c), (d), 72.144(a), 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154(a), (b), 72.156, 72.160, 72.162, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.174, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.136, 72.192, 7 2. 212 (b) , 72.216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.234(e) and (g) are issued ,

tnder sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

43 1

a y-y-, .- ,, ,, ,e ,,- ,w ,y,y . - - - ,w __.-e. = w e - - , ' w

i 49 4 j

11. In S72.44,' paragraph (h) is added to read as follows: --

f t

E72.44 License conditions.  !

?

]

I t

(h) The following conditions are containedLin every license' l issued under the regulations in.this parts' -j l

(1) Low-level radioactive waste (LLW)-may be stored on-

{

site, provided it is authorized under existing conditions of_the [

o license, and storage l's consistent with existing authorities and 'l j

t procedures, and all= relevant licensing-and regulatory requirements applicable to on-site storage. LLW may not be  ;

stored on-site by the generator beyond January 1,.1996,,exceptfas_

specified in paragraph. (h)(2) of this section. [

(2) For on-site storage of-LLW beyond January 1, 1996 (other than reasonable short-term storage necessary-for decay.or for collection or -consolidation for shipment off-site, :in the I case where the licensee has-access to an operating LLW disposal- _

facility), the licensee shall document that it has exhausted.

other reasonable waste management options which:would' include.

taking-all reasonable steps to contract,_either-directly or'

_ through the State, for disposal of the LLW.

(3) The licensee shall retain allErelevant documentation-regarding the actions taken -pursuant to _ paragraph --(h) (2) ofithis -

4

' section,.for'at least'three years,.and shall make the 3 y

- 44 i l

< s

• s- +.. ~~r . ..,-...,w, -

. - . - .we- ,. , ,..w.. n . w-- - m- + vy e t r w ~ -- - --,<---r

• c ti-- -tw. ,-wew -

0 O documentation available for NRC inspection.

IU Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this )'b day of January,1993.

FortheNteleafRegulatoryCommission.

63 S/muel J.

V Chilk ,'

Co#

Secretary of th eCommission\ .

s s

45

. o ,

i e

1 APPENDIX A

SUMMARY

AND ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF DECEMBER 4, 1990 (55 FR 50064) h t

SUMMARY

, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSES ,

-TO EIGHT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE '

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 l

Jatroduction During a public meeting of the Commission on October 29,1990, the  :

Commission decided to solicit the views of the public on the staff '

recommendations in SECY-90-318. " Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments l Act Title Transfer and Possession Provisiens," dated September 12, 1990.

• Public comment was solicited in a federal Reaister notice (FRN) published on +

December 4, 1990 (55 FR 50064). This notice also requested responses to eight related questions. A summary and an analysis of the responses to this FRN are provided below. Because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York v.

!)nited States, the summary and analysis related to the take-title provision of

• the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) were rendered moot and consequently have been omitted.

Question 1. What factors should the Commission consider in deciding whether to authorize on-site storage of low-level waste (other than storage for a few months to accommodate operational needs such as -i consolidating shipments or holding for treatment or decay) beyond 1996?

. Eggmary of Comments _.

1 The principal issue raised by the commenters was whether NRC can and should consider ultimate disposal as a factor in its storage authorizations.

Some commenters believe that NRC should consider only protection of the public health and safety, without any preference for disposal over storage in its licensing decisions. In this role, NRC would simply carry out its normal licensing and inspection functions for either the storage or disposal option.

Others suggested that NRC consider not just public health and safety, but also r evidence of progress in developing a dis >osal facility as a condition for issuing a storage-license. Commenters claracterized this role-for NRC-as the

" enforcer" of the LLRWPAA.- Others agreed with the staff's approach in SECY-90-318 which stated that the Commission "does-not look favorably upon long--

term on-site storage after 1996," but which acknowledged that at least some short-term storage will likely be required after 1996. In this role, NRC; would " encourage" disposal (or not look favorably on storage), but would not make disposal plans an explicit condition for authorizing storage.

Many specific technical or administrative issues, such as. waste container degradation and NRC resources to perform storage license reviews, were also mentioned in response to this question. Commenters also suggested that miscellaneous factors, such as the efforts of individual generators in ,

cooperating with the States, the time needed to "do the job right", and time for development of new waste disposal technology, be considered in any Commission storage authorizations.

The only significant trend in the comments was that individuals and pubiic interest groups tended to f avor or.-site- storage beyond 1996. Many of these commenters also believe that waste-generation activities should be stopped until disposal capacity is available. . Their_ favoring'of on-site n- - , ..- ,--ne,.,,, . . , , . , . . . . , . , , , i,,_,- ,,m . .':.i , .i

storage at a generator's facility was an outgrowth of the belief that States should not be responsible for LLW management. States, compacts, utilities, and other generators showed no clear preference for any NRC role.

Anal ysil With respect to whether NRC has the authority to " enforce" the provisions of the LLRWPAA, NRC could take actions to encourage disposal. NRC has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), for rules and orders as it "may deem necessary or iesirable to... protect health or to minimize danger to life and property." The public health and safety is enhanced by disposal, rather than by long-term, indefinite storage of wastes.

Disposal of wastes in facilities licensed under the requirements of Part 61 or its equivalent will provide better protection of the public health and safety and environment than long-term storage at perhaps hundreds or even thousands of sites throughout the country. Further, a nexus was established between disposal and public health and safety and environment and long-term storage with the passage of the LLRWPAA. Thus, NRC has the broad authority to encourage disposal over storage, if it feels that specific measures would be beneficial.

J To date, the need for extended storage of low-level waste has been small l to almost non-existent because low-level waste has been shipped to the I existing waste disposal sites in operation. As a result, industry experieve ,

and staff reviews and guidance have not addressed longer-term storage, by I of the commenters on this question pointed out specific hazards and technical l considerations that need to be addressed if long-term storage is to be used.

For example, container degradation from storage in humid environments, and gas generation from radiolysis were two concerns that were highlighted and which would need to be addressed. Addressing all of these concerns with indefinite long-term storage could require safety measures analogous to those for permanent disposal. An above ground vault meeting the performance requirements of Part 61 is an example of the type of facility that could be justified if a licensee were to need explicit authorization for long-term storage. Guidance for acceptable low-level waste storage practices for periods significantly beyond 5-years may need to be reviewed and assessed as noted in SECY-90-318, to assure safety.

Given that the NRC has authority to encourage disposal but at the same time believes that LLW could be safely stored, the question becomes "What actions could the NRC take and what would these accomplish?' The options range from taking no new actions, to encouraging disposal as we have in the past, to formally considering disposal plans and progress in the licensing of storage facilities (See responses to Question 7 for a discussion of these additional assurances for disposal).

Other factors for storage licensing suggested by commenters gu beyond the considerations that normally apply to licensing, included in these are forecasting the availability and benefits of new technology for waste disposal and consideration of generators cooperating with States in developing disposal capacity.

2

With respect to the suggestion that the Comiss19n consider suspending any waste producing activities if disposal capacity is not available, storage could be safely accomplished until disposal capacity becomes available. There is no public health ano safety reason for stopping waste producing activities, in summary, the principal fa: tor in the Commission's decision to authorize on-site storage is what consideration needs to be given to ultimate disposal plans. Question 7 (assurances NRC should require for disposal) discusses what actions the Comission can take if it chose to consider disposal plans.

Question 2. What are the potential health and safety and environmental impacts of increased reliance on on-site storage of low level waste?

Summary of Comments.

Although some commenters believe there would be neither health and safety nor environmental effects from storage of LLW, other commenters believe that risk or exposures to workers would increase. Various concerns were raised by some commenters regarding the risk associated with multiple storage sites, with fire hazards, and with enhanced corrosion of waste phckages. Others pointed out that occupational exposures would be increased by maintenance and surveillance activities, and the possible repackaging of waste for disposal.

Several commenters believe that a risk assessment should be performed to better define the risks associated with storage. The risk assessment should include a comparison of centralized storage vs. on-site storage by generators.

Finally, several commenturs pointed out that storage on-site would eliminate any risk from transportation hazards and would take advantage of already contaminated sites. These commenters favored long-term, indefinite, on-site storage over near surface disposal.

Analysis.

NRC agrees with commenters who believe that the public health and safety and the environment could be adequately protected with on-site storage of LLW.

Although the safety measures for long-term storage facilities will be greater than those employed now for short-term storage, measures can be undertaken to prevent or mitigate the effects of the various internal and external hazards at a storage facility. However, potential exposures to workers will be reduced if disposal is accomplished. Permanent disposal of LLW has always been the preferred option for managing wastes. The LLRWPAA reflects this preference. The design features of a disposal facility, including the natural features of the site, protect against a wide range of events and phenomena over a long period of time. In contrast, and as a number of commenters noted, storage would involve increased worker exposure from unloading the waste from storage for disposal, possible waste form processing (such as solidification or repackaging) to meet the waste acceptance criteria of a disposal facility when one became available, and radiation surveys during_ storage.

In order to adequately protect public health and safety, existing storage facilities may need to be substantially improved to store wastes safely for 3

1

.J l

. . 1 long periods of time. Actual storage conditions in use now range from sheet  ;

steel buildings on a concrete pad to rooms in hospitals and universities to several foot thick concrete modules. These structures may or may not have i humidity and temperature control systems and could be subject to changing environmental conditions. The possibility for degradation of the waste  ;

containers will exist and will be a function of the materials used and the environment in which they are loccted. As a bounding condition, storage facility with an indefinite period of storage for its design cou, need-controls similar to those in Part 61 for a disposal facility, because the-design life would be the same. j Increased waste form requirements may be particularly important for Class I A waste which normally is not stabilized priur to shipment for disposal, and for any stable waste forms which degrade as a result of the storage  :

environment. This waste may contain quantities of absorbed liquid which, when alone or in the presence of radiation and organic materials, may produce organic acids and/or other species. There species may accelerate internal-corrosion and failure of common storage containers.

Several commenters pointed out the need for risk assessments of storaga options. NRC is unaware of any quan itative comparisons of the risks and exposures associated with storage vs. disposal and on-site storage vs. '

centralized storage. NRC will have available information from other programs-on storage (such as the NY State storage study and DOE studies) and will use-this information in its planning. Additional NRC work may be needed in this area depending on developments between now and 1996.

Question 3. Would low-level waste storage for other than operational needs beyond January 1, 1996, have an adverse impact on the incentive for timely development of permanent disposal capacity?

Summary of Comments.

Comments in response to this question can be put into the following categories:

Yes, there wt a Le an advarse impact--somewhat less than half of those who gave a ye:. m ., :nswer believe that storage would adversely affect .'

timely developme.., of disposal capacity. Generally these responses were provided by host States, a compact or industry.

No, there would not be an adverse impact. Many individual commenters or public nterest groups believe that storage was the preferred option over disposal and stated that there would be no adverse impact. They believe that current disposal technology is not adequate for protecting-public health and safety. Several others believe that allowing for storage would hiin in achieving disposal capacity by allowing time for contracting among States, thereby reducing the number ~of sites that are needed in-the country. They also believe that storage would provide the time needed to do the job right.

4

The question is moot. A few commenters pointed out that the reality of the national waste disposal situation is that storage beyond 1996 will be necessary and therefore the question is moot. Several recognized that storage will be necessary, but at the s:me time encouraged the NRC to permit storage only when necessary. Another commenter pointed out that the LLRWPAA contains ample incentives to promote disposal without needing to consider the effect of NRC's storage policy. Commenters cited the cost to generators or States for storage, the resources (space and personnel) which would need to be de -+ad to on-site storage at a generator site, the possible loss of jo'. m State if companies move to areas which have disposal capacity, anu C.e political impact in a State if LLW must be stored in increasingly larger quantities at numerous sites throughout a State.

The NRC should not consider any adverse impacts of storage. As noted in the response to the first question or factors the NLC should consider in authorizing storage, a number of com9 enters believe that NRC's role is one of only licensing and overseeing storage or disposal facilities, without having a preference for one or the other. These same commenters therefore believe that it was inappropriate for NRC to ask this question.

Analysis.

Commenters who stated that storage would have an adverse impact provided little or no bases for their position. This is not surprising given that the question calls for prediction of the future which often must be based on -

judgment rather than hard data and scientific formulae.

Commenters who believe that there would be no adverse impact on disposal oc n ed to the incentives that will remain for a State to develop disposal c 4;u ;ty, irrespective of the relief provided by storage. In particular, tb are costs (to the State and/or generators); the possible loss of jobs if i a generator moves to a State with disposal availability; and, if generator <

storage is common, the political impact of a large number of LLW sites with i ever growing amounts of LLW.

At the same time, NRC agrees with some commenters that short-term storage may be necessary in some States, especially those which have made a good faith effort and continue to do so into the future. Nevertheless, on balance, the NRC believes that an NRC policy which placed no disincentives on extended or inadequate storage would likely tend to discourage disposal.

5

Question 4. What specific aoministrative, technical and legsl issues are raised by the requirements for transfer of title?

Summary of Comments.

The connents in response to this question addressed the.take-title provisions of the LLRWPAA. Because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 813 York v. United Statti and the revision to the proposed rule, these comments and the associated analysis are moot and consequently are not included.

Question E. What are the advantages and disadvantages of transfer of title and possession as separate steps?

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York v. United States and the revision to the proposed rule, the question is moot and consequently the summary and analysis associated with this question are not included.

Question 6. Could any state or local laws interfere or preclude transfer of title or possession of LLW?

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York v. United States and the revision to the proposed rule, the question is moot and consequently the summary and analysis associated with this question are not included.

Question 7. What assurances of the availability of safe and sufficient disposal capacity for low-level waste should the Commission require and when should it require them? What additional conditions, if any, should the Commission consider in reviewing such assurances?

Summary of Comments.

No assurances were needed according to seven of the 27 commenters on this question. The NRC lacks the authority and its role is limited to facility licensing of either disposal or storage, in their view. Other commenters indicated that if NRC believes that such assurances are needed, it should seek an amendment to the LLRMPAA or initiate a rulemaking similar to.the one for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR Part 51 in which the Commission made a finding that there was confidence that ultimate disposal of spent fuel would be achieved at a future date.

For those commenters who believe that assurances were appropriate, the kinds of assurances varied. One recommended that storage beyond 5-years should require a State or compact plan on how the State or compact intends to dispose of the waste so that storage is not dt_[cgtg disposal. The commenter also believe that, while a State lacks disposal capacity, there should be no licensing between now and January 1,1996 of any facility that may generate significant amounts of waste after that date. Others believe that the generator should project waste volumes accurately and that demonstrated progress towards issuance of a license to operate a regional disposal facility would be sufficient.

6

e s One comenter suggested that a governor's certificaticn be required that would be similar to those already submitted as part of the LLRWPAA milestone compliance of January 1, 1990. The requirements of the certification should be simple and available to licensees to submit with the license to store or with the application to amend the possession limit. In addition, they believe that the NRC should require that the governor's certification include estimates of the costs for disposal capacity for waste management decision making.

With regard to when the Commission should require the assurances, two commenters addressed the timing issue and focused on the 5-year storage time frame. The other commenters presumably believe that the assurances should apply at any time the licensee would apply for a storage license. Another recommended action by NRC "in the next few years."

Analysis.

Like Question 1 (concerning the factors the Commission could consider in authorizing storage), this question also addresses the role of the NRC in implementing the LLRWPAA. It presumes that the NRC has both the authority and l the willingness to seek additional assurances for ultimate disposal. Because l commenters often did not agree with this premise, as noted in the analyses of earlier questions, they also believe that this was not an appropriate question for the NRC to ask. However, the NRC, under the AEA, does have broad

authority to promulgate rules and regulations to protect the public health and l safety and minimize danger to the public.

l l A number of a>mmenters gave examples of the types of assurances that could be furnished by the States. Examples would include a " plan" for disposal or a governor's certification, both of which would be meant to demonstrate that a State has an active, viable program for the development of disposal capability.

l With respect to the question of whether the NRC has assurance that LLW i disposal capacity will be available in the future, such assurance is l available, as indicated in the analysis section of Questions 1 and 2, and does l not require a formal rulemaking, as was suggested by several commenters and

( performed for HLW. Unlike the HLW program, where no repository has yet been i in operation, disposal sites have been in operation and safely isolating waste i for decades at Barnwell, S.C., Hanford, WA, and Beatty, NV. Additional disposal capacity is expected soon. Some States may have their facilities in operation before 1996. There continue to be other options, including storage until a disposal site is located, or contracting with another State, or continuing to pursue development of a site within the State or compact. Thus, the question is not whether LLW will be safely disposed of,. but exactly where and when it will take place.

l l

7 l

l l

1

a *s Ouestion 8. Are there any other specific issues that would complicate the transfer of title and possession, as well as on-site storage, of ,

low-level waste and mixed (radioactive and chemical hazardous) waste?

Summary of Comments.

A wide variety of comments was provided in response to this question. A number of them were discussed in connection with previous questions. Coments strictly addressing transfer of title and possession are not included because they are moot. Remaining issues include the following:

1. Some commenters mentioned NRC storage policy and whether or not it will be a matter of compatibility with Agreement States was mentioned by some commenters, if not, Agreement States will license storage in accordance with their own storage policies and procedures.

2. The failure of some States to resolve legal, economic, and/or political issues will cause additional delays. I 1

3. Accidents that generate large amounts of waste not previously planned for could cause a significant disposal problem.

4. NRC and Agreement State resources, as well as personnel trained in storage licensing, need to be in place.

5. Orphan waste and naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) waste need to be addressed.

Analysis.

NRC has not attempted to resolve each of these issues in connet.iion with this analysis of public comments. Many go beyond the scope of the NRC's responsibilities and will need to be resolved by States and generators as they proceed. Others require a decision on the role of the NRC in encouraging disposal and others will need to be followed up at a later time.

Two of the above comments deserve attention here, however. The first is that Agreement States, which will perform much of the licensing for storage, should adopt the same or similar storage policy as NRC, License conditions for storage beyond 1996 are not currently compatibility' requirements.

The second issue concerns the scope of the waste for which the State is responsible. Wastes falling within State responsibility include some Federal waste and any decommissioning waste or waste-from contaminated sites that is removed in order to allow sites to meet the unrestricted use criterion in decommissioning.

8

)

o CONCLUS10NJ.

The following conclusions can be reached as a result of the foregoing analyses:  ;

1. Although LLW can be safely stored . disposal would enhance the protection of the public health and safety and the environment;

2. The LLRWPAA has established the preference for disposal over storage and estabiished national goals for achieving adequate disposal capacity;

3. The NRC has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act to advance the goal of disposal pursuant to the LLRWPAA.

4. On-site storage by many LLW generators will likely be necessary due to the lack of progress by States and compacts in developing sufficient disposal capacity.

The NRC has concluded that a rulemaking should be initiated to ensure that LLW generators exhaust all other reasonable management options before on-site storage will be permitted beyond January 1, 1996. One such option is to pursue a contract for disposing of waste. This action will reenforce the Commission's position that it will not look favorably on on-site storage by generators, after January 1, 1996, and the action actively supports the goals set forth in the LLRWPAA.

l 9