ML20214D496

Requests Concurrence on Draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rev to Definition of Term, High Level Radwastes. Review Requested within 2 Wks

ML20214D496
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/01/1985
From:	Goller K NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Cunningham G, Jennifer Davis, Kerr W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML20214D486	List: ML20214D484 ML20214D496
References
FRN-52FR5992 AB89--11, AB89-0-11, NUDOCS 8603050223
Download: ML20214D496 (115)

Text

_ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

$. a M M d .*

MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material -

Safety and Safeguards Guy H. Cunningham, Director Office of the Executive Legal Director Wayne G. Kerr, Director Office of State Programs ._

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  !

FROM: Karl R. Goller, Director '

Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON A DRAFT ADVANCE NOTICE L OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON REVISION OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES". * ,

The enclosed staff paper would forward a draft advance notice of proposed rulemaking dealins with revision of the term "high-level radioactive wastes" to the Comission. Tiis action responds to a request made by the Comission for a staff review of th" need to revise the definition of high-level wastes in light of the enactment o the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. ,

I would appreciate it if you would provide concurrence and/or any coments

• within two weeks of the date of this memorandum. If you have any questions  ;

concerning this staff paper please call Clark Prichard of my staff on extension 74586.

4 w ,, .%m,- ,

c.u. .m, - -

ho030kOh$h!kOhk0R Karl R. Go11er, Director  !

MEETINGO75 PDR Division of Radiation Programs  ;

and Earth Sciences 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 0fSTRIBUTION

Enclosure:

subj. Ecostanzi Staff paper Cire. KGo11er Chron. ORoss WM8 r/f RMinogue 48ueUNWur  !

l 0FC: ORPE WM8  :  :  :

0RpES/WM8 s.. :0RPES/0,$,g.:

}. st. l NAME:CP ard:mb:FC43h...i :XGoller  :  :  :  : : ,

iiii?iiFJii'~Ii}TJii IiiFJii~?~~~~?"~~~?""~""I-~~~

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

, e e i

l i

i i

! For: The Commissioners l

{ From: William J. 01rcks  !

Executive Ofrector for Operations l

Subject:

i 10 CFR PART 60--DEFINIT!0N OF THE TERM "HIGH-LEVEL RADICACTIVE -

WASTES"--ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING '

i

! Category: This paper involves a policy question of significant interest to States and other Federal agencies.

{

l Pur;cse: To request Commission approval to publish an advance notice of

} proposed rulemaking concerning the definition of the term "high-

! level radioactive wastes" in 10 CFR Part 60. '

Discussion: In approving the final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 - technical criteria (SECY-83-59 & 598), the Commission requested that the

staff review the need to revise the definition of high-level 1'

radioactive wastes (HLW) in 10 CFR Part 60 to conform to the definition of HLW in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA),

' Pub. L.97-425, as part of the ongoing review of the procedural portion of 10 CFR Part 60.5 This paper responds to that request.

i

' It provides an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) which I identifies and discusses the relevant issues that must be considered in determining how to revise present definitions of

) HLW in NRC regulations and seeks public comment on these issues I (Enclosure A). The staff has chosen the ANPR route (rather than a notice of proposed rulemaking) because the number and complex-ity of the issues which must be resolved to specify HLW in terms

' Staff requirements memorandum to William J. Dircks and Herzel H. E. Plaine from j Samuel J. Chilk, May 27, 1983 (Enclosure 0).

t i Contacts:

! J. R. Wol f , ELD 1

X28694

! D. Fehringer, NMSS i x74796 i C. Prichard, RES .

l x74586 i

i I

- _ . -_ - . ._ . . _ - - - - _ _ - . _ - . - .- - - - -_ - ._ - _ _ . _ _ - _ . _ = _

I l The Commissioners 2 ,

1 of numerical limits for concentrations of racioactive materials j in the waste are sufficiently difficult to warrant the j deliberate, cautious approach afforced by the ANPR.

] Part 60 itself merely establishes regulations which govern the licensing of COE activities at a geologic repository should 00E ,

, opt for this method of disposal; it does not require 00E to '

l dispose of HLW in a geologic repository.

Applying the term "HLW" to a class of materials may imply certain t legal and management responsibilities with respect to those i materials. Thus, "HLW" may be a term applied in defining (at i

1 least in part) classes of materials such as these*

i l

I 1. Materials for which the Federal government (i.e., not State governments) has primary disposal responsibility. j

2. Materials which should be disposed of in a geologic

] repository.

i

3. Materials which should be disposed of in a geologic repository or in a manner providing equivalent permanent q isolation from the human environment.

4. Materials for which DOE storage facilities are subject to

] NRC licensing and regulatory authority, j S. Materials which are eligible to be disposed of in a geologic repository, i

6. Materials for which disposal costs are covered by the 7

4 Nuclear Waste Fund.

7. Materials subject to ocean dumping prohibitions.

)

8. Materials to be removed from the Western New York Service  !

j Center under the West Valley Demonstration Project Act.

! While there are no doubt some kinds of materials that would be {

! regarded as HLW in all of these situations, there are other mate-

! rials which would be regarded as HLW only for one or several of <

these purposes. The NWPA defines HLW as:

! l i

i (A) The highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste f i produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material I

derived from such liquid waste that contains fission l products in sufficient concentrations; and 1

! t I

i

(

l [

• i 4

e e The Comm9 ssioners 3 (B) Other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation. (NWpA, Section 2(12))

It should be noted that the NWpA treats spent fuel separately from HLW, anc the accompanying ANPR would have no effect on the regulatory requirements for disposal of soent fuel. As discussed in the accomeanying ANPR, the staff believes that Clause (A) of the NWPA definition of HLW can appropriately be regarded as referring to the materials (item 4. above) and facilities for wnich NRC has regulatory authority. Clause (8) could be implemented in several ways; the ANPR proposes several options which would reduce the scope of existing uncertainty with respect ..

to State responsibilities (item 1.). The staff's approach would not automatically impose any substantive requirement with respect to the kind of facility that must be used for disposal (items 2.

and 3.). Thus, for example, the classification as HLW (under

! Clause (A)) of a range of defense waste reprocessing streams would imply no judgment as to whether a disposal method other

, than burial in a geologic repository would be acceptable to the Co'nmi s s ion . (Even though disposal facilities for the wastes might be licensable under the Energy Reorgani:ation Act, the cotion, for example, of using the present HLW tanks at Hanford would not be foreclosed.)

The staff's approach would view Clause (A) of the NWPA definition as conforming to the existing usage in Part 60. (The Part 60 definition also extends to spent fuel; that aspect of the Part 60 definition has no bearing upon the issues presently being considered.) The approaches to classification of additional materials as HLW would be accomplished under Clause (B) alone. A draft technical analysis has been prepared with respect to a numerical approach to evaluating highly radioactive material requiring permanent isolation. This analysis, wnich is referred to in the ANPR and which is provided as Enclosure B, would be available for review during the public comment period. Indeed, comment is explicitly sought on this analysis as well as on the major points discussed in the ANPR.

Five options are presented in the ANPR for defining HLW. These could result in differing treatments for non-HLW.

Three of the options would establish a new " intermediate" waste category. (As discussed in the ANPR, additional legislation would likely be needed to assign governmental responsibility for disposal of any wastes classified as " Intermediate.") The options also differ in the timing of the risk-sased technical analyses on which the classifications would ultimately be based. Two options would involve completion of ertensive technical analyses of disposal system performance prior to rulemaking to rigidly define HLW; three options would establish an initial

e .

Tho Commissioners 4 initial cefinition of HLW based on oreliminary tecnnical analyses, but would crovice flexibility for consideration of specific wastes on a case-by-case basis.

The staff has benefited from comments by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in the preparation of the ANPR (Enclosures F and G). Congressional staff members have expressed interest in the definition of HLW.

During the ANPR comment period, the staff intends to consult with State representatives in cooperation with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors and the National Governers' _

Association. These talks will focus particularly on the institutional and technical questions relating to the disposal of LLW that are influenced by possible definitions of HLW.

Many of the issues discussed in the ANPR are associated with the waste classification and disposal responsibilities provided in the NWPA and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. These Acts establish a State responsibility to provide for the availability of disposal capacity for LLW and a Federal responsibility for disposal of HLW. In these Acts LLW is defined as " radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or (mill tailings)", and the Commission is authorized to define HLW.

While the term " transuranic waste" is used, it is not defined and no governmental responsibility for disposal of such waste is assigned.

On February 7,1985 Rep. Morris K. Udall introduced H. R.1083, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. Among other things, this bill would establish Federal government responsibility for disposal of all radioactive wastes (except mill tailings) with concentrations exceeding the current Class C limits of 10 CFR Part 61, and would explicitly define a

" transuranic waste" category. If this bill becomes law, some of the issues discussed in this ANPR would be resolved. This bill (modified appropriately) would be particularly beloful for establishing an "intermtdiate" waste classification as suggested by two of the options discussed in the ANPR. The staff is closely tracking the progress of this bi;1, and has prepared (separately from this ANPR) comments on the wording of the bill.

Recommendations: That the Cammission:

1. Approve for publication the advance notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with the definition of the term HLW as set forth in the draft Federal Register notice (Enclosure A).

The Commissioners 5

2. Note:

a. The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Af fairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Inte* state and Foreign Commerce Committee will be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure E.

b. If approved, this advance notice of proposed rulemaking --

would be published in the Federal Register allowing

, 90 days for public comment.

William J. Otrcks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

A - Federal Register Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- 10 CFR Part 60

-- Definition of "High-Level Radioactive Waste" 8 - An Evaluation of Radionuclide Concentrations in Hign-Level Radioactive Waste, NUREG-0946 C - Proposed General Statement of Policy on Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Wastes (43 FR 53860) November 17, 1978 0 - Staff requirements memorandum to William J. Ofrcks and Herzel H. E. Plaine from Samuel J. Chilk, May 27, 1983 E - Draft Congressional Letter F - Letter from Dr. Warren K. Sinclair President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to Honorables' W. Ruckelshaus, N. Palladino, D. Hodel, October 15, 1984 G - Memorandum to William J. Otrcks from H. W. Lewis, January 15, 1985.

l

9 0 4 l

l l

WWG EtlCLOSURE A l

l l

1 1

l l

l e l

l l

1

7590-01 a

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN 10 CFR Part 60 Definition of "Hign-Level Radioactive Waste" t

, AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission.

I ACTICN: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

i $UMMARY: The Commission has previously adopted regulations with respect to the 3 disposal of nign-level radioactive waste (HLW) in geologic repositories. The

) Commission is considering changes in the definition of HLW in those regulations so as to folicw more closely the statutory cefinition in the Nuclear Wasta Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking 1 ( ANPR), the Commission identifies legal and technical consicerations that are .

pertinent to the definition of HLW, describes options for modifying the current j cefinition of HLW, and solicits public comment, t

anile the Commission has initiated this effort under the provisions of the N'.PA, any revised definition of HLW will significantly affect the management of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) as well, since the Low Level Radioactive j Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA) defines LLW to include radioactive wastes etner enan HLW, transuranic wastes, or mill tailings. Providing for the discosal of I

materials classified as HLW is a Feceral government responsibility as provided '

by the NWPA, wnile tne States are responsible under the LLRhPA for providing 1

discosal capacity for LLW (other snan LLW from atomic energy defense activities or Feceral research and development activities). Thus, any revised definition I of HLW developed by the Commission will directly affect the types and {

quantities of LLW for which the States are responsible. Radioactive wastes

nave historically been defined largely by the source where they were generated.

l This method of classification does not correlate direc'ily with the ha:ards of 4

i i

t 1 Enclosure n

7590-08 the wastes, with the result that LLW and HLW, as currently defined, span wide

, anc messibly overlapping ranges of radionuclide concentrations. Tre Commission  !

is consicering ways to cefine HLW (and thus LLW) on a sound techrical basis

! that would correscend more closely to the human healtn risks of the wastes. In acdition to imoroving the technical casts for the definition of HLW, the I

Commission is seeking to develco a more precise definition to facilitate planning by waste generators and by State and Federal governments for carrying

, out their waste management responsibilities.

I J This ANPR describes the principal options identified by the Cce. mission for revising the current definition of HLW in 10 CFR Part 60. Under the cottons -

1 described in this notice, certain additional wastes would be defined as HLW for l l purposes of the NWPA. 'nhile materials so classified should be disposed of in a manner that assures permanent isolation, and as a result of such classification 1 l'

they would not be subject to State responsibility to provide available disposal i

capacity, tre classification in itself would not necessitate disposal in a

! geologic repository. Other methods of disposal, including ones that may be

coveloped in the future, may be acceptable if they adequately protect public

} nealth and safety. The Commission anticipates that the options described in .

j this ANFR would substantially reduce current uncertainties regarding the i

classification of radioactive waste materials.

i Many of the, issues discussed in this ANPR are associated with the waste

,lassifications and disposal responsibilities orovided in WPA and LLRWPA. For 1

i example, these acts refer to " transuranic waste," but the term is not defined 1

i and no governmental responsibility for disposal of such waste is assigned. On q February 7,1985, Rep. Morris K. Udall introduced H. R.1033, the Low-Level  ;

I Radioactive Wasta Policy Amencments Act. Among other things, this bill would j establish Feceral government responsibility for disposal of all radioactive

! wastes with concentrations exceeding the current Class C limits of 10 CFR Part l 61, and would explicitly define a " transuranic waste" category. If this bill

becomes law, some of the issues discussed in this ANPR would be resolved. -

e  :

\

t i

i 2 Enclosure A i i

i j . . . _ . . - - . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . ..

(' ', , .

, , 1590-01

. CATES: Comment period expires [ insert date 90 cays af ter puolication of this ANPR in the FECERAL RE3ISTER). Ccmments received after this date niil de

~'

donsbered if it is oractical to do so, but assurance of consiceration cannot ce given exceot as to comments receivec on or before this date.

ACORESSES: Send comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, CC 20555, Attention: Occketing

.and Service Branch. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Puolic Occument Room, 1717 H Street N.W., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATICN CCNTACT: W. Clark Pricharc, Division of Radiation --

Programs anc Earth Sciences, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researen, U.S.

Nuclear Ragulatory Commission, Wasnington, D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 427-4536.

3 Enclosure A

. _ r . . . , k _ . _ . . .. . . . . . . . . . _ _

l . . . . . .

O O 7590-01 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATICN:

I. Backorourc There has long been a recognition that certain radioactive waste materials crocuced in :ne uranium fuel cycle require long-term isolation from man's Oiological environment and that, in view of public health and safety consicerations, disposal of such wastes should be accomolished by the Federal government on Federally owned land. This policy was codified by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1970, in Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50.

The class of materials suoject to this policy was called "high-level liquid radioactive wastes." The term was defined in terms of the source of the -

material rather than its ha:ardous characteristics. Soecifically, Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50 cefined high-level waste as "those aqueous wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or ecuisalent, and the concentrated wastes frem subsequent extraction cycles, or ecuivalent, in a facility for reprecessing irradiated reactor fuels." As used in Apcendix F, "high-level waste" thus refers to radioactive fission product and certain concentrated transuranic wastes generated at reprocessing plants. The term does not incluce incidental wastes resulting from reprocessing plant operations

-- e.g., ion exchange ceds, asphalted sludges, vermiculited sludges, and contaminated laboratory items, clothing, tools, and eouipment. Nor are radioactive hulls and other irradiated and contaminated fuel structural harcware witnin the Apoendix F cefinition.1 The first statutory use of the term "high-level radioactive waste" occurs in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Marine Sanctuaries Act). Congress adopted tne Appendix F definition, but breacened it

'See 34 Fec. Reg. 8712, June 3,1969 (notice of proposed rulemaking), 35 Fed.

Reg. 17530 at 17532, November 14, 1970 (final rule). Incicental wastes generated in further treatment of HLW (e.g. decontaminated salt with residual activities on the orcer of 1,500 nCi/g Cs-137, 30 nC1/g Sr-90, 2 nCi/g Pu, as described in Department of Energy's FEIS on long-term management of defense HLW at the Savannah River Plant, 00E/EIS-0023, 1979) would also, uncer the same reasoning, ce outsice the Appendix F definition.

4 Enclosure A

7590-01 to ine'.ude unreprocessed spent fuel as well.2 Two years later :ne AEC was acolisned and its functions were civiced between tne Energy Research and Development Acministration (ERCA, now the Decartment of Energy CCE) anc the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) by the Energy Reorgani:ation Act of 1974, Pub. L.93-438, 42 U.S.C. 5311. Uncer tnis legislation, certain activities of ERCA were to be subject to the Commission's licensing and regulatory authority. Specifically, NRC was to exercise licensing authority as to certain nuclear reactors and the following waste facilities:

(3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed under the [ Atomic -

Energy] Act.

(c) Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorf:ec for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of

^

high-level radioactive waste generated by the Acministration [new 00E],

which are not usec for, or are part of, research and development acti vi ti e s . 2 i

Although neither the statute nor the legislative history defines the term "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW), the earlier usages in Appencix F and the Marine Sanctuaries Act are indicative of the meaning. The Commission so construed one statute wnen it declared spent nuclear fuel to be a form of HLW and, by the same token, wnen it found transuranic-contaminated wastes (which might require long-term isolation in a Federal repository) not to be HLW.'

2Sec. 3, Puc. L.92-532, as amenced by Pub. L.93-254 (1974), 33 U.S.C. 1402.

2Sec. 202, Pub. L.93-438, 42 U.S.C. 5842. Nuclear waste management responsibilities were subsequently transferred to the Decartment of Energy. Secs. 203(a)(8), 301(a), Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7133(a)(3),

7151(a).

' Proposed General Statement of Policy, " Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories for Hign-Level Radioactive Wastes," 43 Fed. Reg. 53869, 53870, Novemoer 17, 1978; Recort to Congress, " Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste Activities", NUREG-0527 (1979), 2-1, 2-2, Appendix G. '

5 Enclosure A

3. ---

.- -- . = .. _ _ - . . . _

7590-01 .

A A different statutory formula appears in the West Valley Demonstrationj-Project Act (West Valley Act), enacted in 1980. This legislation authori:es

the Decartment of Energy (00E) to carry out a hign-level racicactive waste management cemonstration project for the purpose of demonstrating-solicification techniques wnicn can be usec for preparing HLW for ciscosal. It includes the following definition

l

{ The term "high level radioactive waste" means the high level radioactive waste which was produced by the reprocessing at the Center of spent nuclear fuel. Such term includes both liquid wastes which are produced directly in reprocessing, dry solid material --

derived from such liquid waste and such other material as the Commission designates as high level radioactive waste for purposes of l protecting the public health and safety. '

s i

t The Commission has not yet designated any "other material" as HLW under . .

the West Valley Act. Rather, it has construed the term in a manner equivalent to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix F definition. That is, it is the liquid wastes in storage at West Valley and the dry solid material derived frem solidification activities that are regarded as HLW, and it is DOE's plans with respect to such wastes that are sucject to the Commission's review.

1 A. Current NRC Regulations.

, The Commission has adopted regulations that govern the licensing of COE activities at geologic repositories for the disposal of HLW. The regulations define HLW in the jurisdictional sense. That is, if the facility is for the I i

I s

'Sec. 6(4), Puo. L.96-368, 42 U.S.C. 2021a note.

4 6 Enclosure A i

i

. ~ . - .. ,,~ . - . , . 4-... l

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

7590-01

" storage" of "HLW" as contemplated by the Energy Reorganization Act, the prescribed precedures and criteria would apply.' The approoriate cefinition for this curcose draws uoen the uncerstancing in 1974, as reflectec in Appencix F anc the~ Marine Sanctuaries Act, rather than the worcs of the West Valley Act

~

of more limited purpose anc scope.

If. should be emchasi:ed that NRC's existing regulations in Part 60 do not recuire that any radioactive materials, whether HLW or not, be stored er disocsed of in a geologic repository.' Nor do they provide that racicactive materials must be HLW in order to be eligible to be disposed of in a geologic recository. Part 60 expressly provides for NRC review and licensing with rescect to any radioactive materials that may be emplaced in a geologic -

repository authori:ed for disposal of HLW. The significance of the term "high-level radicactive waste" as it appears in Part 60 is solely to icentify the class of facilities subject to NRC jurisdiction.

The Commission has also adopted certain other regulations relatec to land discosal of -adioactive wastes (10 CFR Part 61). Based on analyses of potential human health na:ards, these regulations identify three classes of Icw-level radioactive wastes which are routinely acceptable for near-surface disposal, with " Class C" denoting the highest radionuclide concentrations of _

tne three.

. 'NRC regulations are cocified in 10 CFR Part 60 (Part 60). CCE is reouired to nave a license to receive source, special nuclear or cyproduct material at a geologic recository operations area. 5 60.3. A geologic repository coerations area is defined to refer to a "HLW facility" whien in turn is cefined as a facility subject to NRC licensing authority uncer the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, note 3, suora. 5 60.2. The Part 60 definition of HLW, ibid., is as follows:

"Hign-level radioactive waste" or "HLW" means: (1) Irraciated reactor fuel, (2) licuid wastes resulting frem tne operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or eouivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or ecu1 valent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into wnich such liquid wastes have been converted.

'In the event that commercial reprocessing of irradiated reactor fuel is pursued, Accendix F of 10 CFR Part 50 would require that the resulting -

reprocessino wastes Oe transferred to a Federal repository.

7 Enclosure A

7590-01 Class C coes not, however, denote a maximum concentration limit for low-level wastes. The low-level waste category incluces all wastas not otherwise classified, while HLW is cefinec by source (rather than concentration or nazard) and is limited to recrocessing wastes anc spent fuel. Thus, tnere is no regulatory limit on the concentrations of LLW, anc some LLW (exceecing Class C concentrations) may have concentrations accroaching those of HLW.

3. Nuclear Naste Dolicy Act of 1982.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), Pub. L.97-425, provides for the ccvelopment of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive -

waste and estaclishes a program of research, development, and demonstration regarding the ciscosal of hign-level radioactive waste.' Instead of adopting the Apoendix .: language, as tne Marine Sanctuaries Act nad cone, tne NWPA follows, witn some modification, the text of the West Valley Act. The new law provides that the term "high-level radioactive waste" means:

(A) The hignly racioactive material resulting Tr.m the recrocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste procuced dfrectly in repro- .

cessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (3) other hignly racicactive material that the Cc= mission, consistent with existing law, ceternines by rule requires permanent isolation.'

It should be noted that the NWPA does not require that materials regarded as HLW pursuant to this cefinition be disposed of in a geologic repository. Indeed, the NWPA directs the Secretary (of CCE) to continue and accelerate a program of research, development and investigation

'For purposes of the NWPA, " spent nuclear fuel" is cistinguished from "high-level radioactive waste," but the provisions of the statute dealing with such spent nuclear fuel are not of present concern.

'Sec. 2(12), Dub. L.97-425, 42 U.S.C. 10101(12).

3 Enclosure A

7590-01 of alternative means and technologies for the permanent discosal of HLW."

Part 60 and tne changes discussed in this notice woulc allow for consiceration of sucn alternatives by tne Cor. mission. Nevertheless, the NWPA coes not specifically autnorize OCE to construc or operate facilities for disposal by alternative means, and new legislative authori:ation might be neecec in order to dispose of HLW by means other than emplacement in a deep geologic repository.

The definition of HLW in the NWPA is a departure from earlier .

formulations, including the one that apoears in Part 60. The questions thus arise whether there is any material difference between the language in the regulations and the new law and whether new or revised rules ought to be ~

adopted by the Commission. By this notice, the Commission advises all interestec persons that such rulemaking is contemplated. The discussion that follows treats tne two clauses r' the NWPA separately. The Commission solicits comments regarding its analysis of the law as well as any suggestions that may assist in tne formulation of proposed rules.

1. Clause (A). The Commission finds that there is no material difference between HLW as defined in .Part 60 and Clause (A) of the NWPA. In -

arriving at this position, the Commission has concluded that the term "in sufficient concentrations" (which applies only to solids derived from liquid reprocessing wastes) should be interpreted in a manner consistent with earlier definitions, so that a numerical approach is not necessary. Following this approaca, enere woulc be general congruence cetween HLW as referred to in the Energy Reorganization Act and Clause (A) of the NWPA. A fuller explanation of the Commission's rationale regarding Clause (A) is presented in Appendix A of this notice.

2. Clause (8). The definition of Clause (3) of the NWPA pertains to "other highly radioactive material" that " requires permanent isolation," i.e. ,

waste materials which were not HLW within the meaning of Part 60. The phrase "other highly radioactive material" is considered "Sec. 222, Puo. L.97-425, 42 U. S.C. *.0202.

9 Enclosure A

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

6

~

7590-01 to include some or all of the radioactive waste materials (now considered LLW) with radionuclice concentrations exceeding those considered generally acceptacle fer near-surface ciscosal uncer tne Commission's LLW regulation, 10 CFR Dart 61.

The following section of this ANPR discusses tecnnical consicerations relevant to waste classification under Clause (B).Section III icentifies legal considerations related to the definition of HLW, and Section IV ciscusses the options icentified by the Commission for mocifying the current HLW definition.

II. Technical Considerations Related to Waste Classification. --

Radioactive wastes have historically been defined largely by the source wnere they were generated. This method of classification is not correlated cirectly with the ha:ards of the wastes, with the result that low-level and hign-level wastes, as currently defined, span wide and possibly overlacping ranges of radionuclide concentrations. A more acpropriate waste classification system woulc evaluate the containment capabilities of waste cisposal facilities (including the effectiveness of institutional controls), and would classify .

wastes according to tne human health risks posed by the wastes after disposal.

The nazards posed by radioactive wastes span a continuum from negligible to very high risks, and it has been found practical to group wastes into categories corresponding to the isolation 11 capabilities of the facilities available for waste disposal. The Commission initiated development of a ha: arc-based waste classification system derived from the. isolation capacilities of disposal facilities when it ceveloced the low-level waste classifications of 10 CFR Part 61. Howeser, a lack of specific information regarding the capacilities of different types of conceptual disposal facilities has, in the past, hindered extension of this waste classification system to include those

';Tne term " isolation" is defined in 10 CFR Part 60 to mean " inhibiting the transcort of radioactive material so tnat amounts and concentrations of this -

material entering tne accessible environment will be kept witnin prescribed limits."

10 Enclosure A

l 7590-01 wastes with concentrations exceeding the Class C limits of 10 CFR Par,t 6h'.,g This section describes some of the types and characteristics of facilities whicn mignt be usec for waste discosal, the characteristics of wastes.which are  ;

{ cancidates for classification, and the types of analyses which the Commission '

) could use for waste classification.

}

A. Tyoes of Discosal Facilities.

At the present time, the only licensed facilities available in the U.S.

for disposal of radioactive wastes are near-surface disposal facilities in

) which wastes are emplaced in trenches (shallow land burial). The Department of --

Energy has used various (unlicensec) near-surface disposal facilities, including trenches, pits, ponds and cribs, for disposal of both solid and liquid racioactive wastes.

Several otner discosal systems 4re currently under development both in the U.S. and in otner countries, referred to here as " greater confinement facilities," wnich would provide a greater degree of isolation than current shallow land burial facilities, but at substantially icwer costs than deep geologic disposal. Ennanced isolation could be achieved by these systems '

either by emplacement of wastes at greater depths below the earth's surface or by substantial use of engineered barriers. Examples of such systems include

, near-surface concrete bunkers and ceep augered holes. COE has also used a l hydrofracture process in which liquid wastes mixed with cement and other -

materials are injected into a deep shale formation.

t A third type of facility -- the deep geologic repository -- is under l development and would provide the most secure degree of isolation for the most hazarcous category of wastes. A repository would be located as much as i 1000 meters below the surface of the rarth in a geologic formation selected for i its long-term stacility, favorable vaste isolation characteristics, and low potential for accicental human int.usion.

j Other waste disposal optiens, including ocean disposal and disposal in f

i space, are less likely to be used in the near future than are terrestrial means of disposal. For this reason, only terrestrial disposal systems are ciscussed 4

in tnis ANPR.

i, 4

j 11 Enclosure A '

i l j

1 -. . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ __ .. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . ..__ . _.._ ,

.y-.~ -

• -- - iy--e -*,ww, y .. 9,-p,-w-,g-m-.,ew,,,...w. # ,-y.+tw+v+9w'+m*'h'-'*Mc'

• g we'-em - - - 'm+w++e+-w- P

~ '

7590-01

3. Characteristics of Discosal Facilities.

The general types of waste disposal systems cescribed acove can be distinguished by the following characteristics:

4' '

1. Reliance on Active Institutional Controls. Near-surface disposal

facilities rely significantly on institutional controls for monitoring, maintenarce ano use of security measures to prevent inadvertent human intrusion

! curing the first century following waste emplacement. Present regulatory

, practice is that such actise institutional controls should not be relied on to remain effective for more than about a century. Accordingly, NRC regulations stipulate criteria for geologic repositories so that such active institutional controls, even if provided for, are not reoutred for acceptably safe waste j isolation.

2. Stability. Near surface disposal facilities at well selected sites can be expected to remain stable for a few to several centuries, out may be  ;

sucject to natural processes such as erosion which could eventually degrade  !

tneir performance. On the other hand, geologic repositories will be located in. .

geologic formations which are selected to remain stable for many thousands of years and for which the likelihood of natural disruptive events or processes is anticicated to be low. Other types of disposal facilities will generally exhibit intermediate degrees of stability witn some approaching the stability of a geologic repository.

) 3. potential for Human Intrusion. The likelihood of inacvertent human intrusion into a waste disposal facility depends on factors including the depth below land surface, use of engineerec intrusion barriers, and the presence of resources or other features wnicn might promote future site exploration. The likelihood of future inadvertent human intrusion into a disposal facility is obviously very difficult to predict, out would generally be expected to be l reduced with increasing depth below land surface. Engineered barriers may be effective in preventing or deterring some types of intrusion, esoecially for .

! near-surface facilities. Location of discosal facilities away from known i

I a

12 Enclosure A

_ _ _ _ . _., ..__ __ , _ . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ , . _ ,__ ,.. _ _. _ _ ,, _ . _ . . _ - . . . _ , . _ . . . _ _ _ , _ . . _ . _-.,._._,.m.

7590-01 ceposits of mineral resources or unique geologic features would recuce the cotential for inacvertent intrusion via mineral exploration activities.

4 Temocral Secaration from the Environment. The lengtn of time curing whien a discosal facility can be reliec on to provide isolation (in the absence of natural or human-induced disructive events or processes) is dependent on a numoer of factors inclecing the depth of disposal, the geocnemical anc gechycrologic features of a site, use of engineered barriers and the characteristics of the waste materials. Some disposal systems, including near-surface disposal, are limited by proximity to the earth's surface and/or proximity to grouncwater resources such that they may not be able to ,

effectively isolate wastes with high radionuclide concentrations for periods longer than a few to several centuries. Such discosal facilities are therefore unsuitable for highly radioactive wastes unless the half-lives of the waste racionuclices are short so that the radioactivity of the waste will cecay sucstantially within a few centuries. Wastes containing longer-lived racianuclices may be discosed of in sucn facilities only if the concentrations and quantities of long-lived radioactive materials are sufficiently low. Other discos *l systems can provice isolation for longer periods of time, with proceriy sited and designed geologic repositories capable of isolating wastes for tens of thousands of years.

The cisposal facility characteristics discussed above can be summari:ed as being of two general types: 1) tne capability of a facility to provide stable waste isolation without significant risk of disruption due to natural or human-incuced events or processes, ano 2) the degree of reliance on active institutional controls required to achieve such waste isolation.

C. Permanent Isolation of Wastes Since the Commission is to define as HLW hignly radioactive material that

" requires permanent isolation," it is essential to cefine wnat the elements of permanent isolation may be. The Commission has identified two possible intercretations of this term.

13 Enclosure A

_ ~ _ - , _ .~,,

7590-01 First, the NWPA clearly envisions disposal of HLW in a ceep geologic reco si to ry .1: Thus, the term ";ermanent isolation" can ce' interpreted to mean isolation eouivalent" to that proviced by a ceep geologic repository. Suen an intercretation would be consistent with past use of tne term "high-level waste," including the recuirement for transfer of reprocessing wastes to a Federal ecesitory in Aopencix F of 10 CFR Part 50.

Ar alternative interpretation would recogni:e that other disposal systems, wnile less secure than a deep geologic repository, may nevertheless be capable of isolating wastes for an extended period of time. For wastes with suitable concentrations and half-lives, such isolation could be consicered to be "p e rma n e nt" if certain conditions are met. The disposal facility -

characteristics discussed above suggest two criteria for defining the elements of "cermanent isolation." First, permanent isolation incluces the isolation of wastes for a curation extending ceyonc the period during wnich active institutional controls may be relied upon. But this is not sufficiently limiting. The Commission believes that only certain ciscosal systems that provide isolation over this extended period could be regarded as affording

" permanent isolation" in the sense of the NWPA. Clearly, a geologic reposiunry

, is a facilf ty that qualifies, and shallow land burial does not. Another criteria is needed to provide this differentiation.

"Ine NWPA Incluces the following definitions:

The term " disposal" means the emplacement in a repository of high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or ather hignly radioactive material with no foreseeaole intent of recovery, wnether or not such emplacement permits the recovery of such waste.

The term " repository" means any system licensed by the Commission that is intenced to De used for, or may be used for, the permanent ceep geologic discosal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, whether or not such system is designed to permit tne recovery, for a limited ceriod curing initial operation, of any materials placed in such system.

Such term includes both surface and subsurface areas at which high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel handling activities are conducted.

"Ecuivalent in terms of the cacao 111ty to provide long-term stable waste isolation without significant risk of natural or human-incuced disruption and without reliance on active institutional controls.

• It Enclosure A

-w v-

7590-01 The Commission suggests that the critical distinction is that permanent isolation must be capaole of providing stable isolation without a :ignificant risk of cisruction due to natural or human-incuced events or processes for a period of -ime long enougn to allow the radioactivity of tne waste to cecay so tnat any releases are within accectable limits. Some of the cisposal systems cescribed above may be aole to provice stable waste isolation for several centuries or longer (e.g. ,1,000 years or more), and may provide permanent isolation in this sense.

'while this second interpretation may have tecnnical merit, the NWPA clearly envisions disposal of HLW in deep geologic repositories. Thus, the Commission interprets " permanent isolation: (within the context of the NWPA) as ~

meaning isolation equivalent to that provided by a deep geologic recository, l

anc the Commission does not consider the alternate intercretation discussec acove to be acpropriate. However, because of its imcortance in defining HLW, tne commission would welcome puolic comment on the merits of alternative intercretations of the term " permanent isolation."

D. Tyoes of Wastes Clause (B) of the NWPA refers to "other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation." The Commission believes that the phrase "other bignly radioactive material" is intended to incluce some or all of the radioactive waste materials with radionuclide conceritrations exueeding the Class C limits of tha Commission's LLW regulation,10 CFR Part 61. The Class C limits serve here to limit the range of racionuclide concentrations whicn mignt be consicered for pessible inclusion witnin a modified definition of the term "hign-level radieactf re waste." In this ANPR the Commission is concerned only with "above Class C" wastes, and does not propose to amend the Part 61 classification system regarding wastes routinely acceptable for near-surface disposal.

The NRC has examined available information regarding NRC and Agreement State licensees in order to identify the types of wastes currently being generated and likely to be generated in the future with radionuclide concentrations exceeding the Class C limits. These wastes are described in 15 Enclosure A, 9

---, m-- , ,n... -.,--,y

7590-01 Accencix 3 of this ANPR, and the estimated volumes of these wastes are summarized in Table 1.

While there is uncertainty regarcing the actual volume's of scme of these wastes (particularly tnose to be generated in the future), it is accarent nat tne volumes of these wastes are considerably smaller than the approximately 3,000,000 cubic feet of racioactive wastes currently being disocsed of eacn year by near-surface disposal.3' The Commission would welcome comment on the types, volumes and characteristics of above Class C wastes currently being generated or likely to be generated in the future.

The concentrations of radioactivity in some above Class C wastes --

escecially some discrete sealed sources and some other miscellaneous wastes -- -

may approach the concentrations in reprocessing wastes (currently classified as high-level wastes). However, the total quantity of radioactivity in such sources is small compared to the amount of radioactivity present in .

recrocessing wastes. This smaller cuantity of radioactivity raises questions as to whether such wastes are " highly radioactive" under the NWPA. The Commission could find that unless specifiec values, sucn as concentration anc/or total activity, were exceeded, the wastes in question would not be considered highly racicactive. .

"Ine wastes listed in Table I have higher radionuclide concentrations than other LLW currently being disposec of by near-surface disposal. Thus, tne amount of racioactivity present in these wastes will be a larger fraction of total LLW racicactivity tnan the volume figures would suggest.

16 Enclosure A

'~

7590-01 i

TABLE 1. VOLUMES OF ABOVE CLASS C WASTES 1

1 PRESENT ANTICIPATED l ACTIVATED METALS VOLUMES FUTURE VOLUMES l Reactor Operations ~200 ft 3 /yr Same i S ent Fuel Hardware (including fuel end '

a fittings) ~4,000 f t3 /yr" Same i Decommissioned Reactor -

4 Core Comoonents Negligible ~4,000 f 3/ reactor I

TRANSURANICS l

j Fuel Burnuo Lab j Operation -200 ft 3 /yr Same j Fuel Burnup Lab i

j Decommissioning Negligible ~15,000 ft3 -

Plutonium Fuel Fab. Plant Decommissioning 5,000 - 10,000 ft3 None l Sealed Source Manufacturing i

t Coerations ~200 ft 3 /yr Same i

Sealed Source Manufacturing '

t j Decommissioning ~2,000 ft3 -10,000 ft3 i Materials Licensee Decommissioning Small Small 1

I PHARMACEUTICALS ~10 f t3 /yr Same I

l LARGE SEALED SCURCES Small Small  !

i

\

\\

.L "This figure represents the maximum volume whicn would be generated if all ,

spent fuel were disassemoled at reactor plants. Such harcware mignt be t consicered " spent fuel" under terms of NWPA anc CCE's waste fund contracts, j and thus would not need further classification.

j 17 Enclosure A I

i

7590-01 E. Vaste Classification The Commission celieves that any system for classification of wastes must ce basec on, or incluce provisions for, analyses of cotential na: arcs to puclic health and safety. Sucn analyses woulc be an exten-ion of the 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification system and would be carried out using the following general aporoach.

1. Establish acceotance criteria. 10 CFR Part 61 currently contains cerformance ocjectives for disoosal of radioactive wastas in a land disposal facility. These performance objectives would serve as acceptance criteria -

for waste classification analyses, but might need to be supolemented for specific types of facilities or wastes. For examole, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed environmental radiation protection stancaras (procosed 40 CFR Part 191) applicable to disposal of wastes containing or contaminated witn transuranic racionuclides in concentrations exceeding 100 nCi/gm. Acceotance criteria for classification of such wastes would need to incluce consiceration of any final environmental standards l promulgated by EPA under its Atomic Energy Act authority in addition to the .

Part 61 performance objectives.

It is also conceivable that some types of land discosal facilities (other 1 than shallow land burial) may be subject to potentially cisruptive events or processes wnicn were not consicered wnen the Part 61 performance objectives were cevelopec. Work currently in progress by the International Commission on Raciological Protection (ICRP) may prove particularly useful for extending the Part 61 performance ocjectives, if necessary.

The ICRP, an international scientific body in the field of radiation protection, is ceveloping a report which will present a framework for extending its existing radiation protection recommendations (ICRP Report 26) to deal with circumstances unique to waste discosal including the long time

In 10 CFR Part 61, the term " land disposal facility" refers to all facilities for disposal of *adioactive wastes into the subsurface of the land, except geologic recositories as defined in 10 CFR Part 60.

18 Enclosure A

7590-01 periods of concern and the difficulties inherent in predicting both human activities and natural events and processes.

The Commission expects that the performance cojectives of part 61, suoplementec as appropriate to accommodate any environmental stancards promulgated by the EDA, will crove appropriate for waste classification analyses for land disposal facilities and will be consistent with the forthcoming recommendations of tne ICRP. The Commission will, however, examine tne need for supplementing these performance cbjectives before undertaking waste classification analyses.

2. Define discosal ootiens. The hazard which a radioactive waste poses --

i to public health cepends, in part, on the nature of the facility used for its cisposal. Thus, the candidate options for disposal of wastes would be defined in terms of the enaracteristics which contribute to isolation of wastes from the environment. For land disposal facilities, such characteristics might include death of disposal, use of engineered barriers, and tne geologic, hycrologic and geochemical features of a disposal site. If scecific disposal facilities have not yet oeen ceveloped, descriptions of " generic" facilities would be ceveloped to the extent that available information could be considered .

adequate to evaluate disposal system performance.

2. Characterize wastes. Wastes would be characteri:ed in terms of the l

factors which determine their hazard and behavior after disposal, including anysical and enemical forms of the waste, the radionuclide concentrations and associated radiological characteristics, the waste volumes, and the heat generation rates. The wice range of types and characteristics of wastes arising from industrial, biomedical anc nuclear fuel cycle sources makes this a particularly critical step in the waste classification process -- especially for wastes to be generated in the future (e.g., decommissioning wastes).

4 Ceveloo assessment methodolocy. Analytical methods (including mathematical models and computer codes) for projecting disposal system performance would be acquired or developed. For land disposal facilities, such metnods would include models of groundwater flow and contaminant transport. An assessment metnodology would also include descriptions of tne natural anc 19 Ecclosure A

7590-01 numan-initiated disruptive events or processes which could significantly affect disposal system perfermance as nell as the analytical means for evaluating the imoacts of such events or processes.

5. Evaluate discosal system cerformance. The performance of the candidate cisposal actions would be evaluated to estimate the public health na:ards from ciscosal of various types and concentrations of wastes. Ha:ards below the acceptance criteria of item 1. above would indicate an acceptable maten of waste type anc disposal option.

6. Consider cost-effectiveness and environmental imoacts of cotions. The --

cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts of the available disposal options woulc ce considered as part of the analysis of disposal system performance.

Analyses of the type described aoove are currently being pursued by the Ccamission for lanc disposal of above Class C wastes, and will be used to cetermine the classes of wastes accectacle for disposal in particular types of facilities, as was done by the Commission in developing its classifications for near-surface disposal in 10 CFR Part.61. Those kinds of highly radioactive ,

wastes which would only be acceptable for disposal in a facility that provides ,

pe rmanen't isolation, as discussed above, will ce classified as HL'd.

G 20 Enclosure A

_r - - _ , - _ , . - .- g __ ,, - - . . _ _ . _

7590-01 III. Leoal Considerations Related to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act The exercise of NWPA Clause (3) authority may give rise to a numoer of legal questions, ciscussed celow.

A. NRC juriscietion with resoect to 00E facilities. Cne factor to be consicered is ahether the classification of certain materials as HLW would result in an extension of NRC licensing jurisdiction. This issue may arise because, under the Energy Reorgani:ation Act of 1974, NRC exercises licensing authority as to certain COE facilities for the receipt and storage of "high-level radioactive wastes." The Comm'ssion has indicated on several --

occasions that it coes not regard transurar,1c-contaminated waste materials (TRU) to be HLW within the meaning of the 1974 law (see note 4, suora).

Congressional approval of this interpretation may be inferred from tne repeatec autneri:ations for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as a facility outside NRC's regulatory purview.1' WIPP is a facility intenced for

ne disposal of transuranic-contaminatec wastes generated by 00E anc its prececessors.

7See, e.g., Sec. 213(a), Pub. L.96-164 (Department of Energy National Security and Military Acplications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1550). An alternative basis for exemption from NRC licensing is that the facility is "usec for ...research and cevelcoment activities," as specified in Sec. 202(4) of tne Energy Reorgani:ation Act, note 3, suora. WIPP is to

" include an experimental facility for conducting experiments en defense wastes, including small volumes of defense high-level waste," such high-level waste to be retrieved and removed prior to facility decommissioning. The R&D exemption applies to those activities with hign-level waste. WIPP would also ce used "for demonstrating the safe disposal of TRU waste" from defense programs. Such TRU waste woulc be disposed of permanently. The "cemonstration" of disposal is not an R&D activity as contemplated by Sec. 202(4). If tne demonstration of TRU discosal were viewed as R&D, 00E might also engage in cemonstration of the disposal of high-level waste as a R&D activity that is exempt from licensing. Such a construction, in the Commission's view, would ce totally unwarranted. For further information, refer to the Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP): Recorc of Cecision, 46 Fed. Reg.9162, Jan. 28,1981 (setting out the purposes of tne WIPP facility) and Nuclear Waste and Facility Siting policy: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Energy anc Natural Resources, 96tn Cong., 1st Sess.115 (written NRC response to committee question on licensing tne WIPP facility).

21 Enclosure A y - ,

7590-01 There might still be a cuestion, however, whether a decision to classify TRU as a form of HLW uncer the Waste Policy Act would rencer a facility for '

disposal of such waste -- e.g., WIPP -- sucject to NRC jurisdiction. There is no indication that Congress hac any such intent; and the express provision" that nothing in the Waste Policy Act shall be construec to amend or otherwise cetract from the licensing recuirements of the NRC as establishec in the Energy Reorgani:ation Ac't lends weight to the view that NRC's jurisdiction over 00E i

facilities would not be affected by defining TRU as HLW under the Waste Policy Act.

J The inclusion of additional fission product-containing wastes in the . scope of HLW as defined under Clause (3) authority could also raise issues concerning , i NRC's licensing jurisdiction. This would not be a problem if such wastes were

\

cisposed of in a geologic repository that was already licensable because of the '

j presence of Clause (A) high-level wastes. If entirely different facilities were neecec, however, the issue of NRC jurisdiction would have to be addressed.

J I S. Discosal of waste cenerated by materials licensees. The NWPA estaolished a Nuclear Waste Fund composed of payments made by the generators and owrjers of "hign-level radioactive waste" (including spent fuel) that will

-f i ensure that the costs of disposal will be borne by the persons responsible for

} generating suen waste. The Nuclear Waste Fund is to be funded with moneys 1

obtained pursuant to contracts entered into between the Secretary of Energy and <

persons who generate or hold title to high-level radioactive waste.

1 The statute accresses the particulars of contracts witn respect to spent

} nuclear fuel and solicified high-level radioactive waste cerived from scent I nuclear fuel used to generate electricity in a civilian nuclear power reactor, f It further limits the authority of the Commission to issue or renew licenses h for utilization anc creduction facilities -- f.e., for present purposes,

! nuclear reactors anc reprocessing plants -- unless the persons using such ,

facilities have enterec into contracts with the Secretary of Energy.

I "Sec.114( f), Pub. L.97-425, 42 U.S.C.10134( f).

L ,

s I  !

1 l

22 Enclosure A l

A

7590-01 The absence of any reference to materials licensees (e.g., fuel fabri-cators, some research laboratories) suggests that tne Nuclear Waste .:unc was not'intencec to aoply to neir activities. As a result, there couic be a cuestion if the Commission were to define materials licensees' waste as high-level waste. Decause tne waste mignt thereoy Secome ineligible for disposal in a repository. The reason is that the law prohibits disposal of HLW in a repository unless sucn waste was covered by a contract entered into by June 30,1933 (or the cate the generator or owner commences generation of or takes title to the waste, if later). No contracts have been enterec into with materials licensees who are not also facility licensees. Thus, it can be argued that the Commission should refrain from designating highly radioactive ~

materials generated by materials licensees as HLW under Clause (B).

The Commission does not consicer such an aporoach to be viable. The Commission consicers that the intent of this provision of the Waste Policy Act is to icentify those wastes that COE must consider in clanning its program to discose of HLW. The statutory language refers solely to considerations relating to "cermanent isolation," and the character of tne licensee generating or owning the waste is simply not relevant. If there are good reasons to treat tnat waste from materials licensees as HLW, the Commission regards it as likely -

that any statutory impediment to the acceptance of such waste at a geologic re;ository could be modified.

C. Conficence recardino discosal cacacity for cower reactors. The availacility of waste disposal facilities for wastes generated at commercial power reactors has been the sucject of controversy and litigation. The NWPA addresses these concerns by establishing a Federal responsibility to provide for the construction anc operation of a geologic recository, leaving uncefined (i.e., to tne discretion of the Commission) tne classes of materials that recuire permanent isolation in such a facility. Whatever materials they may be, however, they must be transferred to COE for disposal;

'Tne Nuclear aaste Fund is governed by Sec. 302, Pub. L.97-425, 42 U.S.C.

10222. The orc 71bition of disposal of HLW not covered by timely contracts is set out in Sec. 302(b)(2).

23 Enclosure A

. . -l 7590-01 and the persons responsible for generating the waste must enter into contracts with DCE whien provide for payment of fees sufficient to offset COE's costs of disposal. Existing facility licensees were required to enter into suen Contracts by June 30, 1983.

The Commission celieves na ne purposes of the NWPA can ces ce ac:0molished if all ne hignly racicactive wastes generated by facility licensees (reactors and reprocessing plants) whicn require permanent isolation are coverec by waste disposal contracts with COE. This would assure that CCE can anc will accept possession of sucn wastes when necessary. Further, in the absence of sucn assurance, the basis for Commission conficence that these wastes will be safely stored and disposed cf would be subject to question even -

~

if concerns acout the disposal of :ne licensees' scent nuclear fuel had been 1 aid to rest. Accordingly, if there are any hignly radiotetive materials (other than : nose previously regarded as HLW) tnat are generated by facility licensees and nat recuire permanent isolation, the Commission believes that, for ourposes of the NWPA they snould be regarded as "high-level waste." The Commission has reviewec tne terms of DOC's standard waste discosal contract and celieves that classifying such acditional materials as HLW would require no changes to the contract terms.

O. Imolications with rescect to discosal methocs. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Commission is authorized to establish such standarcs to govern the oossession of licensed nuclear materials as it may ceem necessary or cesiracle to orotect health.2' Uncer nis authority, the Commission may classify materials according to tneir ha:ards and may prescribe recuirements for the long-term management or discosal thereof. It is not necessary to label materials as HLW under the NWPA in order to require their discosal in a geologic repository or otner suitably cermanent facility.

The Commission exercised this autnority with respect to concentrated reprocessing wastes by specifying, in Aopendix F to 10 CFR Part 50, that any 2'Sec. 161c., Duo.L.83-703, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b).

24 Enclosure A i

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ . . , -- , _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _4 ,,,. . _____,,

7590-01 such wastes generated at licensed facilities are to be transferred to a Federal repository fo? ciscosal. More recently, the C:mmission classifiec certain low-level wastes as being generally acceptable for near-surface disposal.10 CFR Part 61. On the basis of further consiceration, the Commission could specify appropriate discosal means for wastes exhibiting racionuclide concentrations greater than tnose cefinec in Part 61. Thus, the Commission need not exercise NWPA Clause (3) authority in order to assure that radioactive wastes from licensed activities are disposed of properly. Moreover, the icentification of material as HLW under Clause (S) would not by itself mandate that such material must be disposed of in a geologic repository. Such modification of the meaning of HLW would have no impact on the Commission's -

ability to accrove or specify appropriate means of disposal for wastes generated by NRC licensees.

E. Relatiensnio to State ole. The Low-Level Racioactive Waste Policy Act, Pub. L.96-573, 42 U.S.C. 2021b. , enacted in 1980, defines a State re::en:ibility to provide, pursuant to regional compacts, for the disposal of

" low-level radioactive waste" (LLW)*1 Such waste is defined to mean "racicactive waste not classified as.high-level radioactive waste, transuranic .

waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as definec in Section 11.e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954."

One way in wnich the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act could be intercreted is to construe its reference to hign-level waste to mean the same thing as it does in the Energy Reorganization Act -- i.e., the reprocessing streams described in Appencix F to 10 CFR Part 50. But this could place on the States a resconsibility for the management of all other highly radioactive materials, simply because they were generated in operations other than rec roces sing . The Commission does not believe that was intenoec. Ratner, it was left to the Ccemission to classify wastes, where appropriate, as HLW --

2' States are not resconsible for disposal of LLW from atomic energy defense activities or Feceral research and development activities.

25 Enclosure A

, - - - - - , -- ,- - - - - - ~ - - - -n

~

o .

7590-01 with the result that their management would Oe a Federal responsibility.28 The Commission has not heretofore proviced guicance on the :riteria it would use in making sucn classifications.

Uncer ne 1980 statute, the material in question will be regarcec as low-level if "not classiffec as" HLW. Cne means of classification is by rule.

Uncuestionably, wastes wnien are defined to be HLW uncer Clause (B) of tne NWPA woulc thereoy be classifiec as HLW and would hence not fall within the scope of State responsibility uncer the Low-Level Racioactive Waste Policy Act. But material coula also be "classifiec" as HLW for purposes of the latter law on a case-ty-case basis. It woulc be regarced as HLW even though it falls within neither Clause (A) nor Clause (3) of the NWPA definition. -.

The options suggested in Section IV of this ANPR would classify additional radioactive materials as HLW by rule. Two of the cotions would not eliminate all cuestions regarding the classification of waste materials -- Out Oy categorizing some additional materials as HLW uncer Clause (3) of the NWPA cefinition, tne Commission would sucstantially reduce the range of uncertainty.

"In Decemoer 1980, Congress took uo comorenensive nuclear waste legislation (5.2139), eventually passing a truncated version as the Low-Level Radio- -

active Waste Policy Act. The bill as introduced made provision, among other things, for the disposal of hign-level radioactive waste in repositories.-

"Hign-level racioactive waste" was defined to include material other than reprocessing sastes "as the Commission designates as hign-level radioactive waste for pur;oses of protecting the public nealth and safety." When the HLW orovisions were removed from the legislation, so too was the definition of "high-level radioactive waste." A presumably unintended consequence was tnat the definition of " low-level radioactive waste" was mace less clear -

since it referred to HLW, yet tnat term was no longer definec. Before the amencment, materials whien the Commission found to be particularly hazardous would be high-level waste and not sucject to State responsibility. The Ourcose of tne amencment nad nothir. ' to co with this. Botn oefore and after the amencment, it is reasonacle to view Congress as having intended to exclude from State responsibility those materials which the Commission might designate as HLW for ourposes of protecting Oublic health and safety.

See 128 Cong. Rec. 516539-46 and H12494-97 (caily ecs. Cec. 13, 1980).

26 Enclosure A

._. ._. _ _ . - . . . . . _ _ = _ _ .__ _ _. .__

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

7590-01 The Commission antictDates that if Clause (B) were implemented in this way, the  ;

, principal concerns woulc have teen addressec; it would be unlikely that case-by-case determinations woulc result in large accitional volumes of radicactive wastes becoming tne resconsibility of the States contrary to tneir expectations. If further exoerience provides a technical basis, along with a i

demonstrated need, to breacen the scope of materials to be classified as HLW under Clause (2), this could of course be done at any time.

i F. Imoact on existino technical criteria. NRC's regulations in Part 60 '

include tecnnical criteria to be applied in licensing 00E's receipt and possession of source, soecial nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic -

recository. The regulations would accommodate the disposal of any radioactive materials, inclucing scent fuel, reprocessing wastes, or any other materials

wnich could be discosec of in accordance with the specified performance cojectives.

l Materials categori:ec as high-level waste are subject to a containment

requirement ($ 60,113(a)(1)(1)(A)) and to specified waste package cesign

) criteria and waste form criteria (S 60.135 (a-c)). However, the rule I

1 explicitly provices that design criteria for waste types other than HLW will be -

l addressed on an individual basis if and wnen they are oroposed for disposal in i a geologic reocsitory. S 60,135(d).

The criteria that have been established apoly to wastes characterized by

• the presence of fission products generating substantial amounts of heat at tha

time of emolacement, but with much reduced heat generation after cecades or a l few centuries.88 i If additional materials were to be designated as high-level waste, the  ;

I Commission would need to consider whether the existing repository design l criteria are appropriate with respect to such materials. '

t

! "Ine Commission's exoectation that HLW would generate significant amounts of neat is reflected in the discussion of TRU in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 46 Fed. Reg. 35284 Reduction of the heat load, for example '

by removal of cesium-137 and strontium-90, could result in different j containment requirements. 48 Fed. Reg. 28196. '

i i

3 i

27 Enclosure A' i b

. 'l I ___. _ _ _ . - . .-

7590-01 G. Acolicability of HLW cefinition to naturally-occurrino ard accelerator-crocuced radioactive materials. Clause (3) of tne % PA provides i

nat the Commission may extenc tre cefinition of tne term "hign-level I racioactive ,,aste" to incit.ce material requiring permanent isolation only where l this is " consistent witn existing law." The applicable existing law is the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, uncer wnich the Commission nas authority to regulate the possession and use of " source material," "special nuclear material," and "by product material ." There are other radioactive materials, however:

naturally-occurring radioistopes, sucn as radium, and accelerator-produced radionuclices. These are not covered by the Atomic Energy Act and hence there would be no statutory basis, consistent with existing law, for the Commission -

to recuire that they be disposec of in accordance with Commission regulations.

l Furthermore, the legal authority for CCE to accept sucn wastes for discosal at l a geologic repository mignt recuire legislative clarification.

l Nevertheless, as already noted, 10 CFR Part 60 contemplates tnat "other

) radioactive materials other than HLW" (as currently defined in Part 60) may be receivec for emplacement in a geologic repository. Furtnermore, Dart 60 I

contains certain requirements uplicable to HLW, but not applicable to other I

wastes wnien mignt be emolaced in a geologic repository. Part 60 provides that -

packaging requirements for other wastes that are disposed of in a licensed repository would be determined on a case-by-case basis <vhen these wastes are crocosec for disposal. If the Commission snould find, based on technical consicerations, that certain naturally-occurring or accelerator procuced radioactive waste materials present ha:ards similar to licensed materials that are cefined as hign-level waste and that would require permanent isolation to be cisposed of safely, Part 60 would allow these wastes to be disposed of in a licensed repository and the Commission could imoose such packaging or other requirements as appropriate to protect public healtn.

IV. Acoroaches to Exercise of Clause (3) Autnority.

The Commission has identified five options for carrying out a rulemaking to cefine HLW. All options include provisions for classification of wastes according to tne isolation capacilities of discosal facilities (as cescribed in  !

1 Enclosure A i

29

7590-01 1

l 3ection II), but differ in the timing of sucn analyses and in the treatment of wastes not classifiec as HLW.

[ Infornation aceut ciscosal facility cesigns and waste characteristics is currently incomplete, and develocment and analysis of sucn information may require a significant length of time. Thus, there is a question regarcing the timing of waste classification analyses in a rulemaking action to define HLW." ,

Cotions are discussed below wnich would comolete all waste classification analyses before proposing a definition of HLW, as well as otner options to

proceed with a rulemaking basec on an initial operating definition, with provisions for reclassification of wastes as additional information becomes 1

available. ~

Another question would also remain regarcing the classification of wastes wnien are found not to be HLW. Uncer existing legislation, all " radioactive i

waste not classified as hign-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent I nuclear fuel or [ mill tailings]" is considered to be low-level waste, and the j States would be resconsible for oroviding disposal capacity for such wastes.

However, some non-HLW materials may nave radionuclide concentrations or other

characteristics significantly different from materials which have traditionally been consicered to be low-level wastes. Therefore, the Commission is .

considering options to establish a new " intermediate" class of wastes which j mignt include wastes suitable for disposal in the " greater confinement i

facilities" cescribed in Section II of this ANPR. Such a waste class might also incluce some long-lived wastes (e.g., some transuranic-contaminated '

wastes) which might recuire permanent isolation even though they are not highly radioactive. Acditional legislation would be envisaged to confirm any ,

i

" intermediate" waste designation by the NRC, to assign government i resconsibility (State or Federal) for providing disposal capacity for such wastes, anc to determine NRC licensing authority, if any, with respect to such j disposal facilities for " intermediate" wastes, i

i .

i t

" The Commission does not intend to specify the discosal technologies (e.g., deep geologic reoositories, near-surface discosal facilities)  !'

1 to ce usec for any particular type of waste. The Commission's current .

I regulations (10 CFR Parts 60 and 61) do not require use of any particular l eeans of cisposal, and tha Commission continues to const'cer it inaavisable to imoose sucn requirements -- in part to accommocate possible develcoment

of different disposal technologies in the future.

29 Enclosure A l

l l .,, . . . . . - - __. . . .. ,

7590-01 A. Cotion A--Cefine KLW by analysis of discosal technolecies. Cne option for defining HLW would continue tne Commission's on going analyses of the containment capacilities of various types of greater confinement ciscosal facilities (e.g. , nignly-engineered near-surface facilities) to determine by rule tne waste types anc concentrations wnich could ce safely disposec of in them. These analyses would be carriec out as cescribed in Section II of this acvance notice. All wastes found to require deep geologic disposal would be classified as HLW. Cther wastes with concentrations exceeding the current Class C limits would continue to be classified as low-level wastes, anc the States woulc be responsible for providing facilities for their disposal.

Tne primary acvantage of Cption A is that it would comprehensively and -

unamoiguously classify all wastes with concentrations exceeding the current Class C limits based on the ha:ards of the w stes anc the isolation caoacilities of disposal facilities.

, A disacvantage of this action is the current uncertainty regarding the characteristics of above Class C wastes (especially those generated by CCE) and tne aste isolation capabilities of greater confinement facilities. This option woulc therefore require greater time to implement than some of the other options discussed below. Furthermore, the total volume of wastes with -

a concentrations exceeding tne Class C limits is expected to be relatively small,

) even for the entire nation. The economic costs of ceveloping facilities on a State or regional casis might be significantly higher than the cost of develocing one or a few national disposal facilities. Such higher costs could contribute to a reluctance of the States to provide cisposal caoacity for above Class C wastes, with the result that no such facilities would be made available in a timely fashion.

3. Cotton 3--Cefine HLW by analocy with existing HLW. A more timely option would examine the concentrations anc radiological characteristics of existing hign-level wastes (reprocessing wastes and spent fuel) in order to estimate tne ha:ards posed by these wastes. Any acove Class C wastes with similar concentrations and radiological characteristics would then also be classified by rule as HLW. Remaining wastes with concentrations acove Class C would be classified on a case-by-case basis in the future (using analyses 30 Enclosure A

7590-01 similar to tnose contemplated under Option A) as better information is develo ed regarding waste characteristics and tne isolation capabilities of greater confinement systems.25 These analyses coulc accress limited classes of wastes, sucy as activatec metals. In accition to incividual waste items.

,,. Althougn the exact values representative of reprocessing wastes wnich would serve as a definition of HLW requiring permanent isolation would need to s -ce refined, a preliminary staff analysis ** indicates that certain reprocessing

~

stream waste materials can be enaracteri:ed as exhibiting radionuclide concentrations as specified in Table 2.

e N

t 1

l e I a

- ~

3'These analyses would be conducted as a rulemaking or using other procedural means to solicit the views of tne States and other interested parties.

8'NUREG-0046, An Evaluation of Radionuclide Concentrations in High-Level Racicactive Waste, 1985. Copies are available on request.

31 Enclosure A

/ ' ,

F

7590-01 TABLE 2.

Radionuclide Concentratiens2 '

Recuirine Permanent Isolation Sr-90 210,000 C1/m3 Cs-137 138,000 Cf/m3 Alpna-emitting TRU, Half-life > 5 yrs 3,000 nCi/gm Pu-241 105,000 nCt/gm --

Uncer this option, wastes would be classified as HLW under the NWPA and would be required to be discosed of by the Federal government if radionuclice concentrations exceeded the specified values. There would be an exception for small quantities of radioactivity, and appropriate levels for such exceotions would have to be determined.

The Ccmmission woulc retain its authority, uncomoromised, to identify on a

. case-cy-case basis other wastes requiring permanent isolation (wnichever way -

this term may be interpreted). Thus, public health and safety would not be placec at risk, since discosal of above Class C waste material (having concentrations exceeding nose specified in Part 61 but below those in the table) or small quantities of highly radioactive material would be sucject to incividualized NRC review, wnich would lead to a cetermination as to the appropriate waste classification.

27 Concentrations woulc be subject to averaging over the volume of the vaste ,

but no credit woulc be allowed for dilution unless such dilution was recuired because of other technical considerations. For materials contain-ing a mixture of listec racionuclides, the sum of the fractions rule would apply, as under 10 CFR 561.55(a)(7).

32 Enclosure A

= _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . .__

7590-01 The major advantage of this cotion is that some of the current uncertainty regarding waste classification could be recucec in a timely way by development of a cefinition classifying as HLW a portion of ne wastes now in question.

Ecth waste generators and discosal facility operators could oegin to clan appropriately for disposai of : nose above Class C wastes wnich would initially be cefined as HLW under this cotion. This option would also allow maximum flexibility to determine acpropriate classifications and disposal modes for above Class C wastes as these wastes and potential disposal facilities are more noroughly characteri:ed in the future.

A major disadvantage would be the remaining uncertainty faced by both waste generators and disposal facility coerators regarding the classifications -

of wastes not defined as HLW in the initial analysis. Planning for disposal of these wastes woulc likely be deferred until the wastes are classified on a case-by-case basis. A second Oisadvantage of tnis option would be the initial lack of correlation between waste characteristics and the isolation cacabilities of cisposal systems, although subsequent case-by-case classifications would be based on disposal system performance. A third cisadvantage might be a reluctance of the States to cevelop disposal facilities for above Class C wastes, as discussed under Option A above. .

C. Oction C--Lefine HLW with reference to Class C. This option would initially c' fine e oy rule as HLW all wastes with radionuclide concentrations exceeding the NRC's current Class C limits (i.e., all wastes currently jucgec unsuitaole for routine near-surface cisposal under Part 61). If this option were adopted by the Commission, it is expected that the Federal government woulc ce responsible for providing available disposal capacity. No particular means of disposal would be required, and 00E (if authorized by subsequent legislation) could apply for an NRC license to dispose of wastes by means other than emolacement in a deep geologic recository where appropriate. 00E would presumably be autneri:ed to levy disposal charges wnich would reflect the actual costs of disposal in facilities other than a deep geologic repository.

The Commission anticipates that a provision would be included to allow 33 Enclosure A

7590-01 case-by-case exceptions to the definition of HLW for particular wastes, or classes of wastes, found later to te suitaole for near-surface cisposal.2' The major acvantages of inis cotion are its timeliness and its tecnnically conservative approach. This option would largely eliminate uncertainty regarding the level of government (State or Feceral) responsible for provicing available disposal capacity for all wastes, and the NRC anticipates that fewer case-cy-case analyses for exceptions to the initial definition ould w be recuired for this option than for Option S. Thus, both waste generators and the coerators of disposal facilities could plan appropriately for disposal of wastes, and facilities suitable for acceptance of all classes of wastes could be made available in a timely manner. The Commission anticipates that adoption -

of this option would remove a potential barrier -- i.e., uncertainty regarding waste classification - which mignt inhibit State development of regional compacts for ciscosal of low-level wastes.

The major disadvantage of this option is its decarture from past use of tne term "hign-level waste" to refer only to the most hazardous class of wastes. The Commission currently considers wastes suitable for land disposal, including discosal by greater confinement concepts, to be low-level radioactive wastes (see 10 CFR Section 61.7(a)),.and tnere is no indication that either the -

Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was intended to alter the Commission's classifications. Thus, in addition to being inconsistent with cast practice, Option C could prove inconsistent with Congressional intent as emoodied in the LLRWPA and NWPA. Moreover, such classification mign: result in wastes ceing disposed of in facilities more secure than required and, as a result, the costs of disposal of wastes exceeding the Class C concentration limits could be significantly increased.

2'Procosals for exceptions would be evaluated as a rulemaking or using other procedural means to solicit the views of the States and other interested parties.

3A Enclosure A

7590-01

0. Cotion D--Cefine both HLW and "intermeciate" classes of wastes by analysis of discosal technolacies. This 00 tion would classify wastes based on an evaluation of the containment capacilities of various types of discosal systems anc thus woule :e icentical to Cotton A with one exception: a new "intermeciate" class of wastes woula ce establisnec consisting of wastes with concentrations exceecing the current Class C limits, but which are found not to be highly radioactive or which do not require permanent isolation. Such wastes might include some or all fission product or activation procuct wastes with concentrations above the current Class C limits as well as transuranic-contaminated wastes with concentrations exceeding 100 nCi/gm. As discussed previously, additional legislation would probably be required to -

confirm any "intermeciate" waste cesignation by tne NRC, to assign government responsibility (State or Federal) for providing disposal capacity for such wastes, and to determine NRC licensing authority, if any, with respect to disposal facilities for " intermediate" wastes.

The major advantage of this cotion is tnat it would produce the best correlation ce: ween waste classifications and ciscosal facility capabilities.

As discussed in Section II, there are a numcer of discosal facility concepts currently under development, both in the U. S. and in other countries, which _

would provide greater waste isolation than snallow land burial facilities, but with lower economic costs than a ceep geologic repository. An " intermediate" waste classification mignt encourage development of such concepts, thereoy oroviding tne most approcriate balance of waste isolation and cost of cisposa!.

A disacvantage of this option is the cur-ent uncertainty regarding the enaracteristics of above Class C wastes (especially those generated by COE) and the waste isolation capacilities of disposal concepts wnich are still under develcoment. This option will therefore require greater time to imolement than some of the other cotions.

Another disadvantage of this option is that successful imolementation would probably require acditional legislation. In carticular, planning for disposal of " intermediate" wastes would likely not begin until government responsibility (State or Federal) for providing disposal capacity would be assigned through new legislation. However, it should be noted that on February 7, 1985 Rep. Morris K. Udall introduced H. R. 1033, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amencments Act, which would resolve some of the issues (especially 35 Enclosure A

_ . . - ~ . _ _ _ _ _

7590-01 i

government resconsibility for discosal of above Class C wastes) relatec to this cotion.

E. Cotion E--Cefine both HLW anc "into-mediate" classes of wastes by analocy with existino HLW. This cotion would cevelop an initial operating cefinition of HLW casec on an examination of the radionuclice concentrations anc radiological characteristics of existing HLW, anc would therefore be identical to Cotton 3 except that wastes with concentrations below those of existing HLW (but above Class C limits) would initially be defined as

" intermediate" wastes. Wastes initially classified as " intermediate" wastes, but with concentrations approaching those of existing HLW, could be --

reclassified on a case-by-case basis in the future as better information is cevelooed regarding waste characteristics and cisposal facility performance.

Case-cy-case analyses would be corcucted as a rulema(ing or using other procedural means to solicit the views of the States and other interested carties.

This oction coccines the advantages of timeliness in recucing current uncertainties regarding waste classification with the acvantages of an

" intermediate" waste classification ciscussed above for Option D. Both waste .

generators and disposal facility operators could begin to plan appropriately for ciscosal of those acove Class C wastes which would initially be cefined as HLW uncer this action. This cotion would also allow maximum flexibility to determine accrocriate classifications and disposal modes for acove Class C

.astes as these wastes and potential discosal facilities are more enerougnly enaracteri:ec in the future.

The major disadvantage of this option is the need for new legislation as discussed acove for Option 0, especially to assign government responsibility to provice discosal cacacity for " intermediate" wastes.

F. Cur-ent NRC Drocrams The NRC currently has studies underway to examine the sources, volumes and characteristics of above Class C wastes as well as the isolation capabilities of waste disposal facilities more secure tnan trench burial. The Commission intends to continue these studies to provide the technical basis to cursue 36 Enclosure A

, _ _ _ - . _ __w _ _ , - , . - , _ - _y ,_ -- --__~_, - . _ _ .p .__ p. p.,--_ . _ _ _ _ . ,

7590-01 Cptions A or 0, or to conduct the case-by-case waste classifications contemplated uncer Options 3 C or E.

ShouldtneC:mmission[cecicetoproceecwitnCptions5or5,tnestaff analysis reported in NUREG-0946 would be upcated anc refined to serve as the tecnnical casis for an initial cefinition of HLW. Since the Commission has previously comoleted the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking which developed the Class C concentration limits, little adcitional technical preparation would be needed to pursue Option C.

Thus, the Coi.t. mission believes that it currently has the technical preparations underway which would allow it to adopt any of the options i

presented in this advance notice. __

1 37 Enclosure A t

A -

7590-01 IV. Issues on Which Public Comments Are Particularly Soucht The Commission invites comments on all the issues identified in nis notice anc any other issues that commenters might icentify. However, comments (with succortive rationale) in resconse to the following questions sculd be particularly nelpful.

1.a. Can Clause (A) of the NWPA cefinition of HLW reasonably be construed to be equivalent to the definition already contained in 10 CFR Part 60 (excluding tne reference therein to spent fuel)?

b. If such a construction is not appropriate, why not? -

c. If Clause (A) is ecuivalent to the 10 CFR Part 60 definition, would it be desirable to adopt the new statutory language and, if so, how should

" sufficient" concentration be explainec?

2.a. a re tnere any additional radioactive materials (otner tnan irradiated reactor fuel) generated by facility licensees tnat should be classified as HLW for purposes of the NWPA, pursuant to Clause (B), so as to assure that they will be covered by waste disposal contracts with COE7 .

b. If there are such materials, how may they be identified in terms of the " highly racicactive" and " permanent isolation" criteria addressed in

ssue 3, below?

c. Would it ce appropriate, and consistent with ne NhPA, to limit the acclication of Clause (9) to materials generated by facility licensees?

c. What cifficulties (legal, administrative, financial, or other) would an exoanced definition of HLW cause in implenenting the provisions of the NWPA?

3.a. Wnat is an appropriate interpretation of the phrase " highly racicactive" in Clause (B)? Should this phrase be defined in terms of quantities and concentrations of radionuclides without regard to half-life?

How snould such quantities and concentrations be selected? Should certain hignly radioactive materials in small quantities, such as certain sealed sources, be considered " highly racioactive" for purposes of classification as HLW uncer the NWPA?

I 38 Enclosure A

c.

7590-01

b. Should the phrase "recuires permanent isolation" in the NWPA be interpreted as recuiring isolation ecuivalent to that proviced oy a ceep geologic repository, or would the alternative interpretation ciscussec in Section II.C. of tnis notice be more accropriate?

4 If NRC were to classify certain TRU wastes as HLW uncer tne NWPA, what would be the implications for COE, particularly as regards the WIPP facility?

5.a. Would it be desiracle for the Commission to identify a class of licensed materials which must te disposed of in a geologic repository, or ..

equivalent?

b. If so, what criteria should the Commission emoloy in defining this class?

c. Wnat specific values, or other defining terms, should the Commission prescribe?

c. Should materials within this class be treated as HLW for purposes of tne NWPA?

e. If such materials are classified as HLW, how could materials licensees be able to arrange lawfully for the disposal thereof?

6.a. Is it accropriate and cesirsole to proceed with a waste classification system which allows a category of wastes to be considered on a case-cy-case basis, or sr% ic cne Cuemission insteac cevelop a system wnich rigorously icentifies each potential waste stream as either low-level or hign-level waste (with respect to State or Federal responsibility for disposal)?

b. If a provision for case-by-case evaluation is included in a modified definition of HLW, what criteria and procecures should be used to determine the acercoriate means of disposal for specific types of wastes?

c. For purposes of the Low-level Racioactive Waste Policy Act, must all wastes requiring permanent isolation be regarded as HLW, whether or not so classified by rule? Or, must materials be classified as HLW by rule pursuant .

to Clause (3) of the NWPA definition, instead of being evaluated by the 39 Enclosure A

. . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . .

1 -

7590-01

.)

! Commission on a case-by-case basis, in order to fall outside the scope of State rescensibility?

7. Shculd the Ccmmission estaclish an "intermeciate" waste classif' cation, as suggested in Cotions 0 anc E, an: seek accrocriate i

legislation to accommecate sucn a classification? What acvantages anc disacvantages would result from such a classification?

8. Are there other issues which the Commission snould consider in developing approaches to implementing Clause (3) authority; in carticular, with respect to the approacn discussed at scme length in NUREG-09467 e

3 l m

I 40 Enclosure A

-l 7590-01 '

APPEN0!X A It appears to tne Commission that tne term "hign-level waste," witnin tne meaning of Clause (A) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, (NWPA), is equivalent to the historic usage of the term in NRC regulations. This suoplemental discussion explains the basis for this view.

It is clear, in the first place, that the principal licuid process streams from a enemical reprocessing plant are high-level radioactive waste uncer either the Part 60 definition or that in Clause (A) of the NWPA. Under the -

former, they are cescribed as the wastes from extraction cycles; under the latter, they are cescribed as the liquid waste "producea cirectly in recrecessing." The Commission perceives no difference between ne two. The pnrase "procucec cirectly in recrocessing" originated in the West Valley Act; it relates to the licuic materials remaining after comoletion of the extraction cycles in the reprocessing plant. Since Congress unoerstood ne term nign-level radioactive waste in the West Valley Act to refer to the liquid matgrials covered by Appendix F, it is reasonable to infer the same meaning for purposes of the NVPA.

The differences, if any, between the more recent statutory defint !:,n and prior ones would pertain to ne solics produced in reprocessing. Appen-dix F and ? art 60 now include within the definition of nign-level wastes the solids "into wnich sucn liquic wastes have Deen convertec"; and tnis is equivalent to

" cry solid material derived from such liquid waste," wnicn is the corresponding expression in :ne West Valley Act. A similar phrase ("any solid material into wnien such liquid waste is mace") appears in Senate and House bills in 1981 and early 1982. Later bills woulc have included such solics only if they contained 41 Enclosure A

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

o .

7590-01 fission products and trans uranic waste in concentrations determined to recuire permanent isolation.8' As acoctec, Clause (A) of the NWPA retains one :encept inat nign-level radioactive waste incluces solid material containing fission products "in sufficient concentrations." The cuestion is whetner there neecs to be scme numerical interpretation of this term or whether prior cefinitions already import appropriate quantitative factors.

The NWPA provides no explicit guidance with respect to the concentrations that would be " sufficient" for solid waste derivatives to be considered HLW.

In view of the Objectives of the statute, however, the Commission believes that such materials should be regarded as HLW f f they recuire permanent isolation, _.

as in a geologic repository developed in accordance with the law. But this view of Clause (A) of the NWPA definition is identical to that which underlies the earlier usage in Part 50 Accencix F and Part 60." The Commission finds no material difference.

Thus, tne NWPA reference to reprocessing wastes appears to be equivalent to the cefinition in Part 60. That would suggest tne desiracility of substituting the new statutory language for the existing regulation.

Ordinarily, this is the course the Commission would follow. The difficulty is _

that the statutory definition is excessively vague. It would characterize as 8'S.1662, as jointly recorted (S. Rept.97-282) by the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and on Environment and Puolic Works on Novemcer 30, 1981, contained tne "any solid material" language. So did H.R. 3809, as reported (H.R. Rept.97-491, Part 1) dy ne House Committee on Interior anc Insular Affairs on April 27, 1982. The concept of con-centrations necessitating permanent isolation first appears in H.R. 3809, as recorted (H.R. Rept.97-491, Part 2) by the House Armed Services Committee on July 16, 1982; this concept was preserved in H.R, 6598, as reported (H.R. Rect.97-785, Part !) by the House Committee on Energy anc Commerce on August 20, 1982.

"In proposing the policy incorporated in 10 CFR Part 50 Accendix F, the Commissien ceclared that the hign-level wastes under consiceration "must be permanently isolatec from man's biological environment." 34 Fed. Reg. 8712, June 3, 1969. This does not necessarily imply shot only a geologic repository could provide such permanent isolation, nor would 10 C.c8 o?*t 60 require a geologic repository be used to provide such permanent isolation.

42 Enclosure A

7590-01 HLW the solid material derived frc= liould waste "tnat contains fission procucts in suf ficient concentrations." The Commission coulc not stco there: somehow it would need to interpret the language so tnat the sufficiency of fission product concentrations would e related either to 1

the source of the waste (e.g., tne concentrated wastes from solvent extraction cycles) or to specific numerical values. It seems to make sense to relate the concept of " sufficient concentrations" to the traditional meaning of HLW and to consider the merits of a numerical approach only in connection with Clause (B) of the definition as discussed in the main text of this ANPR.81 i

1 i

c 3 %astes generatec incicent to the reprocessing operations themselves, or incident to subseouent treatment of HLW, would never have been regarded as HLW. See note 1, suora. Such excluded materials would generally be cnaracteri:ed by low specific radioactivity. In the context of the NWPA, tney could be regarded as materials which do not contain fission ,

products "in sufficent concentrations."

43 Enclosure A ee *

• e-e as-up .es &w&w waemur e** ..ee me e e...

, 7590-01 l-Accencix 9. Wastes Exceecing Class C Concentration Limits For a numoer of years NRC has nac an ongoing program to cevelop regulations anc criteria for discosal of low-level racioactive waste. At tne time tnis program was initiated, tnere was a well cocumented need for comprenensive national standarcs and technical criteria for the disposal of low-level waste. The absence of sufficient tecnnical standards and criteria was seen to oe a major deterrent to the siting of new disposal facilities by states and compacts.

A significant milestone in this program was the promulgation of the regulation --

10 CFR Part 61 (" Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive  !

Waste") on Cecemcer 27, 1982.82 This regulation establishes procedural requirements, institutional anc financial requirements, and overall performance oojectives for land ciscosal of radioactive waste, where 'anc disposal may incluce a numoer of possible discosal methods such as mined cavities, engineerec tunkers, or snallow land burial. This regulation also contains technical criteria (on site suitability, design, operation, closure, and waste form) wnich are applicable to near-surface disposal, which is a subset of.the broader range of land disposal methods. Near-surface disposal is defined as ciscosal in or within the upper 30 meters of the earth's surface, anc may incluce a range of possible techniques such as concrete Dunkers or shallow land burial. The Dart 61 regulation is intended to be performance-oriented rather tnan crescriptive, with the result that the Part 61 tecnnical criteria are written 19 relatively general terms, leaving a need for acditional work in interpreting tnese criteria for various specific near-surface disposal methods.

i

'30.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 61, 70, 73, and 170: Licensing Requirements for Land Discosal of '

Radioactive Waste," 47 Fed. Reg. 57446, Decemcer 27, 1982.

4 44 Enclosure A

7590-01 A waste classification system was also instituted in the regulation whien j establishes three classes of waste suitable for near-surface disposal: Class 1 A, Ciass 3, and Class C. Limiting concentrations for oarticular radionuclices were estaclisned for eacn waste class, witn the hignest limits meing for Class i C. The concentration limits were estaclisned based on NRC's uncerstancing (at the time of the rulemaking) of the volumes and other characteristics of

low-level waste that would be reasonably ex ectec to the year 2000, as well as potential disposal methods.

The Class C concentration limits are acclicable to all potential near-surface disposal systems; however, the calculations performed to establish the limits -

l are cased on postulated use of one near-surface disposal method: shallow land curial. The Class C limits are therefore conservative since there may oe 1 otner near-surface discosal methods that have greater confinement cacability (anc higner costs) : nan snallow land burial.

The regulation states that waste exceeding Clast C concentration limits is

consicered to te "not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal," where this is defined in S 61.55 (a) as " waste for wnich waste form and disposal methccs must ce different, and in general more stringent, than those specified for Class C waste." Thus, waste exceeding Dart 61 concentrations generally has

een excluded from near-surface disposal anc is being held in storage by I

licensees. (This amounts to less than 1*; of the approximately 3,000,000 ft3 of

] commercial low-level waste annually being generated.) Given tne current 1

l acsence of spectfic reouirements for cisposal of waste exceeding Class C oncentration limits, the regulation allows for evaluation of specific j proposals for disposal of sucn waste on a case-by-case basis. The general

! criteria to be used in evaluating specific proposals are the Part 61 cerformance objectives containec in Succart C of the regulation.

Current NRC activities include analyses of low-level waste that exceeds Class C concentration limits to determine the extent to whien alternative near-surface discosal systems (e.g., concrete bunkers, augered holes, deeper disposal) may be suitable for safe discosal of sucn *aste. These analyses include a more detailed enaracteri:ation of pnysical, enemical, and raciological 45 Enclosure A l

1

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

9% 7590-01 characteristics of wastes that may be close to or exceed Class C concentration limits; as ell as cevelcoment of imoroved methods for modeling the

{ racicio;ical anc economic imcacts of disposal of these astes. A relatec activity is cevelooment of more saecific guicance for cesign and coeration of alternative near-surface and ether land disposal systems. These activitics represent a continuation of tne Part 61 rulemaking process as discussed in the

. Decemoer 27, 1982 Federal Register Notice announcing the final Part 61

! regulation.88 l

Wastes exceeding Class C concentrations are projected to be generated by I

nuclear power reactors and other supporting nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and -,

l also generated by radioisotope creduct manufacturers and other facilities and licensees outsice of tne nuclear fuel cycle. Such wastes can be grouped as follows:

I

• Plutonium-contaminatec nuclear fuel cycle wastes

• Activated metals dealec sources ,

Radioisotope product manufacturing wastes

• Other waste plutonium-contaminated ruclear fuel cycle wastes. These wastes are being generated from two princioal sources. One source of waste arises from

, operations suoporting the nuclear fuel cycle -- i.e., post-irradiation radiocnemical anc other performance analyses of spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors (e.g., "burnup" studies). These operations generate about 200 ft3 of clutonium-contaminated waste per year, much of wnich is believed to exceed Class C concentration limits. This waste consists of solidified liquids and

'30.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 61, 70, 73, and 170: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of i Radioactive Waste," 47 Fed. Reg. 57446, Decemoer 27, 1982.

4 f

~

46 nclosure A 4

i ..._. .. .._ .

7590-01 other solid material sucn as scrap, trash, anc contaminated equipment.

Eventual decommissioning of tne three facilities currently performing these analyses is expected to generate accitional waste volumes, a portion of wnf en f is expected to exceed Class C concentration limits.

i The second source of waste arises from fuel cycle licensees wno have previously been authoriced to use plutonium in research and development of advanced

! reactor fuels. None of these licensees is using plutonium now, and there is no l

prospect in the foreseeable future for such activities. In fact, eacn of the i

licensees in this category has either decommissioned, or is in the process of decommissioning its facility. Some of the licensees have made contractual -

arrangements to transfer their decommissioning waste to 00E for retrievable storage. Approximately 5,000 to 10,000 ft3 of waste, however, is projected to l 4

be generatec on a one-time basis that will not be covered by contract.

j Activated metals. Activated metals are typically generated as a result of j long-term neutron bombarement of retals forming ne structure or internal com;onents of a nuclear reactor used for power production, racioisotope I

production, or other purposes (e.g., education, testing, research).

Activated metal wastes are unlike most other wastes being generated in that the i radionuclides form part of the actual metal matrix rather than being mixed with  !

I large volumes of other, nonradioactive material suen as cacer or cloth.

j Radionuclice release is princioally governed by the material corrosion rate.

{ and for most reactor metals of concern (e.g., stainless steel), the corrosion l rate is quite low, i

{

To cate, only a small fraction (about 200 f t3 /yr) of the activated metal wasta currently being generated by nuclear power reactors has been identified as exceeding Class C concentration limits. Such aaste appears to primarily

, consist of in-core instrumentation whicn is no longer serviceable. An examole j of this waste is a reactor flux .vire which is physically small but may be high

. in activity. (A flux wire is a wire that is inserted into a tube running the

, length of the reactor core and used to make neutron flux measurements.) ..

l 1

l k

47 Enclosure A

, p.een emmy,epsee.mee.a.s een - meepe - emmadus se . - - * + * " * "' **

7590-01 Larger quantities of activatec metal wastes are projected to be generated in the future as a part of reactor cec:mnissioning. Studies by NRC " indicate

nat over 99's of ne naste /olume that is projected to result fr:m nuclear power reactor cec:mmissioning will not exceed Class C concentration limits anc

ne 1.'.' that is orojected to exceec these lim :s will be almost all activatec l metals from core structures. Conservative estimates cresented in these studies incicate tnat packaged quantities of cecommissioning wastes exceeding Class C concentration limits will total about 4700 ft3 for a large (1175 MWe) 4 pressuri:ed water reactor (PWR) and about 1660 ft3 for a large (1155 'aMe) boiling water react:r (SWR). Much smaller quantities of wastes exceeding Class C concentration limits may also be generated from future dec:mmissioning of -

test, research, anc ecucation reactors.

I

] An tner source of activatec metal waste is expected to arise as cart of i c:nsolidation of scent fuel assemolies for storage anc/or disposal. Spent fuel

) assemolies now being periodically cisenarged fr:m nuclear power reactors are storec in on-site fuel storage pools. Eacn assemoly is ccmcosed of a large nuecer of fuel rods arranged in a rectangular array, and held in place by spacer grids, tie rods, metal end fittings, and other miscellaneous hardware. .

Cne cotton uncer c:nsideration for long-term waste storage and eventual l discosal is to remove tnis nareware from the fuel rods. This allows the fuel

! rocs, which contain the fission crocucts whien are of primary interest in terms l of geologic re:ository disposal, to me consolidated into a smaller volume.

l This enables more economical storage and easier nandling for transport and l cis=osal. The hareware, which is composed of various types of corresion-resistant metals sucn as Inconel or :ircallcy, bec:mes a second waste 1 stream which c ulc potentially be safely disposed by a less expensive method i

j tnan a geologic repository.

l l

"Murany, ii.5., "Tecnnology, Safety and Costs of Deccmmissioning a Reference Pressuri:ed Water Reactor Power Station: Classification of Dec:mmissioning Wastes," NUREG/CR-0130, Accendum 3 Pacific Northwest Laceratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Septemcer 1984 Mur:ny, E.S., "Tecnnology, Safety and Costs of Ceccmmissioning a Reference Soiling Water Reactor Power Station: C'issification of Cecommissioning

, Wastes," NUREG/CR-0672, Addencum 2, Par..r w Northwest Laboratory for U.S. i Nuclear Regulatory C:mmission, Septemoer 1984

] 48 Enclosure A i

h

7590-01 Based on information from COE" aDout 12 kg of waste harcware would be generated oer SWR fuel assemoly, and about 26 kg cer PWR fuel assemoly.

! Assuming 200 fuel assemoltes are reolaced oer year ::er large (1000 vWe) BWR, 1

rougnly 2400 kg of activatec metal narcware woulc be generated per year oer large BWR, anc acout 1700 kg cer PWR, An approximate comoacted volume is on

ne order of 50 f t3 /yr per large reactor, or acout 4,000 ft3 /yr over the entire nuclear industry. Cepending upon parameters such as the fuel irradiation history and the nardware elemental composition, particular pieces cf separated j hardware may'or may not exceed Class C concentration limits.

4 Other than perhaps a few isolated cases, all of the spent fuel assemblies are -

being stored by licensees with the nareware still attached. Uncer the

r0 visions of tne NWPA, operators of nuclear cower plants have entered into contracts .ith 00E for ac

ectance by COE of the spent fuel for storage anc l eventual disposal. " Acceptance of the spent fuel by COE implies acceptance of the activated nardware along with tne fuel recs, with the result tnat discosal of the harcware would intrinsically be a federal rather than a State responsibility. Disposal responsibility becomes less clear if licensees, ,

seeking more efficient onsite storage, consolidate fuel themselves. ,

Sealed sources. A numcer of discrete sealed sources have been facricated for a variety of medical and industrial apolications, including irradiation devices, moisture and censity gauges, and well-logging gauges. Each source contains I

only one or a limited numcer of radioisotoces. Sealed sources can range in activity from a few millionths of a curie for sources used in home smoke detectors to several thousand curies for sources used in radiotherapy feradiators. Sealed sources are produced in several pnysical forms, including "U.S. Geoartment of Energy, " Scent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, '

?cojections, and Characteristics," COE/RW-0006, Oak Ridge National Lacoratory for Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Septemoer

1984 l

"The terms of the contracts are set forth by the U.S. Cepartment of Energy in

! "10 CFR Part 961: Standard Contract for Disposal of Scent Nuclear Fuel

! and/or Hign-level Radioactive Waste " 48 Fed. Reg. 16590, Aoril 13, 1983.

49 Enclosure A S

i

~

7590-01

+

metal foils, metal spneres, and metal cylinders clamped onto cables. The larger activity sealed sources typically consist of granules of radioactive aterials encapsulatec in a netal sucn as stainless steel.

i l

1 Sealec sources are generally quite small pnysically. Even sources containing

)

saveral curies of activity have physical dimensions which are normally less l than an inen or two in diameter and 6 inches in length. These dimensions are such that, like activated metals, sealed sources may be considered to be a unique form of low-level waste. Characteri:ing sealed sources in terms of

radionuclide concentration certainly appears to'be of less utility than

characteri

ing sealed sources in terms of source activity. -  ;

i  !

Decending upon the acolication, sealed sources may be manufactured using a  !

v:riety of different racioisotopes. A review of the NRC sealec source registry was conducted to identify those source designs wnien may contain racioisotopes

in quantities that mignt exceed Class C concentration limits. The principal

) possibilities accear to ::e those containing cesium-137, plutonium-238,

plutonium-239, and americium-241. Large cesium-137 sources are generally used I

in irradiators, and wnile some large sources can range up to a few thousand O l curies, most wnien are sold appear to contain in the neighborhood of 500 curies. Cesium-137 is a beta / gamma emitter having a half life of 30 years,

wnicn suggests that scecial packaging and disposal technioues can be readily i ceveloced for safe near-surface discosal of sources containing this isotooe.

The remaining three isotoces are alpha emitters and are longer lived. Sources manuf actured using these isotopes ca i range up to a few tens of curies,

} although most that have ceen sold isopear to be much less than one curie in strength. Plutonfum-239 sources a*e not commonly manufacturec. Plutonium-238 l

sources have caen manufactured for use as nuclear batteries for acolications l suen as heart pacemakers. Plutonium-238 has also been used in neutron sources, .

l although neutron sources currently being manufactured generally contain -

j americium-241. Americium-241 is also used in a wide variety of other industrial applications such as fill level gauges. . <

i l

l 50 Enclosure A i

i t

eM e + oun de.e es.gimunne te w e e r- ase ame - - e &+e

• w wom an, he e i

7590-01 Neutron sources pr0 duce neutrons for applications such as reactor startup, well logging, mineral exoloration, anc clinical calcium measurements. These sources contain alona-emitting racionuclices sucn as americium-2c1 plus a target material (generally beryllium) wnich generates neutrons wnen bomcarcac by alsna 3 particles. Neu*ron sources can contain up to approximately 20 curies of activity. ,

it is difficult to project potential waste sealed source quantities and activities, since sealed scurces as vastes are not routinely generated as part

( of licensed operations. In additiot,, sealed sources only become waste wnen a decision is made by a licensee to treat them as such. In many instances --

l Sources held by licensees may be recycled back to the manufacturer when ney are no longer usable, and the radioactive material recovered and facricated into new sources. .inally,  :

source manufacturers are licensed by the NRC and i

NRC Agreement States to manufacture a particular source design up to a soecified radioisotope curie limit. Most actual sources, however, contain 4

activities considerably less than the design limit.

i NRC staff estimates that licensees currently possess approximately 10,000 .

encaosulated sources having activities above a few thousandths of a curie and containing americium-241 or plutonium-238. Given the hypothetical case that all these sources were cancicates for disposal, tne total consolidated source volume would be only aceut 35 ft3 . Af ter packaging for sniement, however, the al cisposed waste volume would be significantly increased. The total I,

activity contained in the sources is estimated to be approximately 70,000 d

curies. 8' l 1  ;

l 3'Pallactno, Nunzio J., letter to tne Honorable Strom Thurmond, United States Senate, Septemcer 13, 1984 l Coleman, Harold, Monsanto Company, letter to G.W. Roles, U.S. Nuclear j Regulatory Commission, Feeruary 22, 1985.

l 1

l 4

51 Enclosure A t

1

+- -- - -

7590-01 Radioisotooe oroduct manufacturine wastes. Wastes exceeding Class C concentration limits are occasienally generated as part of manufacture of

ealec sources, raciconarmaceutical procucts, and otner materials used for 19dustrial, ecucational, and medical apolications. Volumes anc cnaractertstics of sucn wastes are difficult to project. However, it is believed that the majorit" of this waste consists of sealed sources wnien cannot be recycled, plutonium-238 anc americium-241 source manufacturing scrap, and waste contaminated with carbon-14 Sealed sources as a waste form are ciscussec aoove. Manufacture of large plutonium-238 and americium-241 sources is concentrated in only a few -

facilities, from which the generation of waste exceeding Class C concentration Ifmits is believec to total only a few hundred ft2 a year. Approximately 10 ft3 per year of carco9-14 waste is generated as a result of radioorarmaceutical manufacturing.

Otree wastes. Although the above discussed wastes are believed to be the principal wastes that are excected to exceed Class C concentration limits, otner wastes may occasionally also be generated. For example, relatively small quantities of such wastes are currently being generated as part of decontamination of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2, nuclear power plant.

However, tnese wastes are ceing generated as a result of an accicent, are therefore consi. cered abnormal, and are being transferred to 00E under a memorandum of uncerstanding with NRC. Wastes exceeding Class C concentration limits and generated as part of the West Valley Demonstration Project are also being transferred to COE for storage concing disposal.

Sealec sources and other waste containing discrete cuantities of radium-226 may also exceed Class C concentration limits. Procucts containing radium-226 have been manufactured in the cast for a variety of industrial and medical acD11 cations. Such wastes are not regulated by NRC but occasionally have been disposed at licensed low-level waste discosal facilities. NRC is currently investigating the impacts of disposal of such waste in order to provide quicance to States anc other interested parties on safe discosal methods and any concentration limi ations.

t 52 ,

Enclosure A m

. o 7590-01 LIST OF SU2JECTS IN 10 CFR PART 60 i

Hign-Level waste. Nuclear ;cwer plants anc reacters, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Recorting recuirements, Waste treatment anc ciscosal.

AUTHCRITY: The autnerity citation for this cocument is Sec.161, Puo. L.33-703, 68 Stat. 948, as amendec (42 U.S.C. 2201).

Datec at Wasnington, D.C., this cay of , 1985.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission b

1 Samuel J. Chilk l

Secretary of the Ccemission  !

i i 1

a  !

4 1

t l

i

!l

);

1 I

i

}

l I,

i j

53 Enclosure A e

J q ._ . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . <

d a

I t

1 Ef1 CLOSURE B ,

4

/

J i

i 1

1 I  !

I i

A, b

i I

j l

i 1

i I

l I

4 k.

1 i

e

A/V A E & - 0 f t/ O GRAFT AN EVALUAT:CN OF RADIONUCLICE CCNCENTRAT!CNS IN HIGH-LEVEL RADICACTIVE WASTE 5 _.

ntrocuct'an: :t 9as :ong :een recogni:ec *.nat :ertain racicactise matar* sis ar:accec in tre arsntum fuel :)c!e are sufdiciently na:3rcous

• to recuire discosal in 1 manrer nat results in sermanent isolation from tre envir0rment, Inc nese taterials have ceen termed "hign-level radioactive wastes" (HLW). The term 'hign-level radioactive aste is currently cefined aualitatieely and refers to the source (namely, scent fuel and waste from recrocessing coerations), rather nan tne ha:ard of a aste stream. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) recogni:es that

.astes fr0m other sources may aresent ecuivalent na: arcs sna may recuire treatment and discosal f n a similar manner, Thus, un'cer section 2(12)(8) af NWPA, "hign-level radioactive <asta' means not :nly nastes from recrecessing out also "otner nignly a3cioactive material that the Commission, c:nsistent nitn existing law, ceternices ey rule recuires

ermanent isolation."

The surpose of this evaluation is to determine wnetner it is feasible to develop a concentration-cased scoroacn nich could be used as a basis for identifying other hignly radioactive material reduiring permanent isolation. Concentrations are derived from consideration of recresentative waste streams and forms traditionally considered to De HLW.

A taole, based on these :encentrations, is developed identifying the imoortant radionuclides and associated concentrations. Hignly esdioactive matarial containing these radionuclides in similar or higner C' CLOSURE 3

O

• 3 E0/NF/34/06/15/0 2

cancentrations coulc then ce classified is MLW. Sucn an accroacn is attractive as it .ould areserve consistency with the Commission's present definitions of nLW. sucn as set fortn in 10 CFR Part 60.

This evaluation seexs to determine the sooroximate range af ricionuclide l

concentrations .nicn oulc icentify radioactive wastes requiring -

I e permanent isoI3 tion.

3hnuld the Commission deCice that 3 generic  ;

i numerical Oefinition iin terms of radionuclide c:ncentrations) is in '

icor0er4 4te .4y to identify sucn nastes, tne values derived in :nis cater

uld :e used in sucm i efinition. Tney reoresent tne NRC staf *'s tes

urrent estimate of ne toect fic racionuc!ide cancentrations .nicn would ecuire :ermanent isoistion. 'towever, scditional studies may te nee:ec

efore formally proceediqq *ith a numerical definition as a procosed rule in or er to maKe certain tnat the values are low enougn to c30ture most of the wastes that do recuire permanent isolation without including dastes that co not recuire sucn isolation.

i i

l Cur *9nt HLW Oefinitions: The Atomic Energy Commission staff, in its I staf f pacer regarding tne oracosed colicy " Siting of Commercial F'Jel j

tecrocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Fscilities," (ref.1) '

definec nign-level licuid nestes as:

l

"-those which, by virtue of tneir racionuclice concentration, i half-life and Diological significance, require Oerpetual isolation frem the biosphere, even after solidification. The only anticipated sources of sucn wastes in significant cuantities are those aqueous '

wastes resulting from the coerstion of the first cycle solvent extraction system and tne concentrated 4astes from suosequent '

extraction cycles in a f acility for recrocessing f readiated reactor i

fuels."

e 1

1

. _ . - __ _ - _ =

O '

2*00/0JF/84/06/15/0 3

4 In the arocosed Accendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50 tnat was eventually suc11sned in ene Federal Register for comment (34 FR 3712), an acureviated definition aas emoloyed:

"For the purposes of tnis statement of policy, hign-level Ifouid racicactive nastes means those nastes resulting from the operation ~

of the first cycle solvent extraction system and the concentrated

.astas from suosecuent extraction cycles in a facility for reor0Cassing fe"3ciated reactor fueIs."

j This looreviated cef'nftfon, .itn minor cnanges to sooly to ecuivalent

.aste s*. reams fecm liternative reorocassing systems, as incorporated into the final rule ;ocendia F to 10 CFR Part 50 (35 FR 17530), and the term "hign-level radioactive .aste" was subseouently used in 10 CFR dart 50, pertaining to discosal at a geologic repository, to also include l

scent nuclear fuel and solidified hign-level licuid nastes.

The staff pacer gave no indication of'nat range of concentrations, f nalf-lives or ef ological significar,ce the AEC staff considered to require

, cer;etual isolation. However, tre Feder11 Register notice for the final rule referenced AEC :entractor studies that orovided the basis for the l

osts of imolementing the final rule (ref. 2). Inis contractor report

entains calculated inventories of radioactive materials in .vastes from i

recrocessing of commercial lignt .ater reactor sna 11cuid-metal cooled f ast breeder reactor fuels for times uo to 1,000 years after reorocessing. In the report, hign-level .vastes are defined as wastes that contain racionuclides in excess of 106 times their maximum '

ermissible concentrations for ingestion (MPC,) as recommended by the

nternational Commission on Radiological Protection (ref. 3). The contractor study notes that acout five cuoic miles of water nould be recuired to dilute to MPC the fission products present in the waste i

-. ~ . _ _ . . _

l o . ,

t l

i i  :'

E00/0JF/84/06/15/0  ; ,

j 4 ~.

1 octained frem processing one metric ton of fuel that nad been irradiated to an exoosure of 10,000 Mwd (tnermal). The contractor stuay further j

notes tnat tne wastes would contain variante quantities of actinides, '

j notably isotcoes of Pu, Am and Cm, with half-lives and biological toxicities that imoose nacitional restrictions. The contractor study stated tnat fission product separation, dilution or decay would not offer ~ '

{ 3 feasible metnod of managing these wastes.

1 i

j Thus, it is clear tnat sotn c:ncantrations anc curation of na:aro nave I ,

een imcortant consi:erstions in the deveicoment of definitions as to .

.nat constitutes MLW. r l

j i Other Waste Classi'ications: In 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Recuirements  !

l for Land Discosal of Racioactive Waste * (47 FR 57446), the NRC defined -I three classes of radioactive wastes (Classes A, 8 and C) wnich are routinely acceptacle for disposal in shallow land burial facilities.

j Class C .astes reoresent the nignest radionuclide concentrations of the

] :nree classes, and the maximum Class C concentrations,are defined as follows:

i  ;

i I

j r i

i d,

l f . .

I I

j I i I

e l

e-_ __ _ _ _ _.

s i

. r  ;

3100/ 0F'!4MS/15/0 '

7 -

, y o Long-lived nuclidis*

Short-1tved nuclices:

s C-14 ,.3 Cf/m Total all nuclides, C-14 in activatec metal

nalf-iffe < 5 yrs no ifmit 30 Ci/m H-3 4

Ni 59 in activated no limit

! +- /. 3 Co-60 no limit 3 estal ,

220 Cf/m Ni-63 ~

• ~

700 Ci/m L,' Nb-94 metal in activatec, 0.2 Ci/m2 Ni-C3 in activated 3 metal

}' ic-39 '

3.0 Cf/m 3 3r-90 7000 Ci/m3

I-129 ' O.03 Cf/m 7000 Ci/m3 Ca-137 i

• * ,lona emitting TRU, 4600 Cf/m nalf-life > $ yrs 100 nC f /gm

{ ~, > - Pu-241 J500 nCf/cm ,

t Cm-242 20.000nCI/gm ,

When a mixture of radionuclices is present in a waste, a sum-of-the- /*

/

fractions rule is acolf ed for determining now the sixture should be i, classified. .{

[ The Class C definition of Part 61 identifies those waste ca,ncentrations

/.6;cn are routine 1v .accootable for snallow land burial. Part 61 also ocovices for case-cy-case evaluations of .astes witn concentrations .

JAceeafng the Class C limits, and these limits are therefore not

]

accrooriate for defining tne radionuclide concentrations requiring j.-

l permarant isolatfQn..

• j .

t Char 1cterizine the Hazard of HLW: The discussion =hich follows is 4 4rgely drawn from rerscence 4 p <'

i

] As nuclear fuel is irradiated in a nuclear reactor, three types of -

j ~1dioactive products are formed.

Fission products are generated by j .

Mssioning uranium ano aiutonium isotapes and, with a few exceptions, are i

characterized by relatively short half-lives and low radiotoxicity.

{' Actinide's are radionuclides with atomic numoers greater than 88, and reiuit-from non-fission neutron .ibsorptions in uranium, the actintdes l '

i l

! , t

( -

d

)

/

3100/0JF/S4/06/15/0

.g.

typically have longer half-lives and nigner raciotoxicities than the fission products. Small cuantities of additional radionuclices, called activation procucts, are orcouced oy neutron aosorption in the structural materials which support and contain the fuel in a reactor. The activation products make only a minor contribution to the overall radiotoxicity of HLW, and will not be discussed further. ~

Figure 1 cresents tne racioactivity of oressuri:ed water reactor (FWR) scent fuel as a function of time after removal from a reactor, anile Figures 2 and 3 oresent ne same information for tne wastes wnica ould ,

result from recrocessing ne s:ent fuel from tne uranium recycle and mixed oxide fuel cycles, respectively.' (Figures 1-3 are normalized on the b(sts of one metric tonne of heavy metal (MTHM) initially charged to a reactor. ) -

"In the uranium recycle fuel cycle, it has teen assumed that 99.5% of the plutonium in scent fuel is recovered and placed in storage, while the recovered uranium is returned to the fuei cycle. In the mixed oxide fuel cycle, both plutonium and uranium are returned to the fuel cycle.

Ref. 5 discusses acditional assumptions.

1 k

3100/0JF/83/11/15/0 7

~

d

< e.... ,,,,,o ,,,,n, i n , , ,, , ,, , , ,,,,o j \ lllll l llllll l lli l I  !! I l I lillll!

u_

. 'A.

,,,,,,,,u.....i

..e i,,,.

... .. .4., , . . . .

,,,on

. m. .

n , , u , n, , ,,,,ni W - J Udll P%fMi*"I lil I l lll- I -l iIllll: l Iil 11

.. _i

,m ,

, 1 ,,,n w, ,,,,o

. n ni ,,,,,,n, m l i'TifG l lIR \\ lIlllll I llIll llililll i Ilillli 1 N.

,,,,n,

'n..

g , ,. n n ,x , ,1, . .v , ,o,.., , , , , , , , . , , , , , ,

gj l lIll1lll 4 Ilillli li lillllN llllll l llilll' i iIlli 3, _ .- _

x o.

, , n n ,, ,

,1, n

,,"o......x wi . ,,, . ,,,,o is I IIlilli l iI tR II..jllli l Illllll NM ll, Iililli j

, ,, inn.

, s, , , , un , . , , . , ,, , , ,,,,n,,

w m, i.,

I Iillril I ! lilli i Nli!i'l i IlilllF FTihU lfilii

,iion , ,,,o , ,,um 1 .

i i . n,i i i , n on ,i,in i

j iililli i II ll l lillill'i j i mir-HJ.LLilll i l lilli

~,

,,-. ,,,o . - , ni , ,,n ,,,n,.. .

, , ,w

,, I

'll l 1 I II. llllll l ll4

= 4 w

., h. . .  :

-. . .. , . . . . . . .. .r

,ii, ,

,e Iil I il l Ill I! I II: 'l l Ill lIHill .

• w e e *

• e C sy rase F== cW tyne FTC:!RE 1.

PGR SPENT FUEI. -- RADI0 ACTIVITY (Ref. 5) i r

-- - . _ , + - - . . - . . , . , - . . , , , , - . - , _ . - , -

3100/0JF/82/11/15/0 ,

1h _

< i i i n na , i n e n,, isinon i i i e nni , , i n nn , , , o ni

,, M lIlillll I ililllli l Ililllll I llilllll I lIllllli l I llllll

.k .. .

I i i : # elo Na ; i ,, of e , i e i s Ise i l l l l ti,( e , attfgg ( g , i a jos 1 I Ilillll INifi# I IIIllIll l I Ilillll l I llllllI I I Ilil!I

~

, ,....ni . . ......i s , , ,,1,in i,,.,,,,i , , , , . , , , , ,,,,,,,,e

, I i ll!Illi l ililH!! \l lill!!Il I ! i!IIlIl I ! illlill I l llllll s., - .

, s. s . . .

3. i ' ' D:4' s i ' ' t '

• er ' \. ' i * - t ' . i' i *,'on i i i s ein b l ! I 'IW bllll!! II I llllll l !lI!!!ll 'l l lllllll l l llllll 3 103 =immz k "'"8"

                 =                   are                                                                                                                                               ,

3 O si. enters : ,. , g i s . ei . .

                 .            4 i i . t rin               i s.iini N                 ,\_s i n u       , i , e i n.,              , ..ieun                 i.iinu gw l I l llIIII           l lliU'k i E h                                   I ! !!!!!!!                llllllNI                 I l !!llll a

m 7x

                                                                                        ^
                                                                    .i      n        .y.                      .,                                 .                  , ,
                              , , i r i :.i         i i - s i nt           iy           i .wt         .

N , iN  : i i ,i ni i ! l lIlli! I l ll!IIIl l b lYbS.S.as'Il!!l MillMlllIl

                                                                    .,                     .c.
                                                                                                                                                 ,.                      y e i eten              .       : e i . et     P e e inne                     . i i . 'iii         i i : i o n.'          , L L;,. G f
                    ,g        i l illll?           I l i till!l            I lill!Ill TTITimL-LUljl l I ll                                                             lll i iit"y
                                                                                               .                         .            .       . , ,      'Ni.

e e sen i e e n t. e .ett"t i e i s oin i s'ti t u te, I IIlills i lIllill l II!llill l IIlii!! 1Iilliil i lliM -

eeen the sensenere ,servemma me ssese m assmusa i i s t:t t  : : e siity i i 6 sini l "

                    , ,a                                                                                  I l lllil             l l llllU.l              l l ll}lIl 100                 103                    102                      102                      igd                        108                    103 Demer nue Free ciennerw (Yre TICURE 2.             UEANIUM RECTCI.E RD10CZ55tMG
                                                               'JASTE = 1ADICACTIVITY (Ref. 5) 1

l 1 l

           ~

1 4 3100/CJ.F/83/11/15/0 ' i 3 ' ici

                                                          ..,o                               ,m           4    .     .m                  .      .....                 . ..                    o

( i e e a sil; e i i s e nii 6 e isn 'il iI ' e nte i e s oie ,...ui

                                     ,,   %IIlilli                              l l I111lIl              l l Illill                     l I ,11111, I IIlillll                                    i i11lll1 7__              room i

w

                                                                     ,  e                    .o         ,
                                              , , . ,,,,, s . . , i n ,.                                ,,.....,,                       , , , n ini                ,      ,,in                                    i , . n i, l l Iilill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    _;
                                   ,j                                          I h lll!                IIlilllll                        l l lllllll                llllllil                                       llllllll                                                                 '     !

! N ~ , - l

s. i .

                                              ....,3q                          . .      ..no\         .          i ,.....              ..,.,,,i,                  ,.....n                                       ,,,,,nu I ! ll!IlIl ' k } lllllIl \l l lllll11                                                    l l lllllll                l l llllll                                    l l lllll[
                        }                                'N                              h,           .,
                                            .        ....1                    . . ....ii g                                                                             i.t.i,,,,,                        ,....,n,                   ,.,n,,n                                      ,,,,n,,

g ,j i i lilllll \l l lIillli 'N hill ll l l lllll l l llll1l l l lllll j , lj i e i s on6 i i 1 .in, i t..in una.ess st g r .

                                                                                                                                                                ,,ei....
                                                                                                                                                                                                              , , ,,,.,j

{ ,

                             ,g            l l lllllll                       l l lN l lIllll                                     SN elllll                                  l lllll                          I       lllllll                                                                     i 4                      a.

K ti e i y e i n ,i . s .,,,e,. i i i . i u ae i ,ioo I

                                                                                                                                                                      ,,.hp ( ;4
                                                                                                                                                             ,,                                                         .,n    i I l lllllll

,i is, l l llllll llI llIll l ! llllll l llI bh' lllil f l fl

                            ,p             ' l lllll                       lllll l                          lllllb b-! ' b                                                      ll l            lllll(

_. 6.a ue . . 64. u. . . .... n . . . N.,,,r _8esus 71te aussano reervsmise me one, w asemeasa ' 6 > uaan, oa u= j !INF ' i n oil

                                                                                                                                                                 .,i      i , u to-1 1 !luli!                   I Nil                      l ! > tug i s i gni y td                             .                                                                                          _
                ,                                                                                . = _ .

1  ; a j

                                                                                      . i; . . .                                     .i
                                                                                                                                                                        '  , m, .  ,,,,
                              .          ,..             y , . . .                    ,   ,e.,,,,,                  , , . ......
              ;               1 IIlil!Il                                                                           '"~"7,,....,
                                                          . _ _ ' _\ji Il iiilTi.,n I

c to, I i lIHill 1 t I I Illlll

               ;                                                   ~..

j , .. s, ,;i m. ,,,, . . . , , . . ...., I I i111111 I i i Hl'!! KiiiNiil l I i!llill I I il!llll lIIlilli

                                                                                                            +_

s,

                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~
                                 , ,.        o      , ,      -
                                                                      . ...          . ,# :,1, , , _ i , s..., . . . . . ,                              . . , , , ,     , , ....

I I 'l11111 i ! Ilill!I ios i ii11ll! - - -I I Hillli i i i Illill I liIllii 0 l l ll0ll I I ' I El\ l1) { Q{} I $ $ l ll') l $ $9 $ l(l$ iv lililli  ! I II!!!!! ' lIilllik k lIllil i I I(1llll I$ $ { $ jli lllilll

= w ,e . ., - . -

                                    -....-.,=w

_ ,, ,'t - in, .,,,uir ,i,,,,,,

                 ,p         i 11llllll             l I f ililli                   l Illllill I lilllll t#                      to'                          :S I l illill                I l ililll.

td te id came, mio ar== oiseurge ivne tos TIC:12 4 PWR SPENT TUZI, tf!rt1gA ED DIIFrICN INDEZ (Ref. g}

             . o i

k 3100/0;F/83/11/15/0

                                                                                                                                                 .u.

i 12 h hh N h f h h h ll l j f llllf k II l l llIllll M_llllll l I Illlll l l llllll l l l 11llll llllllll l iO _q . __- ll k ' ' '8 fil eog ,

                                                                      .,i.ijse                                  : , , . .T                               i i e t '6 si i 6 .eeeos                          . inini                  ;ei...                                        L 10IO I l lllllll                               l I llillli\ l i lillll                                                    i l ill!!!! l l illllll                                      I f ilill!

1 k

                                                                      , , ..inie                                : i . . 11                               % ! e i . int'                    i . iii.us                     ......n                      . . , , , , ,

j t03 Osmere l ff I lll l l llI!h f IIlf g- '

                                                                                                                                                             ^'                                                ' actresses ;.ews en inom og -

NeesrusUrustumusOsinuang C ' T i  ! UU, j s i  : .. int 4 i sthi ie/ , i i iN!! IN1!illi i i hl!illi I/Iill!il i i ilillli i I !Ilill ' 1, 'e . s 1 i e i i Illi i N l i3Ill *yNl 8 I f a llel 1 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ) 6 i i t ill                $

e e f I 14 t

                                     !                               I I Ilillil                             I l'(illll;                              I I!jilllhJ !111llll I I Ililli                                                                 i i ililli

.i 4 f0# a . X 5 g

                                     .                              .. .                .,,                 , , , , , , 6,,                   u ,                     .-               . . . .         m..,x,.,,,,                                   ,....,,,

l l !11llIl l l lllllll k!l * !llll! l lllillit i i e e nii ie

                                                                                                                                         .,                     r,.                                      --

i 88'lf f I i e lllll $ III I I f*f'$8 1(ll6 . l .1l

                                        ,,                         i 11llllll                              l l ilill                               l l lhil I l illlill i I lllllii i l ill!ll K

l *b

• f

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          %9 lll           l l l0                !                       Ih                            l 8 0 $ $lhi h                                                    l l l e lll            l l 8          j j.t 1

i ie i lI l lt lll ' Ill ( ! llIl , ll!ll l llll r, , II I Ni fill ' slfl 8 8

                                                                                                                                                                  'll4ti'                                                                  I miei measuse                                         u--                    m.eens,m - -                                         .....m                    .        .i,,i.              , ili,oi l

amanso m m ,wi w asse

                                        ,gl                                              ,

w v. %e Ilillll I l11ll l l l lill l l id ies d is is is id i see , n n a o % iv,. I i * ' Ficus 2 5. UEANItm 12CTCM REPROCESSING VAsTE tarrasATED DIWTICN I.1DEE j (1 f. 5) I __ -- - ._ _ --. - _ , _ . -.- . - - ~ . . - . _ . , . - . _ _ .. - _ _ - _ _ , , _ - . . . - . , . - .

l l

     .2
     'y
    ~}...

3100/0JF/93/1U15/0 m ug u - :i, X 1 $ $ ll{l

                                                   ~

I 4 ( l ,iill l i i1$lll lI l t i ll t l , ! 4 ] $il $ g i ll44l an l IN l l llllll l l llllll l l lll ll l l lllllll l lllllll v i0 4 4 , ll.) i1 e.e..k i 1 3 . lll) l l ,4,,fI l j 9 e . 4 il 4 i ,.ltli 1g10 N'l l l lllllik l l lllllll ase l l llllll l l llllll l lllllll w 0weert I Nm 8; mea *ee.cn,1

                                                  .....'s_.                        Nj                    i . . ..                    .i          ..,;                .         ....i                     i,.....
                                      -- l l l lllll l'Njlllll \ 6k l lllllll                                                       l l lllllll                     l l lllllll l lllllli                               '

l t# ,

                                                                                                        . r ar.an .
                                                                                           +               r i

j m. ....... ,,,,,,,,, ' "r i..,o , , , , , , qof;'*a'; =

                         ]                 IDQ!III I I IIllIII II, ! I lk I l IM * "" #8                                                                                                                    lllll g td                            _
                                                              ,   s                                     i                                        w                 .                .,           .                 .

i , i s eine i seu.u,r.. . t: e . e i .e ie . . . e-l i l ! !llllll l'Q"*"'!!il i l\l!lll!! I lilllill i I!illil llllllll i _] ,u 1 , .,,,,,, , , , , , , , , x . , n , n ., . i@ 3, t l lI!lill! l l ll!lli h l!lIlli

                                                                                                                                  ! ! ! N'!ll                     ! ! 1llll!!                   I IIlilll 3          -
                                          . , ,,,,,,                , , . . . . . ,                 , . . A,,.                                ..                          . . . .           , , . . . , .                                  i l                            id            llllllll                  l l lllllll                    l l l 'ldj                    l l lIIllIl                     ! i llIll!l                    l l llllll s            ,

e eis et, , i i i e il o i e eil e e i , ni6 i ,ii.io6 e'% , i j 19 l l ld ll lllllll l l l!!N l l !llllll l l l11lll 1 IN _% n,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 's. .. .... _ m , w ,,,,,,w - w w > > . n ,i i ...o,' i i , ,i i

                            ,g                       "

llll l I l!lIl l lllll ! td 108 102 iS tp td td o , r: ,, o,.n., iww FICURE 6. MIXED CXIDE REPtoCESSING 'JA8TI fRITIZATED DIWi!CN I.NDEI (Ref. 5) _ - - _ _ _ ~. _ _ - . _ . . _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _

3'00/0 'F/34/06/15/0 Recent revisions in :nejCRP's recommencations for cosimetry calculations (ref. 6) would cause some significant changes in tnis . measurement of :ne relative na:ard of HLW as a function of time. This effect has been notec recently in :ne scientific 'iterature cy a numoer of authors (ref. 7, 3 anc 9). Revised curves, casec on tne more recent ICRP recommencations (ref. 6), are disolayec in Figures 7, 3 and 9 for scent fuel anc ~ ' recrecessing wastes. (The NRC has cat formally accatec ICRP-30, but ne i crocecures describec in f: ave been usec here cecause it is :ne mos:

urren: "CRP ouclication :n internal cosimetry availacie. ) The mos significant results of :ne ~CRP revisions are:

                                    ')

One na arc of scme :f :ne 'ission procucts (primari!y Sr-90) is . recuced, 1 i . j 2) tne na:ata of several of the long-lived actinices is increased (esoecially Am-2al, Am-2a3 and No-237), anc

3) :ne na:ard of Ra-226 is recucea anc, as a result., the na: arc of the original uranium are is recucec.

The UDI curves of Figures 2-9 indicata :nat :ne toxicity cecreases sucstantially (90% - 99.9%) curing :ne firs 1000 years for all tnree naste types and for botn cosimetry approacnes consicered. The toxicity of tne fission products :ecreases by mere nan five orcers of magnituce curing tne first 1,000 years and :nen remains essentially constant for the next 100,000 years. i l i s i

    - - . . . . . . . - , .     ,,        -m- - - -.-,.cm  -y - , ~ , , --m   . - , .       .-%,,,_.,_-----+.,.,,-,---rwr       '--+r- i--'--"'--*--T-m -w ye-vyr-    r -r e-ir--"-tt*-e--*"-tv   --+--t-'wr   e

      .          +

i ft 3100/0JF/83/11/16/0 15 - 10 -

                                                             , , , , , , ,              .    . . . . ,                 , . t i t :1             .                ' . ,             .ii,r"               ,

10 11 l l l IU!I! I I IIIiIII Tocal - -

                                                                                                                   !      !                  ! I !!                                ! !!!N!!I          ! ! II!!!I i

i -

                                                             ,i..-v                                             w . i o . ..                 -,,.n..
                                                                                                                                             ,                                    , i i < i o i.       ......i 10 to          I i X N liilil                                         l IM!!!!                  I I !llilii                          i I ilillil          I I I11111 i

Actinidas. \.i \

                                                            . . . . . . . .                                       . . .                        N           ...n                   ,.....o              ,,,,....!                                  I j             l I ilillli i i i11Wl\l 1!lilla                                                  i iih!                               I i l111111          I i !lilll!

k 1 U t i , , .. o ..i,no . g . , i . i ni e i .. ini i i N in , ,i,,n , E 3 l l llillli l l lllllll l I IIIll!l l l lllllll l llIllNillll y 10 m

                              }                     - Uranium Ore                                                      1                                                                                                                      -

2 * * * ' ' ' ' " ' ' '""' "I ''"I ''' 10 7 l i lll'l!! l i llill!! I I (!!!iii t illilili l i lll3il 1 1 lIlllll 4 ,

                                                         . . . . . .                        .. ..                ,,                 ...                 . . . . . ,              i ,       . , , .    , , . . . . . .
                             }g              10 3        I t illilll 1 I lllilll l Ili                                             llll     I i lillil' i 11illlll                                    l l lll111

' i 1 . ,. ... . . i .... .iii, Tission Products, , , , , ,,

Y 3 llll'il!i l i Illilll I l llIlb ' ' ' ' ' - '

                                                                                                                                                                                  ' I I I'II I        IIlllllll l 10 i

a

                                          .             6 6 e ioni                  i      ii.o                  i i e ii; ,               . . .iiin                                  i ....n        e i.ti        ,i j              lIllIll                     i i llllll                   l lIlllli                 i i ll!Ili!                          l l lillli           l i lli       ll                   .

1 i i e e i une iie i ' oi e i siin' i i . . on i i e i nij i e e i ein 1,3 ~ _ l ll11llll I i 11llll l l Illll! I IIljj!!j,illilllll i IIll ll 1 2 0 1h 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 Decay Time from Discharge (yrs.) Figure 7, M Newever cycle - uncreated stiustos :ades

        !                                                                               Essed as IC17 30 Desiascry.

9

                        ----._------_,,-m---                          ----.--,.w.             --r.-,,,,,--r               y- , . -                ,,--,--.----,---%-----w...                                          s--,-m-

e e 4* - l

        .           31047 p /S3/12/115/9' ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                            i

__: _ _ . . - lo -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             )
                                                                          , , , , . . . .           ........           , , ,i n a                             , , . . . . . . .                    , , , , . . , ,                    , , . , , , , ,

11 l l lllill)  ! I lllilli l i Ilillli l i ililll! l l lllllll l l llllll N

                                                                        ,,,,,w                    ,
                                                                                                           .....      ,...n,.,                               ,,.,o,..                             , , , . . . . , ,                  ,,,,,..,i 10 10 l I!I!!!!! N__iiilll                          l Illiin                               l I Ilillii                         i i lilllll                        l l lll1lll
                                                                                                      --N-Total W - /. . . . , ;
                                                                                                       . . nT Tup e . . . e n                               ,       ,,,,n..                     ,        ,,..n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,,i,,,,,;                              ;

10, - u:isia.dl iIM1llll11 -_ i i lilllii i I IIlllll l l lllllll i i i

                         ,                                                                                                             'm'
                           =

e N g , i a i neo e i...n, , 'i,i.n, -

                                                                                                                                                           , N ,ieni                            , , ,,,,n                          ,,,,,,,,

8 5 I I IIIIIII I I IIIIlli ll\Illil- 1 I IM I I llllll 10 l l llllll '

                        ,                          ====

Uranium M . . . -. l 3 ,  ! , : n .. . i n ,e e , ...nl ,,,j[ ) , , ,, j 10 7 I lili:lli i I llill! I 11- llil 1 i llliti ilillt , l llllll 2 1 28 6 . i. ' . '4 ii ,$i

                       ==      10 6                            l l l II!!Il              ! l lII!Ill           i I II:l lll                          I ' ' I UIh I IIlllll l l llllll t

Tissica Produe:s

                       $                                                                                                                                                  /

!  : . I l 3 ...i...n ....o. , , . . . h .e i f . '- .  : i i "', i ,e.io. L l 3 s I ! !!!!!!! I i lllill ' llin to - i I liliti u e o .

3. ..inon . . ..", ii.... .., , , ,,,,n e i i i . .n ,,,,,,i l

10 I lllll!ll l l lllll llIll ll l l ll!llll lll ' l lllll l 1

                                                              ,,,,,,n                     , i . , no             ,..,,m                             .....n                  ,            ,,,,,,,,,                           , ,,,no 10 3                              l lllllll                   l l llllll                  l lllll!                      l l lllllll                          l l lllllll l l llllll 1                         2 to                                         10                     10                            10                                   10 '                                    A                               5 10                              10               ,

Decay Time from Discherte (yrs.) l Figurs 8, leprocessed Weste . t% treated Dilution Indes Essed on ICEF=30 Desiastry.

                                    ---------.----,.-----,-----,---w-n---m-m                                                                    e e-ww------,e,--a-,am,                                           _w.n.,wr.e---w_-me.

p. 3100/0JF/33/11/15/0 1 10 -

                                    , , , , , , , ,                                            ,ii....
                                                                               .,i                                  i , ,... ,        ,,,,.,,..         , , , .

101 ; l l l llIlll l I ! llllll l l lllllll l i llllll' l l lllllll l l llllll l acati l

                                     's ' (
                                   .i           x              x . .. .                   . .i,i..                 ,i..:...           ,,.,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,

10 10

                            =4[inidesi
                                                                                                 !lIIi             ! ! !!I!!!         I llIIIIIl        l l lllllll                            -
                                                                       '.                    N o.

Y -% N ,

                                                                                              ,,.....N,,,io,                         ,,:..,,e          ,,                ..

1

                  =

e 10 9 l } } lI!lll l l } iIU!Ik l l lllllll ihlllI l l lllllll l l llll0l 1 ' d g . i , i , n ,i i i . . . on

                                                                                          \,

i 1 i . n .. i

                                                                                                                                 \
                                                                                                                       . . i nn      N isinn          i,,,,,o i
                ;     10 3      l l 1illIll           l l 111111                      l Nllll!                  I I Illll11         i N!llli         l 1 Hilll,                 / -

2 Uranita Ore'- -

             ,                           : :ine       , , , ! i : . ,,                 e ,i        ....         i . , i e no        e e i e one       i,,,,,,.         .
                )        7      l l l llllll          l l llNI!l                       l ll           llll      l l Illllll         lllll1hl l l llllll i
               ~                                                                                   "
                               .          . . . .             . . . . . , ,           , , ,          ,,,,               ......      i,,.....,        ,.,....i g    to 6      I I I INIII            ! ! !!!s'!!!                   I !lI           !!!!      ! l I!!!I!!
                                                                                                                                    ! !l lI!!!      l l I!!!!I g

Fission Productsj j ,,,..ii ,, , , o,; , . . . ... j.... i e,,:,,o , iii,,E 3 ll!l'!l! l I llllll l l lI:. l I e ivenn ' i , i e nt i e s i.c i eisini e i.....il i i s i nii 1,s l I IIllll- 1Ililli l i lillh l I ll!lll! I Ilill I I llillll e tiiinn , s i ii ns ' i e savini i e i i nie i i , i iinl ie,sebi 10 3 l l l lllll' l l lllllll llllllli I l lllllll l l llllll l l llllll 10 1 A 3 10 10 10 to 0 0 10 10 Decay Time from Discharge (yrs.) Figure 3. Mixed Quide Reprocessing 'Jaste . Untreated Dilution Index 34 sed on IC17 30 Desimetry.

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

t 1 3100/0e'Fi34/06/15/0 1 The "untreatec dilution index" ran crovice scme perspective regarding the , intrinsic toxicit, of a racioactive material, but is sucject to tne ! following limitations: i 1 , o The UDI coes not consicer the anysical or chemical form of tne radioactive material. Procerties suen as solubility or leacnacility

                                                                                                                                                                                ~.

may significantly affect the true ha:ard to numan nealtn. o The !ccation of the materini and tne catnways tnrougn .nica it could

 ,                                         reaca humans are not consicerec.

o There is consicersole uncertainty innerent in the dosimetry parameters uoon anien tne UOI is basec, leading to consicerable uncertainty in tne incex itself. In the past, t9e UDI (also referred to as " Ingestion Hazard Incex" or simoly " Hazard 1.'dex") nas ceen widely usec to icentify the most ) raciotoxic c:moonen:s of wastes (e.g. , ref. 4 5, 13 and 14). In soite of its limitations, tnis incex can provice an accroximate estimate of the relative toxicities of individual nuclides as they exist in a waste. Reoresentative HLW Waste Streams and Forms: Using the Commission's

                                                                                                                                                                                   ]

current cefinitions of HLW, five HLW waste streams and forms were identified as being reoresentative of wastes recuiring permanent isolation: (1) Savannan River Plant (SRP) "fresn" (ref. 10). This waste stream is taken to be representative of the cefense nign-level liquid wastes - ceing proouced wnen :ne NRC's current HLW definitions were

!                                        developed.

i This waste is a comoosite liquid waste stream containing botn "first cycle" and suosecuent cycle wastes resulting from ,1 l 1 i __ __ . _ . _ _ m. _ , _ . __

                                                              , _ . , . _ ., , _      __ ,,__ ,-.. ,._ ,_. - .-_ _,.. .-.___.-. . ..,. ,.m _

3100/0JF/84/06/15/0 reorocessing aefense westes six months after removal from a reactor. The reprocessing technology employed at SRP is representative of recent (and probably of future) defense waste processing, althougn it is not reoresentative of some of the earliest separations technology employed at the Hanford site".

         'Two defense HLW inventories at Hanford and Idaho were ceemed not to Oe representative for purposes of deriving the concentration Ifmits.

(1) While the defense wastes at the Hanford site represent a siteaole inventory, they were not included in tnis work for two reasons. First, little relevant information is available. Puolished information gives estimates of the total waste inventories at Hanford,.but does not provice aetailed information on radionuclide concentrations. Second, the wastes at Hanford are not particularly ~ representative of the types of wastes which the Commission has defined as HLW. Some of the wastes were separated using chemical i process tecnnologies now considered obsolete, and some of the wastes ' have been processed as many as three times for separation of plutonium, uranium and hign-neat generating nuclides (Sr-90 and Cs-137). In addition, the variety of reactors and coerating conditions employed at Hanford argue against considering the Hanford wastes as typical" HLW. For tnese reasons, the SRP wastes were selected as being more representative of defense HLW. (2) The defense wastes at Idano were also excluced from this study for the purpose of determining representative concentrations of waste constituents. These wastes were derived from naval reactor fuels with comoositions and burn-uos substantially different from other defense and commercial reactor fuels, and Enerefore are not considered to be representative disposed of the bulk of the hign-level wastes likely to be of in the future. , b

3100/0JF/34/06/15/0 (2) Savannan River Diant reconstituted" (ra' 10). This waste is recresentative of tne inventory of defense wastes currently in storage and is consicered to be the most recresentative of defense HLW concentrations likely to be ciscosed of during the next few decades. These wastes include both "first-cycle" - wastes and " concentrated intermediate" wastes, and recresent the waste stream anica ould result if the .astes currently storec in 3RP tan <s (botn slucge anc sucernatant) were recons-itutec to a slurr/ for removal from tne tanks. Because , most of ne nastes nave ceen stored for several years, most of the snort-livec nuclices nave decayec away. (3) West Valley " Tank 302" (ref. 11). The West Valley wastes - represent an actual waste inventory requiring disposa1. This I waste is analogous to the SRP "reconstitutec" waste in that it is a hypothetical waste stream which woula result if the slucge and sucernatant of Tank 302 were re:onstituted to a slurry for removal from the tank. Both commercial and cefense wastes are cresent in Tank 302. Although some commercial wastes were recrocessec at West Valley, burn-uos nere generally low and the radionuclide concentrations are only moderately higner than for cefense wastes. (4) Comniercial Liouid HLW (ref. 12). This is a hypothetical waste stream based on reprocessing lignt water reactor fuels with burn-ups typical of current commercial operating practices, and represents a potential waste stream recuiring disposal in the future in the event that reprocessing of commercial reactor fuels is undertaken.

         - . - . _ _ . _ . - _ , - _ _    ,_.m. _ ,_ . _ .      . _ . . - , -     --y. , _.mg-c.--_ - . - - , - - , _ . - , , . _ - - - . _ . -   --

310C/CJF/84/C6/15/0 (5) Spent Fuel fref. 121. In the absence of commercial ' reactor fuel reprocessing, disposal of spent fuel is expected to be the . major source (in terms of radioactivity) of ccmmercial high-level wastes in the future. This waste stream gives a rcugn estimate of the radionuclice concentrations in the fuel pins of spent light-water reactor fuel. The diluting effect of ._ , cladding, hardware, and void spaces between fuel pins was not incluceo. Thus, this waste stream overestimates the actual nuctice concentration ir a waste cackage containing spent fuel. i i i Charac erf stfes c# Was es: Table i displays tne ccccentrations of many of the radionuclides in the five waste streams described above. Also presented in Table 1 are the ratios of these concentrations to tne < maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) for ingestion (taken from 10 CFR i

         . Part 20 which is baseo, with a few modifications, on the recommendations of ref. 3) to allow a camcarison with the high-level waste definition used in ref. 2.

Each of the five waste streams exceeds the hign-level' waste definition of ref. 2 (10* times MPC) by at least three ceders of magnitude, suggesting that these wastes were clearly considered to be nign-level wastes when the tcmmission's current cefinition of the term was developed. The most prominent nuclides, in terms of their ratios to MFC, are Sr-90 and , Cs-137, with the actinides being present at ratios closer to the ref. 2 l definition. - 4 ! Because of the recent revisions in the ICRP's recommendations for - dosimetry calculations (ref. 6), a new index was developed to provide an ,' upaated perspective on the relativa hazards of the constituents of ' wastes. This index is defined as the ratio of the activity in a unit volume of waste to the Annual Limit of Intake defined in ref. 6, and i

22

                                                                                                      .e.t       ..o..                 .v,c-                     :: . :ia 5aa re..,*t          i tse r*,es stitateet         'sae 40.*         **talt           w * *. .              Se,*. r 2 ,i istie                   i                               ist a                   ist s                              easte
      .en*,                                 .
                                                ..a          .. .ee

• 2 .atra

                                                                                       * .ee       *. .s             .* ee       *
                                                                                                                                   .*a       .. .'ee     ;s,.a                  ., .ae Ce 144 8-144                           1. M *4          1. M *9    S.M 1        6.M*4        1.!!*2             1. 11 3    2 7t*2       2 ?t

• F  : H3 1.64*4
• 147 3 *tel  :. H+ F 2.:t*2 1. M *4 3 M*1 1 SE*t 1.1t** 5 SE*? 6.4t*4 3.!!*t ac t*6. 8**1:6 1. M
• 3  :.cl*e FH4 7 9t*6 1. l!* 1 1. 11 4 ;t*l 1.11*4 6. M* 3 6. H +4 5r 90 8 !*2 2 7t*9 1 SE*2 1.st*9 3 3t*1 1.it*10 8 ff ** 2. f t 11 S.2t*t 1.*t*12

     *s 137                                s.:E*2           e :t*?      5 at*2       2. H ?       4 8t*1            2.21*4      1.21 6      6 :t 9       7. H *l                3.at*10          _

s 134 1 :t*! 3 31*? * *e :sta - 1.:(-1 1.!!*4 9.5t*3 1.;t*9 1.?t*4 6.3t*9 5m-151 2 :( 1 1 M** .. Ital 4 SE**  ; *E*2 2. H+5 1.It*1 4 !! 4 1.;t** 2.8t*f

     'e ft                                 . !*:            5 t*2              me :sta

• 9. H.: 4 M*3 2.21 1  : ;!*$ 1. 3D2 6.1E*$

    ! M 54                                 3 *t*2

• 5E 3

                                                              .                *e :ata

• 6 H-1 3.2t*4 6.*!*3 3.!!*4 3.7t** 1. M*9

~t3 3,*E*2 3. H+1

• me Oata
• 1.21 1 1.l[*2 2.st*4 3. H+ 1 1.7t*1 2.11*4 Os*139 1:12 1.:!*2
• ee :sta
• 1. H 2 1.lE*2 4 SE*1 4. H-1 2.7t*0 2.7t**

Sa-126 3. M* 3 1. :E* 3

• me :sta - t 6.:t*2 2.0t*4 1. H+4 S.3t*5 f. H+0 3.2E 4 se* f t 3.:t*3 1.:t*1
• ee :sta
• 2.it*2 0. M 1 S.st 1 1. H*t 3.H 0 1.21*4

• 121 3. t** 1.:!*l

• me :sta - 2.st l 4E*4 2.If*4 4 7t*1 3.3t*g 3. H+4

     'c 234                                3 Ot*4           6 :t*5     2. H+4       1.21 5       7.5t*1            1.!!*t      5.21 1      1. M* f     2. M*4                 4 H+9 8c241                                  1.:E*1           2. !!* 1

• ee :ata
• 3.H+1  ; St $ 1. M
• 2 2.Sta6 6. H+t 3.4t*$

Om 244 3. !*1 4 3t** 2. H+ 1 3.7t*4 4 4t*0 6.31 1 1.4t*3 2.* tat f.:(+3 1. M*9 am*241 3. M* 1 7.H 4 2.H+1 4. H+4 1.:t*1 2 H+4 6.!!*2 1. H+1 1. H+4 4 M*1 oc231 1. t 1 2. M *4 1.11 1 2.2t*4 9. M 1 1. H et 2.st*4 4 M*t 2. H* l 1. M*4 8c240 2. M 2 4.M*3

• me Casa
• 4. M* 1 9.6t*4 1. H+4 1.11 4 4. H+ 3 9. M*4 w-237 1.:t** 3.3t*1
• me :sta - 1.21 2 4 Mal 7. H 1 2. H*t 34t*4 1. M*4 as*243
• ee "sta -
• ee :sta + 1.31 2. H +4 2.2t+1 1. H 4 1.4t*2 3. H+ 7 fetals 2.3t*4 4 7t*9 1.4t+3 1. M*1 7. H+ 1 1.1[*10 2.a(*$ 3.:t.11 2.1E*4 1. M* t2 Table 1: Concentrations and Ratios to MPC for Five Wastes.

                                                                                                         , . , _ .           ,                   _ , ,      _ _ - - , - - - -         ,e.

3!C0/DJF/Sa/96/15/0 represents the numoer of ALI's present in a unit vclume of waste. Thus, HI 9 = C9/AL!g where HI9 is the modified na:ard incex, C 9 is the concentration, and ALI, is the Annual Limit of Intake (for ncn-occupational exposure) for nuclide 1. This incex is, of course, a functicn of time and will change as a radionuclide concentration changes due to radicactive decay. Tacle 2 cisolays :Pe radicnuclide concentrations Inc :ne correscending ra:1cs to :ne Annual Limit af Irrake (AL:) for :ne same five was:es as in

• Table 1. Table 2 incicates :ne some general features as Table 1, with Sr-90 and Cs-137 ccminating :he hart rd, altacugn to a lesser extent than with :ne older costmetry recommendaticns.

It has generally been ecogni:td (e.g., ref. 15) that institutional controls are like1 / o be effective in ccntrolling the hazards of wastes

    #cr at least a century after r.isposal, and it is therefore appropriate to consider the relative ha r.rds of individt.al racionucl~ ides at the enc of a period of institutional control. Table 3 presents tne racionuclide concentrations and ratics to AL! af tar 100 years of decay for each of the five wastes. At this :tme, the dcminance of Se-90 anc Cs-137 has been reduced so that their na:ard is within acout an order of magnitude of the total nazard of the actinides, with the other 'ission products still representing & substantially Icwer hazard.

D

9 e - 1 I

                                                                                                                                    . 24 .                                                                                                                     I J

l 4

                                                                                                                                                   *ett de' ev cza e-.,     .

4 4tf6

ss - e- ,t mt eo

• ae n < -w

                                                                                                                                                                                 ;;

• t'e h as

e.,.:

5 4t*3 '4t .

                          .. .,                              e.c                                         - .                                  -

• s t* 3 1 , 1. g _ . 1; .

                                                                                                                                                                . .                 *.                                                        .etig

' ..- . .. 1,, - e-144 8 - 144  ;.il-4 f. *(4 1. M-! 2.!!-4 . ;I*: 1.!i-2  ; *!

• 41 F ..if-i t. :( t ,

                      **- !4 7                            1. t-1               '.11-4                    '. t-2             5.;t-t           3. (-L           * !f-4         1. .!=4                  if '                    4.4f-4          ;.44-6 N-Lc4. in-1:4                       . :(-3               1. Ma f                  ' H-0               4 4t*t           1.31             1.51-1         ;..!-!              3.5I-t                       4. Hal          2.4(-4             '

5 - 90 9.;t-2 2.'l*9 5.51-2 .. H-t 3.JI-3 . 3-9 S ?t** 2.H-LO 5.:t-t  ; it-11 , i :s ;37 3. ( ? 8.;f 2 i H-2 1 51- 7 4 st.) 44-3  ;.:t-t  ; :g ta  !!-g

• sg to 4 :s ;34 1. (-! 4 31-7
• 5e :sta - .. (-L . 44 4 Lif=3 . 4t*+ 5.71-4 4. !! 9 _

is til *. :( ! * :t**

                                                                               .                       ;.31-;              1.3( 4          ; Og-2
                                                                                                                                                            * *( t
                                                                                                                                                                            * $( 3
                                                                                                                                                                              .                 ;. H-6                       ;.;! 4         ;. 3 7
                    *e-+9                               . Ot 1               :. H-2                              ** *ata -                 f.!( ;           2. 4-3           . !-1 i                                                                                                                                                                                               5.51-4                       1.Jt !         3. t-i I

j  !.- 34 2.;1*: 6. f-2 *e :ata - u.!!-L . :t-4 1.;ta)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                '!-4 d
                                                                                                                                                                                               . ;!-t

• st t

] '-41 2. t-2

1. ! : se :sta - .. ! ; .. t-3  :. !!M I  :.4(-4

• 7!-L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ..              ;.71-t                '
                   ;4 L:1                              1. ( 2                . 4-2                          * *e lata -

i

                                                                                                                                          .. it-:          :.II-2          4 ll*L              5.4f=3                       :.71 4          3. H-4 ie-L:t                             1.:(-l                  . t-2                        * *o *4f4 -

J i.;I 2 1 2.;f ! .. HH 5.21-4 8. H4 3. (-t ' le-79 3. ( 1 S.*t-L

• 9e *ata - 2.58 2 4 21 2 1.it*1 9.?t=3 2.14-4 f. H-4 1 121  : :t** 4. (*2 we *ata - 2.43 4 H-! 2. H 4 1. H 2 3.2(*! 5. H-1 N 238 3.01 0 4.31-4 .HN 1.?!-4
• SI . . 3-4 1. (-t *47  :.;t-4 . H-LQ i

N- 41 S. F. t . 't-4 *o sta - 3. !! :,  ;. !*4 1.5t-2 ..AI-t 6. H t 2.31-12 la-244  : 3-1 1.51-4 .44- 1 1.3t 4 4 41 -: 2,;t t .43 1 719 5.M 3 4 SE*t0 t 4e-!41 3.:1 1 3. t-4 .4I 1 2.6( 4 . :t ! . :t t 6.*f-2 6. 3-+ .. H-4 1. H-11 i i N-229 1. M L 1.71 9 i 1.31 1. H-t 1.;1 1 .. H-4 1 2.st 4 4. 3-4 2. H-1 4.86*9 ! N-!40 2. (* 2 ~ 3.31-4 9e :sta

• 4.Al . i. M-t 5.!!-0 l 9.21-4 4. H-1 7. H-9 L I  !

me-227 1. M-4 1.4(+4 9e :ata - ..:t : 71 4 7. H 1 1.11-1 3. 3-0 4.44 J

,              + 242                                           =. seu -                                      =e casa -

1.u t t. u-4 2.:t-t  :.:tw  :. w.2 1. u-o l l i i to w s  !

.st 4  :.:t-, t. u-3  :.H t -

H-3  ;. t-+  :. u-t 4. H to  :. u-o s.u u  ! I l

iable 2: Concentrations and Ratios to i Annual Limit of Intake (ALI) 1 i

for Five Wastes. l I 1 i . I I i l I ', ,.-. , -- . - . - - - _ _ _ ,_,..--,-.,-,---,_,,n.,. . --,.- - -,--- . ,, - . - _ , . . . , . . .n

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

I ., , i 25 - 1 i j a.u a ,

                                                                                                                                                                 .est val'ey                           ;* :'      :,,su.                       e  ::q iss                                ps -. n age *;teos                                       saa **?

• tal' 44tto we.. io . N,3

                                                              *     ,I                                         ,           *d t: 4                                     .        *at:4                             .st's y ,,,                                           .
                                                                                         .g
                                                                                                        - .*               *-    4,'                         * *
                                                                                                                                                                                ** 1 *              -                                                 ist.g e'         *. "                    .*             ,

• 1 e, 1

                                     ;,.;g . s gg               ..                     .-                ..                    .-                              *-                   **                **             .-                 ..               ..

1 i 3 -

                                                                ..                     ..                ..                   ..                              ..                   ..                ..              ..                 ..               ..                   t e .la6. 4P-1:4             -*                      **                  -                  **                              **                  **                 **             **                    -

1 3 - 90 7. (-1  :.4(-7 1.;I-1 1

                                                                                                                         ;.64-7                             3.Of*2             1. f*t

• IE-l  :.il-4 4 't 4 1.3(+13 i

a i

s* 13 7 8. M-1 IM4 1 !!*! 3.Jg-4 4 4t+2 4 4(-' .. (-4 .. ;14  ? 64-4 7.64-9

3.;;4 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

b i l is '1;. i. H 4 i 1E-3 t.1E-4 4.53-3 4 ff*1 4 M-4 f.!f-2 I 8.lf-f 5. t-3 5.21-4 i 4 ft " . (* ; - % 34ta -

                                                            .                   :.it !                                                                      7.1E*!              .4(-)            2.!!-1         5 !!+4              L.21-!          2. f.$

I M 14 4 !!-i t( - % *4ta - ) :f ! ..it-2 4.iE*1 * 't-4 1. ;!M !  ; :( 6 j I - 93 3.;t 2 1.2t+2  % :sta - ..;! 1 1

                                                                                                                                                                             ..;!-l             !. H 4         2.at-4              ..t->
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ;.?f t 1

1 :s ;25  ;. 4(* 2 1

                                                           .. ;f
                                                                                                               % :ste -                                   ..!!*!             :.!!-2             4. !!* L       6.4(-l              2.7T-4          3. M+4

} in-125  : :l*3 . :!*2  % 3474 - 4t! t 4

                                                                                                                                                                                 ;(-3           1.lf 4         1.II.4              p. M-4          3.:t-6 L

se-19 3 :( 3 5.;I-1 = % 3ata - 2.lf 2 4.2f 2 -L

5. M 1 9.7f-3 2.31 4 5.M 4 j .*i't 3. M*4 6. t-2  % Oata - 2.4f 1 4 it-1 2. H

• 5.64- 2 3.28-1 6. H-9 av!:8 1. 41 -3 * :IH .. :!-)

I 7tn 1 44 . l. f t . 4( L 3.4(-* 7. E-3 1.!!*t0 av 241 1.11 1 . 2t+2 - % lata *

.11 ; i 4E-1 4 3E-3  ;. 4E-t 1.4t*3 1. M-t I

j *e

                               .      244                 6.51 1           3.:t-4                   5.4E 3            2. H-4                            1 41 2              4. H-t             3.:(-1                                                                         '
;                                                                                                                                                                                                             ;.l(-4              2. f=2          f . M-4 l                               as 241                    2.il 1            :.51 4                   :.:! t           2.21 6                                                 4.!i+r t ti-)                                 5. 1-2          1.   !*+            ;.44-4          L.4(*11 i

, 8c229 2. f-1 3. 71 4 2.4( t 4 Ot-i

• Mac 3.21-4 1.31 4 1

3. M-4 5.4(=) 1.0E*13 f

8c 240 2. M* 2 3.3t**  % 3ata - 4.St-1 4. 3-5 5.!!-4 9. !-4 4. H+ 3 f.!E-9 i

                              % 217                     1.3t-4            1.$E-4                         * % *,ata *                                   ..lf*2              2. M-4             9.H-1           L.44-4             3. N-4          $. H4                        '

i As=243

• me Sete -  % C4'.a -

4 1. M 1 1.M 4 2. 2t+1 2. t e 1.44*2 1.48*9 i t

,                             7etals                    ' 7t 2           1.!!+7                    1. 1-2           :.58-*

5.0f*2 2.4(+t 2.11 4 f.$E-9 1.71-6 2. M* Li * , i 1 Table 3: Concentrations and Ratios to ALI After 100 Years Decay for Five

                                                                    'da s tes .

l 1 i 4 1 e  ! 1

                                                                                              .m _._             ._-..__._,.m__..,,_,..____-_,....-__._,.-_____-.m.-

31CC/0JF/34/06/15/0 The informa:1cn presenteo in Tables 1-3 suggests that the ha:ard of hign-level wastes is primarily due to three constituents: Sr-90, Cs-137 and actinides. (Because of the dynamics of chain deciy in the actinide group, it appears inaporopriate to single out indivicual nuclides as major contributors to the overall ha:ard.) In orcer to gauge the ha:ards of hign-level wastes relative to wastes suitable for snallow lanc burial Table 4 was constructec. This table disclays tne ratios of radienuclice concentrations to the current Class C limits fcr eacn of the five wastes. On this basis of comparison, tne , hign-level wastes are more concentratec (and therefore more ha:arcous) than Class C wastes ey a factor of 30 or more for eacn waste considered. O e b e

27 -

                                                                                                *eu .. o e.                           :          : Ir                                        .:      3,.
                               $se <e*.ini              see            .eaast t ates t       *aa* 9C7 Staa?                               - . . . .                                        3 e ,* . c . . .

atie 446 w eek a 34t s ee t's

       %coee                <*2        ts !?asi *
                                                             '**             *s ** sit *
                                                                              .              O'         *s ** ass *             *
                                                                                                                                      <*8             ts *'ess -                         ves             ts    **e te-lea , **-1s4      1.tt.e              -.        5.01 1                   -         1.11 2              -                 !. 71 2                       -                     1. H + 1                  -

s. 147 3.*t*3 -  !. M *2 --

3.3t*1 - 1.11 4 *= 6. 4t** - act:6. t=106 1.:t*3 - 7 H+0 - 1.!! 1 - 1. !! ! *-

6. at

• 3 -

5 - 90 8. t*2 1 at 1 1.lt.2 7H! 3. t.) a *t 1 s.7t*4 1.21 1 S.2t*t 7 at*1

s-137 8. M 2 1. 71 1 1 St*2 1.3t ! 4 8tal 9 6E 1 1.!!*t 2.6t 1 7. !!4 1. H + 2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~

l

s-134 3.:t*2 - ee "sta 1.:( 1 .* 9HI . 3.!!** .*

5.-111  : :t*1 - . 11 1 .* 1. M

• 2 - 1. H+ 3 .- 1.11 4 ..

       ' 91                ; :( 1      3 11 2                       *e :sta -              9 SE 1         !.21 1                  0.21 1            7 3t*0                            1.3t+2           4.31 1 (c154                3 *t 2           --                      *e :sta

• 6.5t*1 . 6213 .. 3.7t*4 ..

1 - 93 3.*t 2 .* *e :sta - 1. t*1 .* 2.st*0 . 1.7t*1 ..

s 135 1. M* 2 .* se Casa - 1. H 2 .. 4 11 1 . 2.7t*C ..

le126 3. M 3 - se 34ta - 6. :E*2 *. 1. H+0 *- f. H+4 .. le 79 3.:( l .. * % :sta - 2.5t=2 .. 1. H 1 .- 3. H+4 .. 1 121 3. M 4 3. it a l ae :sta - 2.*E 3 3.:( 2 2. H 4 3.51 3 3.3t*1 4.II*0 8c!34 3. t *'J 3. :t *1 2. H 4 2. H+ 1 7.11 1 7 5t*0 1 !!*1 5.21 2 2.0t*4 2. M4 8c241 5.:( 1 14E 1 * *e Cata - 3.!!*1 1.:t*1 1. H + 2 1H2 6. 91 4 2. M4

e 244 3. ( 1 3. t*4 2. H 1 2.6t*4 4 et*4 e st*t . 8t*! 1.8t*8 f. M*I f. M*4 as 241 3. M 1 3. M*4 2. H 1 2. H 4 1. M* 1 1. t*2 6,it*2 6. 11

• 1 1.H+4 1. M*t 8c239 1. M 1 1. M*0 1. !!* 1 1.!!*4 f.M 1 9 Ot*C 2.st*0 2.st 1 2. H+1 2. H.4 8c240 2. M 2 2. M
• 1
• es 34ta
• 4. H 1 4 M *0 ' l.ll*C l. H *I 4. H+3 4. H+4 ao-237 1.0t** 1. t*3
• ee Data
• 1.21 2 1. t 1 7. H 1 7. H+0 3.1E*4 3.1t*1 as 243 ee 3ata - se Data
• 1.11 1 1 !!*4 2.21 1 2. t*2 1.4t*2 1.44* l 7.tain 2.3t*4 3. x *1 1. H+ 3 3. :I* t 7. H I 1. H
• 2 2.st*s  :.II+4 2.11 4 7.:14 Table 4: Concentrations and Ratios to 3 Class C Limits for Five Wastes. )

l l

I

!                 3100/DJF/34/06/15/0 l

cs - I i j

                .C nclusions: Taeles E-3 fncicate inat inree cens:1:uents of nign-level l'                wastes contribute precominantly to tne hazarcs of :nese wastes: Sr-90, Os-137 anc the actinices. The cemearison with Class C limits in Table 4                            !

snows the c:ncentrations of nese c:m:enents of hign-level wastes to te ' 4 accroximately a fac ce of 30 or more higner nan ne Class C limits for , eacn hign-level waste consicered. It mign: tnerefore be aooccaria:e :o 3 c:nsicer wastes witn concentrations more : nan 30 times the Class C limits (at ne time sney are teing classified for dis:osal) as reoresenting i na: arcs a: r:ximately ecuf valent to wastes - rently cefinec as "hign-levei." anc :: recuire :na: :nesa . . es :e cis: sec of in a manner 1 1 anien r: vices :ermanent isolation fr:m , e envirenment. The s ecific .

                                                                                                                    'i i

1 ancienuclice cen:artrati:ns anicn wcul recui"e :ermanen; isolation are: [ 4

                                                                                                                  -p 3

Radienuclice Concentrations Recuirino Dermanent Isolation L 5 2 4 Sr-90 210,000 Cf/m J Cs-137 138,000 Cf/m Alena-emitting TRU, j Half-life > 5 yrs 3,000 nCf/gm ! Du-241 105,000 nC1/gm l wi*h a requirement to ADDly a sum of-the-fract10ns rule as wnen aDDIying 4

e Class C limits.

I h 4 e i i j! . i l I I i i i

_ - +- - - " " ' 3;C0/0JF/84/06/15/0

References:

i

1) " Siting of Commercial Fuel Reorocessing Plants and Related Waste Management Facilities," AEC 130/52, May 1,1969.

4 Z) Gak Ridge National Laboratory, " Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Waste Management Facilities," ORNL 4451, 1970. -- 3

!                 3) International Co= mission on Radiological Protection, " Recommendations or the International Commissicn on Raciological Protection, Report of I

Ccemittee II on Permissible Jose for Internal Raciation (1959),"

CRP ?ublication 2 (New York: Pergamon Press), 1960. '

I j a) " Rationale for the Performance Objectives in 10 CFR Part 60," /- Enclosure G of SECY-63-59, Feeruary 9, 1983. d

5) A. D. Little, " Technical Support of Stancards for High-Level Radioactive Waste Management," EPA 520/4-79-007A, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,

, for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,1977.

6) International Commission on Radiological Protection, " Limits for Intake of Radionuclides by Workers," ICRP Dublication 30 (New York: 1 Pergamon Press), Referred to as ICRP 30, 1979.

j 7) Croff, A. G., " Potential Impact of ICRP-30 on the Calculated Risk from Waste Repositories,* Tesnsactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 39, pp. 74-75, Nov., 1981.

8) Cohen, B. L., " Effects of ICRP Publication 30 and the SEIR Report on .

f Hazard Assessments of High-Level Wastes," Health Physics 42, 133 (1982). I t i  ! ' i )

                                                                               = . -   .

i i i 21C0/0JF/84/06/15/0 30 - ] 3) Runkle, G. E., *Ccmoartsen of ICRP-2 and ICRP-30 for Estimating the ' Case and Adverse Health Effects from Potential Racionuclide Releases from a Geologic Waste Repository," Sandia National Laboratories, V Preceedings of Waste Management 32, Vol. 3, p. 59, University of Arizona, 1982.

10) Cheung, H., 3. G. Knaizewyc:, and D. J. Kvam, " Characteristics of Defense High-Level Waste," NUREG/CR-0685, 1979. >

I

11) U. S. Oepartment of Energy, " Final Environmental Imcact Statement:

1 L:ng-Term Management of Licuid High-Level Gadioactive Wastes Stered at , the Western New Verk Nuclear Service Center, West Valley," 00E/E!S-0081, ' i 1982. d* ' ) 12) U. S. Department of Energy, " Technology for Concercial Radioactive Waste Management," 00E/ET-0028,1979. i

13) Kocher, D. C., A. L. Sjoreen and C. S. Bard, " Uncertainties in '

1 Geologic Disposal of Hign-Level Wastes--Grouncwater Transport of Radionuclices ano Radiological Consecuences " NUREG/C'R-2506, 1983, i i j 14) Naticnal Research Council, "A Study of the Isolation System for i Geclogic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes," Waste Isolation Systems Panel, , 1 Scard on Radioactive Waste Management, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1983.

15) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Draft Environmental Impact i

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61 ' Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste'," NUREG-0782,1981. i 1 l l l

    -m%_-=.          A a.- a-      -.- .-- -L.       a- - - s. m a ha       t.* A     --   ..a2===.4--uau--   .de   wn-    ="ma2-am- + .mmau*--=     -- --*ah - -- -.-.- . -- u+-- - -.t-- --    m.-

f 9 0 1 1 l f 1 l .l 4 7 1 - , i i 4 i i f A ( t one 6 Y I i t 3 ) l i ENCLOSURE C 1 I i i 4 l 1 t I I ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                        ?

t , e 7 i' i I

 ,                                                                                                                                                                                                      1 4                                                                                                                                                                                                        i i                                                                                                                                                                                                        i F

h r 4 i l ' i f ) -

+

 \

f

'l l

l, l l e I 6 a l

            +... . -          ..,,..~-         m..--.              . ,-- . --- ~ -., , , .,.w-_,_                 . . ,._ w ,- ww w ,, mnr,-w,,w,m,,

  +

• POLICY STATEMENTS tion. in the need for repetitive and possible to hate access to various ele-time.consumtDg cuestion and ansser ments of the staff, the costs and dis.

43 FR 53869 p,gw g gfgyfyg cycles subsequent to docketing. Lance make it almost impossible. Comm.at pened euewei tits /73 except for certain welbestab!Lehed in. RscoiospDAfton No. S tertenor organtuuons, for members of nsontry crust mzvtrw raocr.ss av ps. the public 11vmg near the proposed g,cingino peocioutts poe osotocic eg. TELoP1MG aAJt&Y aArETY EvALCAT1oM alte to participate in these meettBEs. Pomoeras Pcs wicw.ttvet aADOAC7tvg w Agigg azrom7 On the other hand, to arrange au such aneetmgs near the proposed plant site P e d O* w ell'admeate8 Pee <v fn ordJr to achieve the full measure would impose significant burdens upon of the benefits enytstoned in imple-the a6aff enthoest aceassarily peevadir4f AGENCY: U.S' Nuct' wtng 1teMmmendatteus No.'J and Ceumsudas4on. No. 4. the present safety revles ae- commensurate improsement in putinc quence will be altered semesnat in tanderstandins of the ticensing process. ANK Pmposed General State. this expertmental program. Because of Past expenence with staff interse, mnt of Policy, the ineresseu 3retendermg coordina. .lon sith the public has shos n that: SUMM ARY: The U S. Nuclear Regula. tion sith app!!. ants and the expanded (1) The publie appears to be most in. tory Comtnamon (NRC) has under

                           #'   ^           '

terested in the teensing process in the consideration the follosms proposed I[*l#"'

                ,p          th t th       o re      pre. docketing and/or early stages of       polley statement Tegardmg establish.

Questions which are a part of the pres- the review, nt f pr cedures for lacensing geo. (2) The number of people sho logic high level saste repositories to 11 y el e a d t e revi d attend pubuc meetings appears to be be constructed and operated by the directly correlated sith the time of US. Department of Energy (DOE). ~ ten cuality th app cat o day at which the meetinas are held. This NRC polley statement is intended docketed and supplernented by the ap- Past expenence has ahosm that many to Inform DOE. Interested States and Ducant's responses to the staff rtues, more people attend meetings held in members of the public of the proce-Uons asked during the expanded and the everung than during the working dures with thich DOE sill be re-restructured Acceptance Review. The day. AM to umNy to neem a heme to staff's positions sou:d be reflectsd in a Based on the above considerations, a construct and operate a repository. Safet) Eraluation Report shacn would numoer of sorkmg meetings betseen T naly do e may the staff and construction permit so-

                                                                                               ,yh         c[

be issued sithin about 8 months of docketing. plicants, both prior to and after dock. After esatuating the results of this eting of an apphcatfort, normany held expertmemi program, appropriate DATE: Comments are due on or at Com nimon offices in Bethesda, before January 16.1979. changes s1ll be made to pertinent Md.. stil be held in the vicinity of the staff documents concernmg proce- proposed site. Whenever possible, ADDRESSES; Send comments n.d su. dures and practices in lleensing re. these meetings mil be held in the gestions to: Secretary of the Commis. viess. If required changes to Ccmmis evenines or on wettends- saon. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-slon rules and regulations s1ll be in:ti. These meetings stil provide an op mission. Washington. D.C. 20555, at. sted. Pendans ar.y cha .ges in the regu- portunity for interested members of tantion: Docketing and Service

         !ations after this evaluation. It is the  the public to listen to the staff and sp*  Branch. Copies of comments may be            ~

Intent of the Commissien to proceed p!! cant discussions and observe the examined in the: U.S. Nuclear Regula-with the Acceptance Res1ess of any staff's role in the rettew of appitra. tory Commission Public Document appilcatica.s. Involved La the esperi- tions. Appropriste provisions stil be Room.1717 H Street NW., Washing-mental program and there Remm- ton. D.C. made for public comments and quea-mendation 4 is to be implemented. on a case by case basas notsithstandmg Uons and responses by the appucant U A WRN MORMAT!W and the staff. the prostslons of the curTent regula- Recommendation No. 41s to be im. James C. Malaro. Chief. High.lsvel tion in 10 CFR 2.101 concernmg the plemented by the staff to the eatent time limit and content of Acceptance and Tra tsurarue Waste Branch. Dt. Reviets-pernutted by resource considerations vision of Fuel Cycle and Material on all ongoLos and .*?ture license ap. Safety. UE. Nuclear Regulatory In addition, the Commission has di- p11 cation reviews. In this respect. It Washington, rected the staff to implement Recom- Commission. D.C. differa from the implementation of 20555. mendatson No. 8 Reco*nmendations No. 3. 4. and S. SUPP!RJENTAL INFORMATION:

         ,tucsanas rVaLtc raRTICiraflop DUEDG      whlCh are being conducted on an ea.

perimentd ba&:s for selected appbca- The Commis: cn is considerms the ararr arvtsw procedures to be used in the licensing taons. of high. level waste repositories, and Although the hearing process prt> Finally, whatever improtements vides an orsportunity for pub!!c partici- believes that it sould be useful to so-that accrue in effleiency as a result of licit the ytets of intere:ted persons pation. there is very litt;e practnes! op- these recommendations will not be prior to making any final deci::on. Ac-portunity for interested members of the public particularly these in the vi- permitted to reduce the quality of the coroingly. the Comm15 tion is pub!1sh. Ilcensing review. ing for comment the Proposed Gener-etntty of the proposed site, to l>ecome Future statements concerning the al Statement of Poney on high level aware of the staff's role during review radiosetive saste upon'ory heing of construction permit apphcations. It other recommendations of NUREC. 0292 s2 be issued as appropriate. procedures set forth bc!ow. The Pro-is the Intent of tr.e Commission to pro- posed Genera.1 State =c .t of Polley vide increased opportunity for the could also be used by DOE for interim public to observe and participate la planning purpo:es pending a final ' the Ucensing process in a meaningfuj Commission decttion on repository 11-way tithout imposing an undue censms procettures. burden upon the resources of staff Under present statu*e It is not clear l manpower

• ahether NRC would have lleensing au.

Whtle the mest effielent way to thority over DOE's cla . red Wastk Iso-I handle interaction of the staff with lation Pilot P; ant tWIPPI proposed to

        )he applicant on 11oensing matters is to                                              be located at Car % bad. N. Mex. How.

hold meetings in Bethcedia where 11 la ever,if the WIPP fact!!!y is subject to NRC licensing. NRC expects to spoly j these procedures in the licensing { ENCLOSURE C PS 13 Septe reer 1,1882

e . POLICY STATEMENTS renew. are tailored to the kinds of activttles tal Polley Act of 1969 ("NEPA") prior NRC licensing authority over dog beteg authortsed and the potential hazards involved. For naample, al-to authorums construction of the waste management activit.es Ls denved main repository shaft. This statement from sections 2003) and 20 !4) of the though a license for possession and eculd be updated prtor to receipt and Energy Reorgan!zation Act of 1974. use of plutonium in a sealed calibra- storage of radioactive materials at the These secitans cortfine NRC 14ensing Uon source and a lleense for pos?ession repository should new infonnadon authority oser DOE waste manage. and use if plutonium for purposes of warrant. ment activities to certain DOE facili. proce=tng and fuel fabrication are ties for receipt and storage of high both special nuclear materials licenses. EaaLY Norrricarton to Status ans lesel rsdioactive saste. !! WIPP is to the former license may be tasued after Oma InmastwPaartzs be used exclustMiy for dtsposaJ cf a single review (and indeed may even In order to provide opportunity for ti$nsuraruc tastes from the oefense be generally licensed without the need early Jamst lessa meses and other in-program snd 1.000 commerets! spent for filing and redew of a speelfte 11- tcrested parties, the Commission fuel rod 2ssemblies, then WIPP might cense application-see 10 CFR 70.19). would. upon recetot of a DOE license flot be licensemble. While the 1.000 wh!!e the latter !! cense may only be application or request for an informal commercial spent fuel rod naremblies tasued after a review pioccas resem- early site review. (D publish in the smald be "h!gn level radioactive bling in many respects the two step 11 e.aste/*

• the transuranic sas;es would Pentnat Rastarra a notice of such re-censmg rettes provided in the Atomic ceipt (2) make a copy of the applica-nct be, and the facility sould not be Enrrgy Act for production and utt!!:a- tion or request available at the Pubtle "primarily" for recetpt and storage of tion facilities (see 10 CFR 70.2 ti) and "high level radioactive wastes" (sec* Document Room. and (3) transmit 70 23(b)). copies of such request to the Governor tion 20:t3) of the Energy Reorgar*t:a- In fashioning the procedures which tion Act). If WIPP is to be used for of the State and to the Chief Execu-fo!!ow, several unique features of geo- Uve of the municipality in which the disposal of defense program high level logic hash. level waste repositones were sastes. then it would be licensemble respository is tentatively planned to _

under section 202(4) of the Act pro

• carefutts considered. For such a re- be located and to the Governors of pository the suitability of the site be- any condguous States. Also. the staff vided it s as not "used for. or . . . part of. research and deselopment activ1- comes cruetal, for the integrity of the would offer to meet with State and Mes." It is possible that, depending site itself is essential to assure contam- local officials to provide them s1th in.

ment of the radioactive matenais, formation about the Commission's upon the exact program proposed by DOE. WIPP could be regarded as a re-Thus, sound polley suggests that the review and to esplore the poastbt!! ties Commiss:on be afforded the opportu. of State and local partictpation in the em t fromllCe g. tion process though-considenna the Innoncenon tentatne character of the activities in- Desssius Paoemmas volved-only in an informal advisory The proposed repository licensing The U.S. Nugest Regulatory Com* capacity. Alsc, for such an application. procedures are dhtded into four parts: rr"ssion t NRC or ' Commission ) is construction of a repository shaft vested weh lice .:mg authortty over review of DOE s.te selecticn. reeew of certam DOE high leset radioactive wo. tid constitute the first malor pene* repository development, repository la-waste repositortes by sections 202(3) tration of the geologic containtnent. If ceramg. and respository closure. improperly constructed or sealed, it 1. Retter of DOE site seleefton. and 202(4) cf the Energy Reorganiza. could impair the ability of the geologie Uon Act of 1974. These secuens refer There would be infortnal NRC staff containroemt to tsolate wastes over comments to DOE on site suitability to: long periods of time. At the same time, matters after DOE *s site selection. (3) FacGities uwd primartly for the Such informal consultation, which recetst and storays of high lesel radio- construction of this shaft is expected active sastes re:ulting from activities to dispel some of the uncertainties in m:cht take the form of sTitten NRC the accuracy of data necessary for sta!! cotwnents supplemented by one licensed under such Act (Atozzuc or trere open meetmgs betseen the Er.ergy Act). design of the underground repository. Thus, shile a safety review prior to two agency staffs, would enable the (4) Retrievab!e Sarface Storage ra. .W stan to pt at m asm cf ties and other imlaties authorized smiing of a shaft sou!d be appropn. ste, the scope of revnew and the imd. 'I

• I'#8"*U ' " O for the exprets purpo:e of subrequent ings ree.utred neen to take mto ac- trught requare special attention or pre-long terrn stcrage of high level radao-co1 nt the posnbility that only limited special p@ms. W M W actae taste generated by the Admm- #

1:tratma, stuch are not used for Gr data may be availab!e. Further. there at agM W nW W W Gm-should be a formal safety review of are ; e,f. research ano deselopment the mam repo:ltory design features *' tnd cat he e e on be-Under the Energy Reorsam:ation befon substannal cominstmnts an tseen NRC staff and DOE at this ma and alteranons become impracts-Act of 1974. as an. ended. and the cable to implement. Finally, the Com* early stage would be consultive in Atoanic Energy Act of 1954, as amend

• nature. That is. NRC staff may pro-ed, such repositories woul mis::on betaeves that it should exam- vide comments and ads 1ce, but the censed as production, or _d not be 11,-

utili:stion Ine the methods of corutruction and Commission will neither make formal factlat:es. Ratter, they would be li' any new information that may have findings nor take other formal action. cerued unoer tho:e provisions of the been developed during construction DOE sould remain at liberty to come Atom;c Energy Act dealing sith re- before forms!!y authon: ng receipt forward later w*th any license appi ca-ar.d storage of radioactise materials at tion that it belleted would conform to cetpt and potte'aton, of byproduct the repontory. Commission requirements, and the and **special nue! ear materials. fitw-ever, the Commi:sion has authority If a repository is subfect to the NRC Comir.tssion would be free, as the evt-ur' der the Atomic Energy Act to fash*

                                                !!cerutnc authonty, the C . tire repost-    dence might warrant, to formally ap-Son procedures for licensms of bnrod.          tory stil be sub.teted to licensing         prove or alsspprove the application.

rener, includ;ng thore actin 1tles 2. Acette of reposifory detetcpmett uct and spec:al riuclear matenal that which by the'nselves might not be The formal Commisalon licensms sithin the acoge of NRC responsibill- review process sould begin alth the Den though spent fuel whsen is to be ty.171ts comprehensive review will be filing of an application for a license by d.sposed of us a scolooc repository mar DOE prior to commencement of con-necessary because loss of integrity in ha.e some resource value. It contains

• any part of a repository could linpert) struction of a repository shaft. The active amate. Thus, it is clearly a "fuers

                                        "       the integnty of the entire repo:ttory       application s'ould be docketed for
        ,$71 yen"rs                ou            The Commission believes it should        revnes after a preliminary review for contained in the !Hauid anstes frosa repro-    prepare an ennronmental tropact             completeness. notice of the app!! cation eens ne that base trad;uonany been reents. statement        pursuant      to section   would be published in the rzoraAL ed se a form of hash level redacacuve waste. 102(2NCI of the National Environmen.        Racistra offenna an opportunity for September 1,1982                                                   PS 14

e . - POUCY STATEMENTS interested penons to intersene and re-mission requesta public comments on quest a hearmg. and a publae an-this possible course of action. monitor its operations. to keep rec-nouncement sould be tssued. ords, and to submit routine and special The application sould include infor- The NEPA environmental review reports. In accordance sith Commis. mation on site suitability and repost- would address, to the extent posuble based on asa!!able information, enyt. sion regulations and orders. All oper. tory design features important to allons stil be subject to such continu. safety. An environmental report pre

• ronmental tmpacts and alternatives as-soelated directly or indirectly with ins NRC inspection activities as may pared by DOE addressing the reaf ters be found to be apprognate.

set forth in section 102t2xC) of NEPA atting. construction. and operation of the repository. Any hearms held upon 4. Reticit of repositofy closure. Af ter would be submitted with or prior to the reposttery has been developed and the appliestion. request of an mterested person would It is probable that some information filled to maximum capnetty but prior be conducted in accordance with aut>. toJmal closure of the tmderground ex. necessary to tnake a defmittve imding part O of 10 CFR Part 2. of the reposttery's safety ull not then The applicant will be required to cavations and shafts and the decom-report to the NRC. during the course missioning of surface facilities, and be ava11st e. Nesertheless. the Com* NRC review and approsal will be re-mission 8 could authorne construction of construction, any site charactenza-quared of the licensee's proposed pro-of the repository upon completion of a tion data obtained s'hlen are not gram for comp!!ance with regulations review of s!! NEPA. safety, and within the predicted limits upon governing scalms of the underground common defense and se urity issues. which the reposttory design was based. Also,it would be required to report de- repository,decommtssionms of surface and upon fmding (1) after considering facilities, storage of permanent rec-ressonable alternatives that the bene- ficiencies in design and construetton fits of the proposal exceed the costs shich. If uncorrected, could have a s!g- crtis, and long. term monitortng. 3%)- n!!! cant adverse effect upon the safety lowmg completion of the review a under NEPA. and (2) that there is res- of the repository at any future time. change in license status may be war-sonable assurance that the types and ranted. - amounts of wastes described in the ap- 3a,. Repository ifcenstnp. Prior to re-pliestion can be stored in a repository ceipt of any radioactive matertal at of the des!gn proposed without unres- the repository. DOE will need to file sonable risk to the health and safety an updsted license applict tion with of the public or being trumical to the the Commiss!on. The license authortz. 43 FR 58377 common defense and security. Con- Lng actual rece1Dt and storage of radio. Pub 8'shed 12/14ns struction would commence with the active matenals would be tssued after Comment Pmod newes 2/12ng sinimg of the main repository shaft- the Commission has conducted a final :erandes 3/14ng) In the aJternative, there insufficient retter of health and safety and tnforTnation is available prior to shaft common defense and security issues in sinking to permit the Commission,to the light of (1) any additicnal geolog-ic, hydrotorte, and other data obtamed SINtRIC tuttMattHG TO IMet0Vs hWCLEAs make the complete findings set forth powta PtANT tlCANilNG above, on request by DOE or on the durmg construction; (2) conformance Commission's ouT. Initiative. the Com- of construction of repository struc- '"'*"#*'*Y**"*"' mission could allow the safety review tures, systems, and components with to be conducted in tso phases. *;on* the ear!!er received design; (3) results MMt u Nuclear Regdatory struction of the shaft could commence of research programs carried out to re, Commission. - upcn fmding (1) after cornidering res- solve questions identified during prior ACTION: Interim Policy Statement, sonable alternatives. that the benefits rettess;(4) plans for startup and rou-of the proposal exceed the costs under tine operations; and (5) plans for iden-

SUMMARY

An interim policy la pre-NEPA, and (2) that there is reasonable tifying and responding to any unan- sented to govern the consideration of assurance that:(a) The site is suitable ticipated releases of radioactive mate- preliminary proposals and plans by for a repository within shtch htsh- rtal from the repository. Issuance of a the Nuclear Regulatory Commission level tastes of the kinds and quanti-  !! cense will require a definitne findmg to pursue rulemaking on generic 11 ties described in the applicatton can be under the Atomic Energy Act that the cer ing issues as one of several initia-stored s1thout unreasonable rts% to receipt. possession, and use of the spe- gg..e s to improve the effectiveness and the health and safety tf the publ e or ctal nuclear and byptbduct materials eftlenney of !! censing of nuclear being inimical to the common definse at the repository will not constitute *  ; g p,'nd and security, and (b) the plans for con- unreasonable risk to the health and lemaking of this tu structicn of the main thaft and relat. safety of the pub!!c or be int nical t was initiated t ith an NRC study ed structures can be trnplemented in a the common defense and security. If group recommendation of June 1977 manner compatible with the use of the sarranted by new information which the present intenm statement fully site for a respository. The full firidmts the staff Judges could matert tay alter supports Executive Order 12044 of set forth previously would, then. have the NEPA cost benefit balance, the March 23.1978. requesting improve-to be made before the start of con- earlier environmental Impact state. ment of existing and future govern-ment will be urdst*d. Also, if request

• ment regulations so as to be as simple struction of surface and understound ed by a perso. %3se interest may be and clear as possible and avoid impos.

structures. Safety issues that could ing unnecessary burdens on the econo-not be resolved based upon the avalla- sffected. a

• Wu in sacordance with ble information m:g*tt be deferred subpart G ( tC 17L Part 2 would be my, on individuals, on public and prt-untti the repository operating license held W . lire . e issuance. vate organizations, or on State and review provided that: (1) an adequate 3t k W r i e dment (as needed), local governments. Commenta received program has been developed to resolve If sp# ru .
• vts such as retireta- by February 12. 1979, will be consid-the issue prior to that time, ano (2) bility or a limit on amounts or types of ered before adopting and implement.

sastes have been imposed in the 11- Ing the fir al policy and plan for such there is reasonable assurance that the cense, an amendment will be required expanded rulemaking. issue can be resolved in a favorable prior to committing waste to irretriev-manner at the later date. The Com- able djsposal or prior to the receipt of additional waste. It is anticipated that sy'or heannes eranted on an application. the required review procedures and the Comrnasjon expects. as in a nuc3 ear findings till be similar to those de-g g {*,"[' MNt; hrd" a taking into account additional infor-I to hear and trutsally decide the contested mation ablained during the retrievable issues As in any licenstris case. It would be possible for the Board to render parual de- storage phase or during operation etsions on several dtscrete tasues, suert as sith limited inventory, seEPA lasues. DOE will be required to conduct and PS 15 September 1,1982

p endD ENCLOSURE D 4

   .         .#       %                                                               IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
            .4         ,%                        UNITED STATES                                                      i y         ,     j                                                          REFER TO- '4830523C 5

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

           ,              j                    waswincTos. o.c. 2om                     ACTION - Minogue
                       */   .

May 27, 1983 Cys: Dircks Roe . orect or THs Rehm SECRETARY Stello Davis

• Comella Mell MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director JWolf for Operations GCunningham Felton Herzel H.E. Plaine, Gener h ps Oc unsel FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta Shelton

SUBJECT:

ION / DISCUSSION STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF:iR. AND VOTE, 3:30 P.M., MONDAY, MAY 23, 1983, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) I. SECY-83-117 - Review of ALAB-701 - In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Co., et al. The Commission, by a 3-2 vote (Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Gilinsky and Asselstine agreeing) approved an order that holds in abeyance a decision whether or not to review ALAB-701 until the completion of the Commission's current review of the requirement for control and stabilization of uranium mill tailings piles. Commissioners Ahearne and Roberts provided separate views. (Subsequently, on May 27, 1983 the .9ecretary signed the Order with the separate views attached.) II. SECY-83-59/83-59B - 10 CFR Part 60 -- Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories: Technical Criteria and Conforming Amendments The Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved the final amendments to 10 CFR Part 60 as attached. The Commission requested that the staff review the need to revise the definition of high-level waste in 10 CFR Part 60 to conform to the definition of high-level waste in the Nuclear Waste Act of 1982 during the ongoing review of the - procedural portion of 10 CFR Part 60. A recommendation as to possible revision should be provided along with the other changes to the procedural portion of 10 CFR Part 60. (Gesi (99L*f#Es# 18ehMif ###/1f89W R6 (EDO Suspense: 8/25/83) i n.cw on. roo l 001307 0m. . . . . .e -I \ rime. . . r;t.Cg da~.., ENCLOSURE D

You should revise the final rule as indicated in the attached

• copy and return it for signature and publication in the Federal Register, (ikpe) NE S (SECY Suspense- 6/17/83) -

You should also advise the appropriate Congressional Committees, issue the public announcement, and provide copies of the rule to all who submitted comments on the rule. , (EBO/OCA/OPA) (SECY Suspense: 6/30/83) S ES  ! Attachments: (TO EDO ONLY) As stated cc: Chairman Palladino

,                    Commissioner Gilinsky t

Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commission Staff Offices PDR - Advance i DCS - 016 Phillips I 1 d e i

l 1 M 9 ENCLOSURE E i i I e

    - - . - - - - ,,,   - - . - - +y.-   , -r- , _ - , - - - - - - - - - -, .. ,, , , _ , _ _    - - - , , , - . - - - - ~ - - - - , - - . . - - . - , - - - - . - , - - , . - - - ,

                   . ~ .                              . . .

DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER '

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for your information is a copy of an advance notice of proposed rule-making to be published in the Federal Register. The enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-425, led th Commission to reexamine some of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 60 in order to - conform with the new law. As a result of this review, the Commission is considering revising the definition of the term "high-level radioactive wastes" in 10 CFR Part 60. In view of the complexity of the issues presented the Cemnission seeks additional information before proposing a particular amendme to its rules. The Commission is taking this opportunity to obtain public comment by means of the enclosed advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Sincerely. - l Robert G. Minogue, Ofrector Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated t i 4 ENCLOSURE E k

kJ. O w w - ----,------- i 1 ENCLOSURE F i 1

]

I 1 I 'I l

ECh? National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 7910 WOOOWONT AvtNvE. SurTE 1016 sETHESCA MARvLAND 20sta.3095 AAEA CODE 00tl 657 2652 WARREN E SINCLAIA Ph D rweasem

                                                                               $ . NAMES ADEL 51EiN w 0. va emsorm                                                                    t W AOGER NEY. J D , Esecupw Drector October 15, 1984 Honorable William D. Buckelshaus                                                         Honorable Donald Paul Hodel Administrator                                                                            Secretary                                                      -

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Energy 401 M Street, S.W. 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 1200 West Tower Washington, D.C. 20585 Washington, D.C. 20460 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. lith Floor Washington, D.C.

                                                                                                                                                                                          ~

20555 Gentlemen: As indicated in my letter of March 26, 1984, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) undertook an examination of the definitions applicable to radioactive waste. In part, the work was initiated because of our belief that control sessures for radioactive weste must be based on rational evaluations of the potential hazard of the vaste, rather than on artificial considerations such as the source of the waste.

,                                     The Panel on the Definition of High Level Radioactive Waste, established as a Task Group under Scientific Committee 38, convened on March 9 and May 9, 1984. The panel was chaired by Merril Eisenbud and included Drs. Edward Albenesius, Melvin Carter, John Natuszek, Dade Moeller, Frank Parker and Martin Steindler. The affiliations of these individuals are listed in the attachment. The Task Croup was briefed by representatives of the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i This letter summarizes the conclusions of the Task Group based on (1) the information provided during these briefings, (2) our review of a number of relevant documents submitted to us and, (3) our collective experience with the subject of radioactive waste management. ENCLOSURE F A nonoovunmtwr, wr-ron-enont, concatssosaur cnsnrrnto, psnte senvcs onGAwA rnon

, . *i. f

There appears to be an urgent need for a generally secepted definition of high-level waste. The absence of such a definition, which seems strange in view of the importance of the subject, is due to the number of federal agencies that have been involved during the past 40 years and the considerable number of federal laws and regulations that exist, all developed at different times and under different circusateaces. There has been an evident failure of interagency coordination. Ths first legal definition of high-level wasta uma published in 1970 in Appcodiz F to 10 CFR, Part 50. A total of seven legal definitions have come co our attention, none of which are as comprehensive as is necessary.

Radioactive waste defined as "high level" will be isolated in deep geological repositories to insure protection of the public. It is therefore important that the wastes be classified properly so that those requiring

permanent isolation een be identified correctly and that westes for which a l 1 esser degree of protection will be sufficient are not required to be placed -

1 in deep geological repositories that are enpensive to build and will be of limited capacity. While the primary goal of unste annagement must be to protect the health of the public, it is laportant that this goal be achieved with due attention to economic factors. In this connection, the Task Group noted that a criterion,10 nanocuries per gram, which until recently served as , the cutoff between shallow land burial and other disposal modes for

+

transuranic weste, was established a number of years ago with an insufficient technical basis. Upon investigation by the NCRF, it was found that the criterion could be increased tenfold without increasing the risks either to workers or the public. This change, which was recently made by the Nucient Regulatory Commission, has already resulted in a savings of $250 million. , i It is planned that only two high-level waste repositories will be built by the end of the century and that they will cost about $20 billion. It is important that the valuable capacity of these repositories not be filled by radioactive weste that can be disposed of by some lesser means. Since the I definition of high-level waste will determine whether a given vaste goes to a geological repository or elsewhere, the definition should be precise and the various federal agencies should adopt definitions that are mutually consistent. The Task Group was pleased to learn that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is about to propose a new definition which, according to the Environmental Protection Agency representative, would be acceptable to the ! Agency. This is a gratifying forward step. We also stress the importance of ! assuring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed definition rests on i a fire technical bests and recommend that the technical bases for the definition be made available for external scientific review. The Task Croup largely lialted its attention to high-level waste. ! However, the Task Group noted that new Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations governing the disposal of low-level waste (for which a definition

has been provided in 10 CFR 60) have been promulgated. The decision of the Commission to classify such vaste into three categories of required confinement according to activity level and half-life appears to be an j appropriate step forward that provides a more scientific bests for law-level disposal options. The Task Group found that such a classification is

consistent with the philosophy that the classification of radioactive wastes f

                                                               -2

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

should be based upon those factors which determine radiation risk. This will include type of eulssion and biological factors related to chemical form. Incorporation of a de minimis criterion, as is being contemplated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 10 CFR 20, may provide the final link necessary for a comprehensive waste classification and disposal system. The NCRP could provide a review of the bases for low-level and de minimis ~ l rimanifiaattees c'-Hr-- rly nith m .-t 4f the high-level wasta j definition. This process would aske available, for the first time, a i scientific review of the bases of the numerical criteria for classifying the i full spectre of radioactive waste from the de minimis to the highest levels l that will become available. I I In summary, the Task Group found that definitions of unste as promulgated by Federal agencies and the Congress are largely uncoordinated and thus promise to cause unneeded confusion and possible expense. The recommendations I of the Task Group, based on the results of the briefings and other sources, - are as follows:

1. Federal agencies involved in High Iavel Radioactive Waste (ELW) should a participate in a study that seeks to provide a common, comprehensive, and J functional definition of HLW (and other wastes) for governmental use.

i Such a study could be carried out by one of several groups, including and perhaps especially, the NCRP, but success will require the participation and the acceptance of the results by all affected agencies. 4 2. Definitions of HLW, and other waste types, should be based on estimates ! of risk rather than origin of the waste. This approach appears to . j require disposal methods to be identified, but these methods can and should be defined on a generic basis rather than a site-specific basis. 1 I 3. Federal agencies should, in the course of examination of the definitions l of vaste classes, orient their decisions to the practical recognition that nuclide content of westee may represent a continuum. The disposal ! nethods applicable to the waste are also likely to represent a continuum

;                          which any be fragmented by practical considerations of economics and j                            technology.

4. New regulations concerning nuclear wastes and their disposal issued by '

Federal agencies should be accompanied by their scientific and technologic bases and should be subjected to peer review before being issued for public comment.

5. Each Federal agency concerned with radioactive materials and waste should be encouraged to coordinate its activities that may arise in diverse departments. Particular attention should be given by agencies to the integration of activities that deal with similar esterials arising from a variety of sources (e.g., accelerator produced, naturally-occurring, and fission produced nuclides). Regulations based on risk and subjected to l thorough peer review should be the bases of action throughout the j agencies.  !

t - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . .

     . .                                                                                                                                                                                  1 l

l l l

6. l The Executivt branch of government should integrate the requirements of l

• Federal agencies for the management of radioactive materials and present to the Congress recommendations that will remove the fragmentation and '

conflicts resulting from the provisions in several lave. I hope that these recommendations will prove helpful in moving forward on the important problem of defining high-level waste. I can assure you that the NCIP standa ready to help la any any that -we can. Sincerely yours, h ' Warren K. Sinclair President - VKS: WEN /sh Attachment I j P O l l t

       .~.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION FROTECTION AND MEASUREMEffrS 7910 Woodsont Avenue, Suite 1016 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Fanel on the Definition of Eigh Invel Radioactive Weste Dr. Merril Eisenhed, Chairman Professor - Institute of Environmental Medicine New York University Medical Center

 ,                                                                        P. O. Box 817 Tuxedo, New York 10987 i

Dr. Edward L. Albenesias Dr. Frank L. Parker E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Enviromental and Water Savannah Elver 14boratory Resources Engineering Aiken, South Carolina 29801 Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee 37235 Dr. Melvin W. Carter Dr. Martin Eteladler Neely Professor Associate Director School of Nuclear Engineering Chemical Engineering Div. Emerson Building, toom 237 Argonne National Laboratory Georgia Institute of Technology Argonne, Illinois 60439 Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Dr. Dede W. Moeller Dr. John M. Matussak Harvard School of Public Health Director Department of Environmental Radiological Sciences Institute l Health Sciences Center for Laboratory 677 Huntington Avenue and Basearch Boston, Massachusetts 02115 Empire State Flasa

   !                                                                                                         Albany, New York 12201 l

e l I

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

       +,J - _--

G e l J ene ENCLOSURE G i

[~...acey), UNITED STATES

   ,   y       ,,     j                                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N s

ACVISOGY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUAIDS "e, ,f wasmNcTON, D. c. 20sse

          'N,,,,,**'                                                          January 15, 1985 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, O. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Dircks:

SUBJECT:

SUBCOMMITTEE C0FMENTS ON HIGH LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY ' Ouring a meeting on December 19-20, 1984, the ACRS Waste Management Subcomittee met with the NRC Staff to discuss staff efforts in reviewing the upcoming application of the U.S. Department of Energy for a license to construct a high level waste repository. During this meeting, the Subcomittee prepared a sumary report of its observations and cements. During its 297th meeting on January 10-12, 1985, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards considered this report and approved the forwarding of a copy to you for consideration by the NRC Staff. . Sincerely, A

                                                                                                                               /

H. W. Lewis Acting Chairman Attachments:

1. Sumary Comments Waste Management Subcomittee Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards dated January 14, 1985 1

200 ~ 000283 . ENCLOSURE G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - - - - - , ' ' ' - ' ' ^ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~

SUMMARY

COMMENTS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS Ouring a meeting on December 19-20, 1964, the ACRS Waste Management Subcomittee met with the NRC Staff to discuss their efforts in reviewing the upcoming application of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for a license to construct a high level radioactive waste (HLW) recesitory. Subunits of the discussion included a review of current plans for the establishment by DOE of a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility and efforts by the NRC Staff to revise and upgrade the official definitions of the various categories of radioactive wastes. _. As a result of these discussions, the Subcomittee offers the following coments: , 1. In its attempts to meet the regulatory recuirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the NRC Staff has encountered l several instances where different' interpretations of the Congressional intent are possible. One example is the specific requirements of what is meant by " permanent isolation." Rather than responding solely on the basis of providing a range of options, depending on the meaning of such a phrase, we suggest that the Staff consider identifying which interpretation it considers to be the most appropriate or i reasonable. This "strawman" approach would provide greater

    .                                                assurance that this rulemaking effort could be brought to completion promptly.

J 2. In tems of upgrading the current definitions of radioactive wastes, the Subcomittee offers the following coments: a.

The classification of a radioactive waste should be based on its potential for human exposure, both external and internal. Such potential is influenced by factors such as the mode of decay, the half-life.

i the concentration, the chemical form, and the i radiotoxicity of the radionuclides involved. Although the source of the waste may be important in certain instances, it should not be a dominant i consideration. These factors, in turn, dictate the i methods for imobilization and confinement that are required to assure that the associated risk is l acceptable. i

b. We believe that the NRC Staff, in its consideration, should include the full gamut of wastes from HLW that must be placed in a secure, ranging repository, down to wastes that contain such minute concentra-tions of radionuclides that they can be considered

{ not to be of regulatory concern. The ACRS comented i _ . . _ _- _ . _ . - . _ _ ,.e_ , , . - . . _ - , , , . _ , _ . , , , . . - - - -,r- --*-w-- -----*e--- -------*--4-ev ~ -

_ _ _ - - . . . - ~ . - . . - .- _ - - . Sumery Coments/

• 2 Maste Management i

f i - on this matter in our letter of February 13, 1984 to the NRC Chairman (Attachment 1).

 .                                        c. Although the NRC Staff should acknowledge that waste categories represent a continuum from those of negligible j

to those of high risk, for practical reasons-such westes mus,t be grouped into categories. To the extent possible these categories should be discrete and unambiguous. For ! some waste categories, such as those that might be j classified as " intermediate level" and are currently low i in volume, it may be more judicious to place them in a  ! i repository than to develop specific procedures for their disposal. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that . j longer range considerations may make it necessary to develop methods for confining such wastes in a manner l 1 more secure than that provided by shallow land burial but j less sophisticated than that provided by a repository,

                                                                                        ,                           i 1

d. It should be recognized that adequate confinement need 4

i not always necessitate placing comparatively high risk j l radicactive wastes within a repository. Such confinement  !

 ;                                             may be attained for certain wastes, such as those con-               '

i taining the transuranic radionuclides, through converting l them to appropriate physical or chemical foms and placing them in a less elaborate facility. _ )

e. In terms of the approaches being proposed for dealing with various waste categories, the Subcomittee recom-

! mends that the NRC Staff detemine how many case-by-case

 !                                             issues will need to be addressed under options "b" and t                                               "c" (See Attachment 2). If they are substantial in l                                               number, option "a" may be the logical choice.

I

f. In view of the urgency of all of the above matters relative to ongoing high level and low level radioactive waste disposal activities, we urge that the NRC Staff give priority to their resolution.

1

3. The Subcomittee endorses the administrative structure that has been developed by the Division of Waste Management for i handling its review of the Environmental Assessments that are being developed by DOE for each of the nine proposed repository sites. We also endorse the close comunication i

links that have been established with the DOE and EPA, and the < l assignment of NRC representatives to the proposed repository  ! I sites in Washington and Nevada and at the ONWI/Battelle Nemorial Institute in Ohio.

4. The Subcomittee encourages the NRC Staff to continue to keep in mind that an important goal is to assure that the NLW repository meets the regulatory standards of the Environmental Protection Agency. Although the NRC has established subsystem l criteria which, if met, will assure compliance with the EPA

                                                                                                                 .l l

J _ --

Sumery Coments/ . 3 L'aste Management Standards, it should be recognized that trade offs among the various subsystems may be necessary.

5. As a next step, the Subcomittee, with the concurrence of the NRC Staff, plans to conduct a review and evaluation of:

a. The " Standard Review Plan for Draft Invironmental Assess-ments," that was recr.itly issued by the Division of Waste Management,

b. The criteria developed and used by the DOE in ranking the nine sites proposed for the first repository. Included in this review will be an assessment of the weighting factors assigned by the DOE to each of the items con-sidered in their evaluations. -

The Subcomittee will also be available to assist the NRC Staff on any specific problems that may arise in their ongoing evaluations of the Environmental Assessments for each of the nine proposed sites. Attachments:

1. Letter for Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman, NRC, from J. C. Ebersole, Chairman, ACRS. Subj: Establishment of De Minimis Values, dated Feb. 13, 1984

2. To'rtion of the handout material provided by D.J. Fehringer of the NRC/WM Staff for his presentation at the WM Subcomittet Meeting on December 19, 1984, entitled " Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Definition of High-Level Waste."

9 l l l

(( 3 I UNr71D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Oh REACTOR SAFEGUARDS I I

     .                  f                            svAsamc7oes. D. c. asses j
      \' ** /                           ~

February 13, 1984 Honorable Nun:to J. Palladine Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Dr. Palladino:

SUBJECT:

ESTABLISHMENT OF g MINIMIS VALUES During its 286th meeting, February 9-11, 1984, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards met with the NRC Staff 49d a representative of the Edison Electric Institute to discuss the desirability of the establishment by the NRC of de minimis values for radiation exposures. This subject was also discusseTby our Subcomittee on Reactor Radiological Effects at a meeting on January 23-24, 1984, during which discussions were held with representa-tives from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Atomic Industrial Forum, the Edison Electric Institute, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Hessurements (NCRP), the International Atomic Energy Agency, the University of Pittsburgh, the radiopharmaceutical industry, and the state of South Carolina. As a result of these discussions, we offer the following coments:

1. As considered here, a de minimis value would be a dose equivalent, exclusive of natural raciation background, that is deemed to have an associated risk that is trivial and would be of no regulatory concern.

2. Establishment of such values would complement the Comission's efforts to establish safety goals. Although de minimis values might be expressed as a dose equivalent rate or total dose equivalent, implementation or enforcement of such values would involve the development of specific

               . guidance for a range of applications. Such applications might include the specification of radionuclide concentrations in wastes that need not be handled as radioactive; the total quantities of .given radionu.

clides that might be released without restrictions; radionuclide concen-trations in, or contamination levels on, reclaimed equipment that could be released for public use; and dose equivalents for which claims for radiation injury are not justified. Such values would also provide a

                  " floor" for ALARA considerations, and would set bounds in space and time for calculating population collective doses.

3. Establishment of de minimis values would foster consistency, equity, and reasonableness 7n regulation; it would help in setting regulatory -

priorities; and it would help expedite the solving of certain regulatory problems. In addition, such values would reduce regulatory and cogli-ance costs by obviating the need to devote resources to consideration of ( trivial levels of radiation exposure. Establishment of such values would ATTACHMENT 1

Honorable Nunzio J. Dalladino -2 February 13, 1984 e also promote better public understanding and acceptance of the potential effects of radiation. 4 Although the Commission could establish g minimis values by a policy decision, we believe that it might be preferable to establish them through rulemaking. Although the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 20 (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) include a recomendation for a de minimis value, we believe this is such an important matter and has thTpotential for such far-reaching benefits, both in tems of cost savings and regulatory simplification, that the specification of a more complete set of values should be given early consideration. The Comittee supports the current NRC Staff efforts on the development of de minimis values, and we encourage them to continue to coordinate this work Etn otner federal agencies, such as the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation, as well as appropriate professional socia-ties and industrial groups, the NCRP, and the Conference of (state) Radia-tion Control Program Directors and other state representatives. Such co. ordination will assure that the magnitudes of the values selected reflect consideration of all relevant factors and available scientific data. The ACRS would be please to work with the NRC Staff on this matter. Sincerely, ( , l M.L - Jesse C. Ebersole Chairman I l

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

THREE OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING AN EXPANDED HLW DEFINITION-- THE ISCLATION CAPA81LITIES OPTION A--ANALYSIS OF DISPCSAL TECHNOLOGIES. WASTES . 0F GREATER CONFINEMENT DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES WOULD BE EV

• 4 WHICH COULD NOT SAFELY BE DISPOSED OF IN SUCH FACILITIES WO CLASSIFIED AS HLV.

ONLY THE MOST HAZARDOUS WASTES WITH OPTION l--ANALOGY WITH EXISTING MLV. CONCENTRATIONS EQUIVALENT TO REPROCESSING WASTES WOULD OTHER GREATER THAN CLAS5 C CURRENT HLW DEFINITION AT THE PRESENT TIME. WASTES WOULD BE CLASSIFIED A'S HLW OR LLW ON A CASE-BY-CASE OPTION C -Two CLAS$ SYSTEM. ALL WASTES WITH CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING SPECIFIC TYPES THE CURRENT CLASS C LIMITS WOULD BE CLAS$1FIED AS HLW. 0F WASTES COULD BE EXEMPTED ON A CASE-tY-CASE BASIS. NOTE: This attachment is a portion of the handout material provided by D. J. Fehringer of the NRC/WM Staff fer his presentation at the WM ~ ' Subcomittee Hetting on December 19, 1984* ATTACHMENT 2 entitled " Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Definition of High-Level Waste." 6 l m--- --,---.--.,.,.---,y_m---y- --,--. -- - - ,_- .- -_ _--__..--.-

                                                                                                     ---.----y       .m, ,- .   -w-~.,        ---_..-,,.-,--..---,__.r,   ,,--.-...y     - --,

   -a    9

• e 0

9* e j 9 en e O O e e s u 5 4 8 ', 25 b -

• 4gl 53 -

5 'I

                =                   ..

Wg E b e- , 8EI 5

                                    $ 6 5 ,'

elf. . e 5 2 ~ 5 E u w m e 4.--

                                            ~~

l

                                                                        \}}