ML20137L766
| ML20137L766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1995 |
| From: | Bahadur S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Wigginton S NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007F933 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-60FR15649, FRN-60FR25983, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-61 AD33-2, AD33-2-009, AD33-2-9, NUDOCS 9704070308 | |
| Download: ML20137L766 (71) | |
Text
Marcn 15,.1995 ffh)
/
MEM0PANDUM 10:- -Sarah N. Wigginton, A: ting Chief Rules Review & Directives Branch
. Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM: . Sher Bahadur, Acting Chief Regulation Development Branch.
Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECEMBER 29, 1994, SRM: FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 61.0N LOW LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING On December 29, 1994, the Commission approved the subject final rule, with amendments. The specific changed pages, to meet the requirements of the SRM, are also attached.
Please implement the Commission's actions by arranging for publication of the enclosed final rule in the Federal Register. The package has been approved by OMB.
Also attached is a Congressional letter package (including diskette) for transmittal to OCA, and the regulatory analysis for forwarding to the PDR.
+
Attachments: 1. Federal Register Notice ;
+ 13 Copies & Diskette ]
- 2. Change Pages ;
- 3. Congressional Letter Package
& Diskette
- 4. Regulatory Analysis Distribution:
RDB R/F - Central Files Subject File ES8eckjord BMorris w/atts.
FCostanzi LRiani Document Name: [G:\haisfield\ wig.um]
OFFCL RDB DRA g RDB DF]At g 3 NAMEP be5h[M luch sBahadu
'DAfb 3 /d /95 % /(b5 ) 6 /95 COPY: [el, No a.f40 Yet f
. OF7tClAL REGbF DW (RE5 PffE Code) RE5 i
l I
l 9704070308 970327 PDR PR 20 60FR15649 PDR ,
, , ~. . - -_ ._ _ _ - . _ . _ - . _ _
I
)
s
,s "* coq t UNITED STATES g'
--j ' "*' d jj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, os. 2Jh-0001 o t
%* . . . ./ -
March'15, 1995 MEMORANDUM T0: Sarah N. Wigginton,. Acting Chief Rules Review & Directives Branch-Division of Freedom of Information and Publications-Services Office of Administration FROM: Sher Bahadur, Acting Chief Regulation Development Branch h
Division.of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECEMBER 29, 1994, SRM: FINAL AMENDMENTS 10 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 61 ON LOW LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING On December 29, 1994, the Commission approved the subject-final rule, with
. amendments; The specific changed pages, to meet the requirements of the SRM, are also attached.
Please implement the Commission's actions by arranging for publication of the j enclosed final rule in the Federal Register. The package has been approved by ;
OMB.
i 1
Also attached is a Congressional lett9r package-(including diskette) ,for l transmittal to DCA, and the regulatory analysis for forwarding to the PDR.
l Attachments: 1. Federal Register Notice
+ 13 Copies & Diskette
- 2. Change Pages
- 3. Congressional Letter Package
& Diskette
- 4. Regulatory Analysis j I
i-
y . p = -. - __ -. _ s.. ,.. A u .. = , 4 e # =
b I
I l
i t
b
'h
?
P L
t t
i 1
'E 5
ATTACHMENT 1; :
i i
.I FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE I
i 1
l 1
i l
I
'l 1 I
[7590-01-P]
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 4
RIN 3150-AD33 Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is amending its regulations to improve low-level waste (LLW) manifest information and reporting. The amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained in manifects that are required to control transfers of LLW that is ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; i (2) establish a set of forms that allows LLW to be tracked from its origin, and serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to meet NRC, Department of Transportation (DOT), and State and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require the disposal site operators to be capable of reporting the stored Uniform Manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on March 1, 1998. However, licensees may implement the regulation at an earlier date, if a LLW disposal facility or its regulatory authority, to which shipped-LLW is to be ultimately consigned, desires earlier implementation of these provisions.
ADDRESSEES: Copies of documents relating to the proposed rule that was published on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500), or copies of this document may be examined and copied for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower-Level), Washington, DC 20555. Copies of NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest forms and the general instructions can
be obtained from the Information and Records Management Branch, Mail Stop e
T-6 F33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, or r
telephone (301) 415-7230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6756 or Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6196.
1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: t I. Background.
Purpose of the Revision Low-Level Waste Shipment and Disposal Rulemaking History ,
II. Impler.ientation.
III. Summary of Public Comments and Changes from Proposed Rule.
- Part 20
-Section 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests
-Appendix F to il 20.1001 through 20.2402 (Appendix G to 99 20.1001 through 20.2402 in this final rule) l
- 1. Manifest - Introduction l
- 1. Manifest - Definitions A. General Information B. Shipment Information i C. Disposal Container and Waste Information D. Uncontainerized Waste Information E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information III. Control and Tracking - A III. Control and Tracking - B Part 61
-Section 61.12 Specific technical information
-Section 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers Uniform Manifest and Instructions l 2
i
-General Comments
-Form 540.
-form 541
-Form 542 .
National Data Base Comments Regulatory Analysis Comments IV. Agreement' State Compatibility.
-V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VII. Regulatory Analysis. ,
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification. 1 IX. Backfit Analysis. .
I. Background Purpose of the Revision.
The purpose of this amendment to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 is to modify the NRC's LLW shipment manifest information and reporting requirements to address ,
' the regulatory information needs for the transfer and disposal of LLW. The amended information defines the chemical, physical, and radiological j properties of LLW that can be used to determine the expected performance of l disposal facilities during operations and following closure. Thus, a principal objective of these amendments is to ensure that the information, initially reported by those generating the LLW, eventually received and ;
recorded by the LLW disposal facility operator, and made available to the NRC or an Agreement State regulatory agency, is sufficiently comprehensive and consistent for its intended use. To enhance regulatory oversight and assist regulatory' agencies and .others in their assessments of normal operations or potential problems, such as questions about the adequacy of a particular disposal' container, the amendment requires that the manifest information be stored electronically at the disposal facility operated under an NRC license and_ be capable of being conveyed by a computer-readable medium. The specific content and schedule for any reports containing the stored information will be l
3 l 1
'I
l
- eMablished as a condition of the license-or, if necessary, in a future rulemaking action.
The Commission recognizes that several entities have legitimate needs l j
for LLW shipment information that should reasonably be included on a shipment manifest. In fact, Compacts,2 unaffiliated States, and an increasing number of consignees, including. disposal facility operators, have interests in waste ,
i shipment and disposal information that could be contained in a shipment j
manifest. To provide a degree of standardization in format and a baseline of i manifest information, the amendment requires the use of an NRC-developed f Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest. This manifest, to which l additional information can be added, responds to a request from the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)' and the expressed views of several.
other parties having an interest in the information contained in the manifest. 3
'The uniform manifest meets 00T shipping paper requirements, contains the information required by the NRC, and provides a baseline set of information to l address Compact, unaffiliated State, and consignee needs.
i Low-level Waste Shioment and Disposal, !
LLW may be shipped to a LLW disposal facility directly from a waste !
generator (potentially after the waste has been sent offsite for processing and has been returned) or may be shipped from a waste collector or processor. ,
The collector is a licensee who typically handles prepackaged waste from hospitals, laboratories, or other licensees who generate only small volumes of wasta. A shipment from a collector may have been temporarily stored at the i
- With the passage of the low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments !
Act of 1985 and the low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980, many States have l organized into regional Compacts. These Compacts, together with unaffiliated l States, are attempting to facilitate the development and operation of new disposal facilities. ,
' NRC staff interactions with the Compacts and unaffiliated States has )
occurred principally with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum and the Host State' Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The TCC requested that the !
l Commission consider the development of a uniform manifest in this rulemaking action, and on November 9, 1990, transmitted to NRC an example manifest with i supporting material.-
4 i
~
e l
collector'.s facility and, when eventually transported to a disposal facility, l
shipped with other containers of waste obtained from several generators.
Waste may be shipped from a waste processor, who has received radioactive material or waste from other licensees (generators, collectors, or other processors), and has repackaged the waste after possibly changing the waste's chemical or physical characteristics. For example, the waste processor may have compacted or incinerated the waste or segregated contaminated waste from non-contaminated material or waste. A single l I
container of waste shipped from a waste processor may contain wastes from a number of different generators. ,
I Companies generating, collecting, processing, or disposing of the waste
' are licensed either by the NRC or by an Agreement State.' Any step in the i waste management chain (e.g., temporary storage by a collector, processing, or disposal) may have occurred in a State different from that in which the waste was generated. Thus, from a radiological safety standpoint, several regulatory entities may have an interest in particular waste shipments and disposals.
Each shipment of LLW is currently accompanied by a multi-page manifest that describes the shipment contents. These manifests, which include specifically formatted versions developed by the disposal facility operators, are frequently large multi-copy detailed documents that conta m information I required by the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 20,' 00T regulations in 49 CFR Part 172, and State requirements imposed as conditions on disposal facility licensees. The manifests also incluae information required by the consignee who receives the LLW or radioactive material shipment.
Three disposal facilities are currently in operation. The Barnwell, South Carolina, disposal facility is operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.,
1
' Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission has the authority to relinquish part of its regulatory authority to a State, contingent upon making a determination that the State's regulatory program is compatible with the Commission's. Twenty-nine States, under formal agreements with the Commission, have assumed this regulatory responsibility.
Negotiations with other States are underway.
- The Commission's LLW manifest and tracking requirements are codified in i 20.2006 and Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 20.
5
t the Richland, Washington, facility is' operated by US Ecology, Inc., (both of these facilities are only accepting waste from their respective Compacts), and l 1
the Utah facility near Clive, Utah, is operated by Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Upon receipt of a shipment'of LLW at these facilities, operators perform quality control checks on the shipment and the information in the manifest.
Portions of the manifest information are transferred into their computer-based i recordkeeping systems. The existing disposal facility operators have developed computer systems to store and ' process the voluminous manifest information because the operators receive thousands of shipment manifests each year.
I Rulemakina History.
In 1989, the NRC initiated this rulemaking to improve the quality and consistency in reporting of information that was contained on manifest documents. In that same year, a draft of the proposed rule was provided to
" the Agreement States for comment. As a result of this early interaction, the 1 Commission became aware that a significant improvement to the current manifesting system would be the development of a national Uniform Low-Level.
Radioactive Waste Manifest. This was d; scribed in a letter to former Chairman Carr in May 1990 from the TCC and a corresponding letter from the LLW Forum.
The NRC agreed that incorporation of a uniform manifest would provide a number of advantages and aqreed to consider this concept. In November 1990, the TCC 2 provided a draft uniform manifest for the NRC's consideration.
The NRC seriously considered the recommendations of the TCC in developing a draft uniform manifest. The NRC also consulted with the DOT on those parts of the proposed rule and uniform manifest that address D0T radioactive material transportation (shipping paper) requirements. Based on
, these interactions, a draft of the proposed rule and uniform manifest was f developed and was sent to the Agreement States in March 1991. Subsequently, the proposed rule and uniform manifest forms were sent to D0T, and in July 1991, the NRC received 00T concurrence that the applicable parts of the uniform manifest met its requirements for shipping papers in 49 CFR Part 172.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500). The NRC received 40 comment letters on its proposed rule, 6
1
, - - l
and referenced forms and instructions. The issues raised by these commenters are discussed in Section III of this preamble. During the comment period, the LLW forum members also received input from parties in their respective Compacts. As a result, the LLW forum suggested that, to produce a more effective rule, the NRC should sponsor a public meeting to further discuss concerns raised by commenters, and thereby clarify the purpose of the rule.
In response to this request, the NRC noticed a public meeting in the Federal Register on April 27,1993 (58 FR 25578), and held the meeting on June 15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland. A transcript and detailed summary are available in the NRC Public Docu;uent Room.
The two most significant issues discussed at this meeting dealt with the format of the uniform manifest and how and when the manifest will be used.
The formatting issue was a source of concern because the NRC changed the "look and feel" of the manifest from the style of the manifests developed by the LLW disposal facility operators and used for shipments consigned to these facilities. Furthermore, the NRC's formatting approach would require some data to be recorded twice on the same set of manifest forms. It was noted by NRC that the proposed changes were made to meet DOT requirements. Although unable to satisfy individual commenters who prefer the existing manifest formats, the NRC staff has worked with DOT staff and has minimized any j difference in the reporting burden for completing the uniform .nanifest as l opposed to the burden imposed by existing manifests. As discussed in Section II of this preamble, before the comnliance date specified in the rule, the NRC i
intends to facilitate trial uses of the manifest to ensure a common understanding of information reporting requirements.
The " manifest use" issue deals with industry concerns that the uniform manifest will be used to track radioactive material in addition to radioactive waste. The NRC manifest is designed to be used for the transfer of LLW, but the NRC recognizes industry's concerns that Compacts or unaffiliated States may require the NRC's or some other manifest format to be used for all shipments to processors or decontamination facility licensees. Existing NRC regulations require the manifesting of shipments of LLW to collectors and pocessors before eventual disposal. Nothing in these amendments changes that requirement, nor adds new requirements for shipments of material. Compacts or 7
unaffiliated States may require additional reporting and this reporting could l be. accomplished.through use of the NRC manifest format. i i
II. Implementation Sections 20.2006, 61.12(n), and 61.80(f) and (1) of the amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 in this final rule require NRC licensees to use the
~'
Uniform Manifest in Appendix G beginning March 1,1998. This late date is intended to allow existing LLW disposal facility licensees (all located in
-Agreement States), and their respective Agreement State regulators, to consider the length of time that the existing disposal facility will continue to operate under current rules before closure, and to make revisions to existing Agreement State regulations. For example, shippers to a facility that will close before March 1, 1998 need not use the new manifest unless j i
required to do so by a disposal facility operator or its regulatory authority. 1 j
A few of the amendments in this final rule have been incorporated into the existing 10 CFR Part 20 to be applicable at the stated future date in a manner that retains existing requirements in the interim. The majority of the new requirements imposed by this final rule have been included in a new Appendix G to 66 20.1001 through 20.2402.
NRC Agreement States each have regulations compatible with the existing 10 CFR Part 20. Agraement States normally amend their regulations to preserve compatibility within three years after NRC issues final rules. In the Commission's view, it is desirable to publish this rule before any new LLW disposal site is licensed and operating. Even if Agreement State regulations are not yet final, LLW facility operators will have knowledge available on l NRC's future manifesting requirements.
Before the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest becomes mandatory, the NRC intends to initiate trial use of the manifest to reveal any practical problems in its use.
III. Summary of Public Conments and Changes from Proposed Rule !
8 !
l l
l l
This section presents the princip1 issues raised in public coments on the proposed rule, the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest forms,.and the instructions that si:pport the manifest. This section also contains the-NRC response to the coments and a sumary of the principal changes that were made to the proposed rule or to the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest and its supporting instructions. This section has been arranged so that it corresponds to the structure of the proposed rule. However, a number of comments addressed specific aspects of the manifest forms or the supporting instructions. These coments are addressed following those that relate to specific provisions of the rule. The overall format involves a listing of the applicable rule section, any minor changes to that section, principal comments and issues, NRC's response, and the effect on the final rule section.
The NRC received 40 comment letters. Fourteen were from States or their representatives (i.e., LLW Forum and Compact Commissions). Eight were from LLW generators or their representatives. Six were from utilities or their representative. Four were from service industries (processors and collectors) or their representative. Four were from Federal agencies. Two were from environmental organizations. And two were from LLW disposal facility operators.
Section 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests.
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, the final rule has been clarified by specifically stating that the manifesting requirements apply to any licensee who ships LLW to a licensed LLW 1and disposal facility, a waste collector, or a waste processor.
Comment: Four comenters believe that it is too early to promulgate a uniform manifest rule. These comenters pointed to the fact that this rulemaking would change 10 CFR Part 20 before the new 10 CFR Part 20 regulations have been implemented and argued that the Compacts and States are unsure, at this time, as to what information they need. One commenter stated that the uniform manifest would not be accepted by State jurisdictions. Other 9
- . _ _ _ _ . ___ _~ . , - . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _
i i
commenters believe that, to facilitate development of Compact or State LLW t
tracking systems, the rulemaking should be finalized without delay. '
Response: These comments on 10 CFR Part 20 have been overtaken by the fact that all licensees were required to implement the new standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR Par' 20 by Janua n 1, 1994. The NRC sees no other reason to delay promulgatic; this rule. From NRC's [
(
perspective, the schedule for this rule 13 .n large measure, driven by the '
need to gain access to the waste form, content, and disposal container information that is expected to be useful in assessing the performance of LLW ,
$ disposal sites. Although a significant fraction of this information is currently collected by the current disposal facility operators, the compatibility and completeness of the existing data was of concern. The NRC
-concluded that these drawbacks could be accentuated if each future LLW !
disposal site collected, stored, and reported data in an uncoordinated manner.
j Thus, the timing for implementation of the rule has considered the proposed schedules under which new LLW disposal sites are being developed.
The
} Other parties also have critical interests in manifest information.
D0T imposes regulations applying to shipping papers for hazardous materials.
The Compacts and States, given the responsibility for developing LLW disposal sites under provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), are interested in tracking LLW. Publication of the rule, at this time, provides these parties the information requirements needed to effectively deve'op their tracking systems and allows all parties involved l_
in LLW shipments to become familiar with the presentation of shipping paper 1 information that has been found acceptable by 00T.
Finally, because all the existing disposal sites are located in Agreement States, these States must be provided sufficient time to work closely with the NRC and their licensees, especially existing LLW disposal facility operators, to implement this rule. To facilitate a smooth transition, the rule allows approximately 3 years from publication for Agreement States to implement their regulations. The rule also allows implementation prior to March 1, 1998 for any LLW disposal facilities that are operating prior to this date.
On the question of manifest acceptability by State jurisdictions, the NRC is not aware of any States that would not accept the manifest. The NRC 4
10 l
)
notes that State and Compact groups have been in the forefront in suggesting
.the need for a uniform manifest and that the manifest has been approved by the DOT as meeting that agency's shipping paper requirements.
Final rule: 6 20.2006(b) has been divided into two paragraphs. The first, (b)(1), is-the existing i 20.2006(b). The second. (b)(2), reflects the new i 20.2006(b), but with added phrases reflecting the implementation provisions discussed in Section II, affecting the change from Appendix F'to Appendix G. A clarifying paragraph, 9 20.2006(a)(2), has also been added to-
' describe implementation provisions, and a consistent clarifying phrase has been. added to il 20.2006(c) and (d).
02mm_gni: Several commenters' questioned whether implementation of the rule would provide any significant public health and safety benefit. These commenters stated that the rule identifies no current problems or concerns that could jeopardize the safe transportation or disposal of LLW. Two commenters supported the rule citing the need for source term and waste characteristic information. One commenter believes that the increased cost of documentation and recordkeeping is outweighed by the need to have reliable up-to-date information.
Response: The benefit of the rule is tied to (1) being able to develop specific data needed for assessments to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, specifically pertaining to protection of the general population from the releases of radioactivity at LLW disposal facilities, and to the understanding of potential wastes requiring special consideration, (2) the improvement in quality and uniformity of data collected and reported that could affect the aforementioned performance estimates, and (3) efficiencies in data recovery and use when addressing health and safety issues. Benefits may also occur in transportation-related emergency response situations from the use of a standard DOT shipping paper format and a reduction in the. manifest paperwork needed to accompany the LLW shipments. Finally, by providing information that the States and Compacts believe necessary to carry out their responsibilities, a consistency in view of LLW is fostered that could minimize the potential creation of waste that i
11
l-cannot 9 disposed of (" orphan waste") and assist in efficient and safe LLW management nationwide.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: Three commenters questioned whether the rule explicitly or implicitly expands the authority of LLW Compacts to regulate the shipment of radioactive materials that are not LLW.
Respon a: The rule does not change the intent of the regulations as expressed in i 20.311 of the expired provisions of Part 20 or in Appendix F to Part 20. In both cases, the [ waste] generating licensees who transfer waste to a licensed waste processor are subject to manifesting requirements.
In this context, the rule provides definitions for " waste generator," " waste collector," and " waste processor." The rule is not viewed as having any impact on the Compact or State authorities defined in the LLRWPAA. In fact, the NRC believes that the manifesting required by the rule should provide most information sought by State or Compact LLW tracking systems. See comment and
,esponse under Appendix F, I. Manifest - Introduction and Definitions sections, for related discussion.
~
Final rule: No change.
Apoendix F to il 20.1001 throuah 20.2401 IAppendix G to il 20.1001 throuah 20.2402 in this Final Rule 1
- 1. Manifest - Introduction.
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, l corrections have been made to the Title number referred to in citing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and the definition of " EPA identification number." The reference to Xerox copies has been deleted because the word " photocopy" is sufficient. In response to a point made by some commenters, the first paragraph under "I. Manifest" has been amended to .
be consistent with the remainder of the rule in stating that the rule applies f only to shipments of LLW intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed LLW 1and i
-disposal facility. j 12 i
- - __ . _ = - --- .- -
Comment: Five commenters and several attendees at the June 15, 1993, public meeting, questioned the need for licensees to be required to complete the uniform manifest for shipments to waste processors, especially in those cases where the processor could be making significant changes to the volume, l form, activity, or radionuclide concentration. These commenters also questioned whether shipments of LLW from processors or decontamination facilities back to the original " generators" for interim storage should be manifested using Form 541. One commenter questioned whether the intent of the rule was to require manifesting of " materials" (e.g., laundry from a nuclear facility). Another commenter stated that the rule is confusing with regard to when various forms must be used. ;
Response: The five commenters are correct in stating that the primary interest of NRC (i.e., for performance assessment purposes) is on the characteristics of LLW that is being shipped for disposal. However, the manifesting requirement for those shipping LLW to processors originated with the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. One of the reasons for this requirement was to develop a representative data base unskewed by large volumes of LLW that may pass through waste processors and collectors. Moreover, for waste being shipped to a precessor for compaction, the information provided by the waste generator would be the basis for completing and certifying the manifest that the processor must complete when the LLW is forwarded for eventual disposal at a land disposal facility. In considering shipments to incinerators, the NRC agrees that NRC's need for incoming manifest information is not relevant to the gathering of information useful to conduct performance assessments but is directed at waste tracking. The NRC believes, based on its interactions with the States and Compacts, that these parties are primarily interested in large volume or high activity LLW for which they are responsible under the LLRWPAA.
Thus, NRC believes the shipments to an " incinerator" processor should not generally be subject to the manifesting provisions of this rule and that any resultant contaminated ash should be considered residual waste assigned to the processor. If this interpretation is agreed to by the appropriate State or Compact authorities, manifesting of material sent to incinerators is not required. The case of shipments of laundry from a nuclear facility is more clear-cut. The incoming laundry shipment is not considered waste and would not be required by NRC to be manifested.
13
i I
For shipments of LLW being shipped to and subsequently returned by a processor to the original " waste generator" or " generator," the NRC believes that, under these special circumstances, completion of the uniform manifest is not necessary to meet NRC needs and this exception has been included in the ;
rule. The potential need for NRC to track LLW in storage may result in a reexamination of this exemption. Licensees should be aware that, because the shipments in question are LLW, the States or Compacts may require completion of manifest documentation. Note also, that if the processor ships processed LLW to a licensee other than the original generator, manifesting under this rule is required.
Final rule: A sentence has been added to the introauctory paragraph of Appendix G which states that, " Licensees are not required by NRC to comply with the manifesting requirements of this Part when they ship: (a) LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage under their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal facility, (b) LLW that is being returned to the licensee who is the ' waste generator' or ' generator,' as defined in this Part, or (c) radioactively contaminated material to a ' waste processor' that becomes the processor's ' residual waste'."
Comment: Two commenters noted that NRC will allow the use of substitute i forms if they are equivalent in all respects (content, size, shading, color, etc.). They noted that the requirement for equivalent color and shading will create problems for computer generated forms, and suggested the following i definition, "... Licensees need not use originals of these NRC Forms as long as ,
I any substitute forms are equitalent to the original documentation in respect of form, content and location of information."
Response: The NRC agrees that the requirement that any substitute forms use the same color and shading of the NRC Forms would likely preclude the use of licensee generated forms.
Final rule: The NRC is modifying the definition in a manner consister.t with the commenter's proposal. The appropriate part of the definition will read, "... Licensees need not use originals of these NRC forms as long as any substitute forms are equivalent to the original documentation in respect to .
content, clarity, size, and location of information."
14 I
I. Manifest - Definitions.
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, I
definitions have been added for the terms: " consignee" and " computer-readable i medium." The definitions for " shipper" and " decontamination facility" have been expanded to provide the basis for deleting the " Note" in the originally i proposed definition of " waste generator."
Comment: Two commenters stated that the definitions of " decontamination facility," " waste generator," and " waste processor" were muddled in that a clear distinction between these terms may not be evident. One commenter suggested that, if waste is created from a service industry (e.g.,
decontamination facilities), the service organization should be considered the
- generator of the waste. ,
Response: The three definitions were considered necessary to allow the Compacts / States the greatest flexibility in carrying out their authorities to ,
track low-level waste generated, processed, decontaminated or disposed of within their Compact / State. This includes the possibility that, as the ;
commenters suggested, wastes created from certain service organizations in the r treatment of contaminated material could be attributed to the service organization.
The definition of " decontamination facility" is included in the rule to
! ensure that these facilities complete the uniform manifest (at a minimum, Forms 540 and 541) if they were shinping waste to a licensed land disposal
+ facility. The Compacts or States must decide whether the radioactivity resulting from the processes undertaken at these facilities must be assigned to originating generators. The rule includes a definition of " residual waste," that provides a basis for this waste to be assigned to the decontamination facility for waste tracking purposes. This approach may also apply to certain processors. The rule would allow the Compacts and States to determine what constitutes " residual waste," and as a result, if the decontamination facility or processor can be considered a " waste generator" and, therefore, need not complete Form 542 of the manifest. This rule does not require shippers of radioactive materials to either decontamination fac'ilities or waste processors to comply with the rule's manifesting requirements. The rule does apply to shippers of radioactive wast; to waste 15 ,
i I
processors. In the context of the rule, decontamination facilities would not be expected to be consignees for shipments of LLW.
Final rule: A phrase has been added to the definition of
" decontamination facility," which states that, "... , and for purposes of this Part, is not considered to be a consignee for LLW shipments." j t
Comment: One commenter stated that the distinction between the terms i
" generator" and " waste generator" was confusing and, in view of the definition of " residual waste," was not needed. Other commenters stated that the phrase, '
" ... for which no further use is foreseen ...," used in the definition of
" waste generator," is inappropriate. Three commenters and attendees at the June 15, 1993, public meeting suggested that the rule focus on the entity to whom LLW or radioactive material is being shipped - suggesting one manifest for shipments to a LLW disposal site and a different manifest for shipments to material / waste processors. One commenter stated that the starting and ending points for the paper trail for material / waste shipments were unclear.
Response: All three terms, " generator," " waste generator," and ,
" residual waste" are needed. Under the approach followed in the rule, the definition of the term " generator" is included to ensure that information is collected on Forms 541 and 542 of the manifest that will allow Compacts and States to demonstrate that the wastes disposed of at their LLW sites is that for which they are responsible under the LLRWPAA. In the rule, the term
" waste generator" is used to define a category of licensees who must use the uniform manifest. The term " generator" defines the licensee to whom specific LLW must be attributed in the context of the LLRWPAA. A " waste processor" (including " decontamination facilities") must reasonably attempt to assign the waste shipped from the processor's facility to the originating " generator."
I The rule provides an exception to this accountability provision if the waste being shipped by the processor can be categorized as " residual waste"; that is, waste originating as a result of processing or decontamination activities performed for others, but which cannot be easily categorized into distinct batches attributable to specific " generators." Conceptually, the definition of " residual waste" would be used for smail volumes of waste containing minimal levels of radioactivity. The NRC has encouraged the Compacts and l States to develop a common definition of what constitutes " residual waste."
16 4
E The rule would not be affected if different Compacts or States impose a different definition. However, " waste processor" or " decontamination facility" licensees could be required to complete Form 542 of the uniform manifest.
The phrase "... for which no furtlier use is foreseen ...." was included in the definition of " waste generator" to provide one basis upon s ich a licensee can decide if a shipment to a waste processor is considered a LLW shipment that must be manifested under the provisions of this rule. The intent of the rule is to require manifesting if the licensee considers the entire shipment to be LLW.
The commenter's suggestion for a "two-manifest" approach, although theoretically feasible, was considered a less justifiable regulatory approach, because it would impose manifesting requirements for certain material shipments. The NRC did not consider it necessary to require manifesting of material shipments sent for decontamination or sorting, or coupled to energy recovery, because the waste processor would be manifesting the subsequent outgoing LLW shipment. In the outgoing shipment from the waste processor, the assignment of the radioactivity on the manifest, completed by the waste processor, would be to either a particular " generator" or if appropriate, to the waste processor, as " residual waste."
The starting and ending points for the paper trail may not be completely clear because different Compact / States may impose different requirements based on their authorities. The approach taken in the rule was to provide a manifesting system that could accommodate these differences.
Final rule: The phraseology of the " waste generator" definition has been changed to clarify that, under this definition, the shipping licensee, absent any regulation or guidance to the contrary, must decide if the shipment constitutes a LLW shipment.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of " waste type" be expanded to cover " chemical" description.
Response: The chemical description is reported separately for each waste type and therefore, the definition of " waste type" does not need to be expanded. The major purpose of defining " waste type" in the rule is to identify the detail needed when describing the contents of containers 17
i including two or more specific waste types as further discussed in the response to coments under " Disposal Container Information." [
' Final rule: No change..
t i
A. General Information.
Corrections have been made in Appendix G, paragraph A.2 to change
" identifier" to " identifiers" and Appendix G, paragraph A.3 'to properly refer to the EPA identification number for the carrier transporting LLW.
l Coment: Six comenters expressed views on whether the Uniform Manifest
- and its supporting -instructions should be incorporated in the rule. Some i commenters stated that because completion of the manifest forms is required by the rule, the forms should be incorporated in the rule. This action was suggested te facilitate comments on the forms and to allow Agreement States appropriate opportunity for their involvement and sufficient time to make any changes that NRC may make to the forms over time. One commenter stated that the failure to include the manifest forms in the rule could be considered arbitrary. Three commenters argued that the Manifest and its supporting instructions should not be a part of the regulation. With this approach, the NRC.would retain the flexibility to make non-substantive changes to the Forms
.or instructions without a rulemaking action.
Response: Although the uniform manifest forms are not physically a part of the rule, their a/ailability was noticed and they were widely dist-ibuted.
The advantage of separating the forms from the rule is that minor changes to the forms, wch as additions to the container description, waste descriptor, or sorption, solidification, and stabHization media codes that appear at the bottom of Form 541, can be made withoct the need for a rulemaking action or the replacement of the manifest forms then in use. Minor changes, or any
. changes in the format or instructions for the uniform manifest, would be treated as NRC currently treats regulatory guides. Regulatory guides are issued for public comment and these comments are analyzed before the guide is issued in final form. As one comenter presumed, the minor revision and changes to the manifest or instructions would be tracked (e.g., a form revision number). Any significant changes to the uniform manifest forms, such 18
]
as a request for further basic information on the waste or disposal container, ;
. would be accomplished through a rulemaking.
l The NRC recognizes the importance of input-from those most immediately j
j affected by the requirement to complete the uniform manifest. It was ;
i principally this reason that led to 'M NRC holding the public meeting on June- 1 i
15, 1993. 'Thus, the NRC does not consider separation of the Forms and
- instructions from the rule arbitrary.
Final rule: No change.
i
[pfggini: One et,mmenter suggested that the rule should require the ;
' generators to provide the " generator type" code called for in item 5 of 4 . form 540.
Because this information would be obtainable through the j
Response
l generator ID or user permit number, the need to complete the block in question l y
j was not sufficiently important for the NRC to require its completion. The States, Compacts, or the consignee could require this information to be {
completed.
[ Final rule: No change.
4 .
2 B. Shipment Information. ;
3 Comment: One commenter questioned the need to report small quantities of Tc-99 on manifests while another commenter was unclear on why certain
' - nuclides were singlad out in reporting source and special nuclear material.
One commenter stated that the reporting of 9 20.311 radionuclide LLD values j i
and the delisting criteria, as described in the instructions for uniform ;
manifest completion, should be incorporated in the rule.
I Response: The need to report Tc-99 represents an existing manifest i requirement in 1 20.2006 and Appendix F to il 20.1001 through 20.2402 and was j addressed in the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking; that is, the nuclide's long-half- ;
life, mobility, and influence on performance assessment results. The singling j cui. of specific nuclides for source and special nuclear material was done to emphasize that it was the weight of these nuclides that was being requested l and not the weight of any compound or media with or within which these .
4t 19 i
4 j
t
nuclides may be associated or contained. The instructions for the uniform manifest specify the minimal levels of activity that must be reported on the manifest and, without a specific reason to include this information in the rule, this information continues to be addressed in the instructions.
Final rule: No change.
C. Disposal Container [and Waste] Information.
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, the heading has been broadened to more precisely reflect the general types of information being requested and the listing of items has been reorganized and clarified to describe the variations in required information that are dependent on whether: (1) the waste is containerized or uncontainerized, and (2) the consignee for the waste is a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. Furthermore, a clarification has been made in Appendix G, paragraph I.C.4 to indicate that the gross weight of the waste and disposal container is required. The NRC requirement to report contamination levels on the surface of disposal containers has been deleted to correct a typographical error.
This item still appears on the manifest as a non-Federal informational need because it is required by one of the current disposal facility operators for operational safety reasons.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the level of reporting required l in the current Appendix G, paragraph I.C.9 (previously Appendix F, paragraph I.C.8) did not go far enough and that Class A sorbed or solidified waste should be reported in a similar manner to Class B and C wastes. Other commenters stated that shippers of Class A waste were being unduly impacted. f One commenter stated that it was impractical and/or not meaningful to provide j separate isotopic breakdowns for all mixtures of Class B and C wastes.
Another commenter believes the requirements for nuclide reporting of Class A l versus B and C wastes was unclear. l Response: The principal purpose of requiring wastes to be described by individual waste descriptors is related to the capability of performance l assessment methodologies to distinguish between certain types of wastes in terms of their public health significance. The ccmmenter who indicated that the proposed rule was too broad in its requirement to distinguish between all ,
20 l l
i
Class B and C waste types is correct. The data likely to have the greatest significance are those associated with waste types from which radioactivity releases could reasonably be limited. The ability to distinguish differing radioactivity release rates from Class A wastes could also be significant to site performance assessments.
Final rule: Appendix G, paragraph I.C.9 (previously Appendix F, paragraph I.C.8) has been modified to delete the phrase at the end of the proposed paragraph which stated, "if the media is claimed to meet stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b)"; and paragraph 1.C.10 (second sentence) has beer modified to read, "For discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, cataminated equipment, mechanical filters, sealed source / devices, and wastes in solidification / stabilization media), the identities and activities of individual radionuclides associated with or contained on these waste types within a disposal container shall be reported." j 1
Comment: One commenter asked that the need to identify each drum (disposal container) of waste be reconsidered because of the impact on small j generators. Another commenter noted that the proposed disposal container for most new disposal sites is a concrete overpack and stated that, although each container of each shipment must be indicated on the manifest, tracking of the waste by overpack is more relevant. One commenter believes that accountability necessitated a drum / container number.
Response: The need for disposal container information is not only to provide data that could be useful for performance assessment purposes but is required by D0T if the disposal container and transport package are identical.
Identification of each drum would provide a basis for associating a waste generator with specific waste in a shipment. The suggestion regarding tracking of waste by overpack at the disposal site is allowed under the provisions of this rule if the container description code indicates, through use of the symbol "-0P," that disposal in an approved structural overpack is required.
Final rule: No change.
D. Uncontainerized Waste Information.
21
l l
Final rule: The introductory largnage of Appendix G, paragraph I.D. has been made consistent with the revised paragraph I.C, and paragraph I.D.1 has been modified to require that information on the approximate volume, as vell as the weight of the uncontainerized waste, be provided on the manifest.
E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information.
Final rule: The wording of Appendix G, paragraph I.E.2 has been changed to be consistent with the change made to Appendix G, paragraph I.C.10. The
" note" has been clarified to state that, "The origin of the LLW resulting from i a processor's activities may be attributable to one or more ' generators' (including ' waste generators') as defined in this Part." ,
III. Control and Tracking - Appendix G, paragraph III.A.
Appendix G, paragraph III.A.2 has been modified to allow the label indicating classification of the waste (including the potential for a
" greater-than-Class C classification") to be provided on the transport package (instead of the container) for those shipments for which labeling of the j disposal container presents a potential radiation hazard.
Comment: Two commenters stated that Form 541 of the manifest may contain information important to emergency response teams responding to a transportation accident involving a LLW shipment and may be required by State agencies to accomparv shipments. One commenter indicated that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requires information that is found on both Forms 540 and 541.
Response: The D0T has the Federal responsibility to determine what information must accompany a shipment to meet potential emergency response needs. The NRC has obtained 00T concurrence that the information provided on form 540 meets their requirements for shipping papers. However, the rule does not preclude Form 541 from accompanying the shipment. Thus, if authoritative State requirements exist for information contained on Form 541, this information could accompany the shipment as Form 541 or a separate additional item of paperwork.
Final rule: No change.
22 1
l
Coment: One commenter stated that 60 days between a consignee's receipt of an advance manifest and a requirement to inform the NRC and the shipper that the consignae has not received the shipment seemed like a long time. Another commenter questioned what, exactly, needed to be completed within the one week window provided in the acknowledgement of shipment receipt.
Response: Advance notification can take place weeks before a shipment leaves the consignor's facility. As a result, 60 days is not considered too long a period. This period has not been changed from the current regulation.
The rule states that the consignee must send the acknowledgement of receipt (a ,
signed copy of Form 540) within one week of shipment receipt. Paragraph E of the existing rule, which has not been changed, addresses actions to be taken if acknowledgement of receipt is not received.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter asked who would be responsible for verifying and assuring the currentness of generators' QA programs.
Response: As indicated in the " Certification" section, the person signing the shipment manifest is certifying that the transported materials are properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and labeled. To the extent that a processor must rely on the information supplied by the waste generator, the processor must assure that the information received is sufficient, accurate, and currer'. Any QA prog-am mandated by this rule, as adopted hv Agreement States, would be subject to either NRC or Agreement State inspection and enforcement. On this subject, this rule has not instituted any substantive change.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter stated that the rule, in the current Appendix F, paragraphs Ill.A.5, Ill.B.3, and Ill.C.6, requires that a manifest both precede and be delivered to the consignee at the time the LLW is transferred.
This commenter also suggested that the licensing authority be informed of a shipper's failure to receive acknowledgement of receipt of shipment at the time the shipper begins the required investigation or when the shipper has reason to believe a problem exists.
23
Resoorng: The NRC dues not see an NRC need to transmit both manifests.
However, States or Compacts could impose this requirement. Similarly, because failure to receive acknowledgement is highly likely to be an administrative problem, the NRC sees no reason to change the existing regulation that requires reporting within two weeks of completion of the shipper's investigation.
Final rule: No change.
! III. Control and Tracking - Appendix G, paragraph III.B.
Coment: Two commenters questioned whether the chain of custody of wastes handled by waste collectors can be determined under the requirements of this rule if more than one entity was involved with the waste before its
. handling by the collector. Another commenter stated that the identification.
. of the original generator of LLW sent through processors or collectors must be ensured.
Resoonse: Under the final rule, all waste collectors and processors must complete NRC Manifest Forms 540, 541 and 542. The information on these forms (including previous manifest numbers of shipments in which radioactive
!' material.was received) would allow any waste the collector or processor ,
handles to be tracked back through one or more manifests to the originating l 2
" generator" or " waste generator," as defined in the final rule.
. Final rule: No change.
Section 61.12 Specific technical'information (as contained in s 61.80). l
\
Comment: Nine commenters discussed the concept of requiring that the ;
storage of data be kept on electronic recordkeeping systems and reporting of data be accomplished on a machine (computer) readable medium. This requirement only applies to LLW disposal facilities. Eight of these
> commenters supported the requirements in the proposed rule. One commenter
! agreed with the NRC view that Agreement States should determine whether or not they will require their licensees to report stored information on a computer-readable medium. One commenter stated that there will be a need for quality 24
assurance programs for both hardware ard software of both the disposal facility operator and the generator of the waste. Inis commenter asked who would be responsible for verifying the generator's quality assurance programs.
Because the disposal facility operators have different hardware and software, this commenter was concerned that inforriiation transfers may be so garbled as to be unusable.
Response: This rule does not change the existing requirement in 10 CFR Part 20 for a quality assurance program by any licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility. The appropriate licensing authority is, therefore, responsible for verifying that an acceptable program is in place. The disposal site operators currently verify incoming shipments as part of their quality assurance program. The NRC does not envision any change to these existing proce6res. Any reporting of the information electronically stored at the LLW disposal facility would comply with the American Standard Code for Information Interchange requirements.
Final rule: No change.
Section 61.80 Maintenance of records. reports. and transfers. l l
In addition to the change discussed in this section, the proposed rule made an administrative correction to 6 61.80(i)(1) regarding to whom the l annual report should be submitted. This correction has been revised in the final rule to reflect the most recent NRC organizational changes. References to " Appendix F" have been changed to " Appendix G."
Comment: One commenter questioned the need to record and track discarded material (pallets, bracing, etc.), as the volume of these materials is insignificant and does not impact the performance of the facility. The commenter also believes this will be a burdensome chore.
Response: The NRC believes the commenter is correct and will make this requirement only applicable to contaminated material that is disposed of.
Final rule: The requirement will read, "... the volume of any pallets, bracing, or other shipping or onsite generated materials that are contaminated, and... ."
25 1
!!piform Manifest Forms and Instructions General Comments.
Over two thirds of the commenters specifically stated their support for the development of a Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest. None opposed the concept, but a few saw no problem with the manifests currently being used.
Many commenters went on to identify specific areas which they believe could improve upon the NRC's proposal. The NRC has incorporated many of these suggestions into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and the supporting instructions. One of the most significant comments on the forms dealt with the format in which the material is presented. As discussed in the Rulemaking History Section of this preamble, the NRC has attempted to meet the requirements of various Federal, State, and operator needs.
Several commenters noted that the proposed forms require some By duplication of reporting between what is required for the D0T and the NRC.
far the most significant element of duplication dealt with reporti'ig radionuclides and their activity on both NRC Forms 540 and 541. This resulted l
from the NRC staff's understanding of D0T's views of the regulatory l
acceptability of manifests currently in use, and was confirmed in a D0T letter to the NRC dated January 6, 1994. The DOT requires all their information to be together and not commingled with information requirements of the NRC, States, or the operating facility. Given this requirement to separate the f information, the NRC believed that, in complying with the D0T requirements, a l significant amount of physical paperwork accompanying the shipment could also be reduced by the use of electronic or other transfer of non-DOT information.
Only DOT-required information must physically accompany the shipment.
Therefore, the concept of three forms, each with a specific purpose, was developed.
NRC Form 540 is used to meet DOT shipping paper requirements for transportation and NRC waste tracking requirements. NRC Form 541 is used for waste and container information needed for assessing and monitoring disposal of radioactive waste. NRC Form 542 is used to collect waste generator information for LLW shipped from a waste collector or processor that can be used by the Compacts to establish the " generator" of LLW in the context of the LLRWPAA.
26
t t
The NRC has worked with 00T in an attempt to minimize the burden of ;
duplicative reporting. The 00T has made an interpretation of its regulations l that the shipping paper need only include a listing of the significant l
nuclides in a transportation package and document the total activity information on a " package" basis. The proposed rule required activity l information by radionuclide. The NRC believes that this interpretation will significantly reduce duplicative reporting initially required for each nuclide and its respective activity.
Within the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Low-Level Waste i Management Program, a software package is under development that will prompt the user to provide the information needed to complete the uniform manifest and will then be capable of producing the completed manifest forms. It is intended that this software will be provided to requesters, and, if this activity is successful, the reporting burden will be further minimized.
Comment: Six commenters noted that the NRC forms use a combination of )
English and metric (International System of Units (SI)) units. These l
commenters wanted the NRC to standardize the use of reporting units to reduce the inherent confusion. Of the commenters stating a preference, English units is the preferred choice.
Response: The NRC agrees that the use of dual units causes confusion.
The proposed forms were designed to combine proposed requirements of DOT with standard reporting mirrently in use. Based on the presumed final DOT requirements and NRC's policy statement on the use of units (57 FR 46202; October 7, 1992), the forms and instructions have been revised to require the use of metric units (except one column on Form 540 to comply with a unique D0T requirement). The NRC has presumed that final DOT regulations will require the use of. metric units for shipping papers (NRC Form 540). Because this requirement is consistent with NRC goals, the NRC Forms 541 and 542 will also require reporting in metric units. Note that reporting in metric units with English units following would also be acceptable. The rulemaking also modifies section 20.2101 (which requires records required by 10 CFR Part 20 to use the curie, rad, and rem units) to require use of SI units for the manifest forms.
27
1 r
t Comment: Nine commenters responded to NRC's request for comments on the potential to broaden the current purpose of the manifest number to provide j information other than that required for tracking. These commenters were {
about equally split on the advisability of broadening the use of the manifest ,
number. The supporters generally believe that a unique number may reduce some ,
reporting requirements and would add a degree of control. One commenter noted that, while supporting the concept of a unique manifest number, its :
impleraentation could, however, be cumbersome, confusing and difficult. Those ;
commenters not supporting broadening the manifest number's purpose, generally did not see a clear benefit to the change. ;
Response: While the NRC believes a unique manifest number could provide some benefits, the difficulty in implementing the concept at this time does ;
not appear to warrant the resources that would be necessary. Also, at this time, the NRC does not have a clear concept of what a unique manifest number :
would include. Therefore, for this rulemaking, the NRC will not change the manifest number's purpose. After the Uniform Manifest is in use, the NRC will evaluate all aspects of the forms to identify potential improvements. The usefulness of the manifest number will be reviewed at that time to determine if changes are warranted.
Form 540 Comment: One commenter stated that it appeared that Form 540 is intended to replace the Bill of Lading.
Response: Form 540 is not intended to replace the Bill of Lading.
However, the form does provide a format for reporting information to satisfy D0T's shipping paper requirements. ;
Box l- Emergency Telephone Number and Organization.
Comment: Several commenters questioned what organization is to be identified with the emergency telephone number. Information in this box was stated as being insufficient in light of other information accompanying [
shipments.
Response: The organization to be identified may be the shipper but could also be an organization, such as Chemtel. The telephone number is all that is required on the shipping paper by DOT. Other emergency response 28
i i
I i
information required by DOT (49 CFR Pari 172.602), but not as a shipping paper requirement, would still have to accompany the shipment.
Boxes 2 and 4- Exclusive Use and Regulated Waste Checkoff Boxes. :
Coment: Several commenters questioned why it is necessary to check ,
these boxes indicating whether the shipment is " Exclusive Use" or includes EPA l or State-designated hazardous waste. One commenter also asked whether a ,
negative declaration would satisfy EPA that no material is present. ,
Response: Box 2'is provided to comply with the proposed DOT descriptive l requirements for 6 172.203 of Title 49. The current Chem-Nuclear manifest contains this information item. Box 4 provides a crosscheck to ensure that an f EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is attached to the Uniform Low-Level l Radioactive Waste Manifest, if required. It is not necessarily intended to l provide a basis to satisfy EPA. ;
Box 5- Shipper - Name and Facility, Identifiers.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that unique generator ID numbers should be developed to allow optimal tracking and possibly reduce the information required on the manifest. One commenter supported the addition of
" Fuel Cycle Industry" to the " Generator Type" codes but suggested that the, "Other" Code be deleted.
Response: The development of an ID system has merit. The NRC has concluded, however, that the development of such a system would be a significant undertaking and would have a serious impact on the rulemaking schedule. The NRC may consider development of an ID system after implementation of the rule if it appears necessary or worthwhile. Although the listed codes should cover the universe of generators, the "Other" code is being retained. A review of the use of this code may lead to appropriate expansions or clarifications of the coding system.
Box 6- Carrier Name and Address.
Comment: One commenter suggested that space for more than one carrier was needed to be consistent with the requirements on the uniform hazardous waste manifest.
Resoonse: The NRC believes that the required tracking can be accomplished through identification of the original carrier.
Box 7- Listing of the number of manifest form pages.
29
i t.
Comment: Several commenters exprested views on the flexibility implied by this box that indicates the possibility of additional information being appended to the manifest by disposal facility operators, States, or Comprcts.
Four commenters believed that the rule should specifically prevent the possibility of unfettered additional uniform manifest requirements. Four other commenters supported this flexibility. However. most of these commenters recognized that wide ranging additional repor ?.ing requirements would defeat the purpose of the Uniform Manifest. On a different point on this box, two commenters stated that the page numbering system was absurd.
Response: The NRC believes that the information being collected on the uniform manifest may not always be completely sufficient to meet a variety of legitimate needs. Because the manifest data requirements have been selected to satisfy the great majority of needs, the NRC believes the need for additional information should not present an overwhelming burden. If additional information is required on the manifest, it must be appended to the uniform manifest forms. This information, along with Forms 541 and 542, if required, may be transmitted electronically, by mail, or by some other ,
mutually. accepted method. The NRC agrees with those commenters that stated l that transfer of unnecessary information would dilute a major purpose behind the development of a Uniform Manifest.
The NRC believes there may be some confusion on the page numbering system. All that is being asked for is the total number of pages comprising the manifest. The N9C believes this is a standard pagination scheme for ensuring completeness of a documentation package.
Box 8- Manifest Number.
Comment: One commenter suggested that further guidance for uniquely identifying manifests is needed because LLW can move between several entities before being shipped to a disposal site. Two commenters questioned how tracking would be accomplished if the chain-of-custody involved more than one l entity.
I Response: As currently envisioned, all collectors or processors must complete Form 542 and, in so doing, identify a manifest number associated with l the incoming shipment. Thus, LLW received at a LLW disposal site will be l traceable back to the original generator, and no further guidance is needed.
Box 10- Certification.
30 l
l
Concent: One commenter suggested further guidance on whose signature should appear in this block. One commenter stated that site-specific needs may. dictate different wo-ding. Another commenter stated that, in certain cases, certification to 10 CFR Part 61 requirements is being requested for I shipments not directed to a disposal facility. One commenter suggested that the certification statement should include an appropriate caveat for f collectors who do not alter the form of LLW. One commenter generally ,
addressed the responsibility issue.
Hesponse: The NRC envisions that the person certifying the shipment ,
l I will not change from existing practice. If it is necessary to change the-wording of the statement, an additional certification sheet may be necessary.
The words "if applicable," have been added before the reference to 10 CFR Part
- 61. The NRC believes the wording in the rule, Appendix G, Section II,
- provides the caveat the commenter suggests.
Column 11- U.S. Department of Transportation Description. l Comment: One commenter stated that the instructions were confusing in j' defining whether shipment or package information was being requested. Another commenter believes it was not clear how a shipper would describe a shipment of multiple disposal containers contained within a single transportation package.
Response: All information on Form 540 is on an individual package basis in compliance with DOT shipping paper regulations. Thus, Form 540 would
- include total package information while the information called for on Form 541 is on a " disposal cmtainer" basis.
Columns 12 and 14- 00T Label and Physical / Chemical Form.
Comment: One commenter suggested that codes be used in documenting this information.
Response: The NRC seriously considered this possibility, but decided that, given the typical " single word entries" required, the flexibility 4 4 provided without the use of codes outweighed the minimal savings in reporting burden that would be achieved.
Column 13- Transport Index.
CommeD1: One commenter postulated an accident event involving a low Specific Activity (LSA) shipment for which the information on Form 540 would '
1 not be useful because the Transport index (TI) is not currently required to be 31 l
contained on the shipping paper documentation. For this reason, the commenter suggested that NRC eliminate the requirement to use Form 540.
Response: The in formation requirements on NRC Form 540 are required by DOT for transportation of hazardous materials. The principal information on this form is for use by the first-on-the-scene responder to a transportation l accident. Identification of the proper shipping name and U.N. ID number provides valuable information. These identifiers correlate with proper '
emergency actions. The TI is information which would be more useful in- ,
controlling normal occupational exposures. !
Column 15 [now divided into Columns 15 and 16]- Individaal Radionuclides and Activity [now Total Package Activity).
Comment: ' 0.o commenter questioned what is meant by, ". . . list all !
radionuclides that are present in the transport packaging," and suggested that guidance be provided on the specific SI units to be used. One commenter stated that requirements for listing of a radionuclide should be included in the rule. Two commenters stated that insufficient space is provided for both a listing of the nuclide and activity. Six commenters suggested that only a vertical iisting, with one nuclide per line, should be considered. Another commenter suggested that the column be split into nuclide and activity columns.
Response: Reporting of radionuclides in the transport packaging is a D0T shipping paper requirement in which the instructions reference the appropriate D0T ree"lations for more information. The NRC is not providing detailed interpretive instructions of D0T regulations. The NRC has explained
- what is meant regading the reporting units needed on NRC Form 541 (for NRC use). The NRC believes that the radionuclides reported on Form 541 should also be appropriate for DOT purposes. A D0T telephone number is provided if additional information or interpretation is needed. On the spacing issue, the NRC has completed several manifests from actual shipments and these examples indicate that more than enough space is provided for at least a double columnar listing of nuclides and respective activities on NRC Form 541, although the choice on the formatting in this column is left to the shipper
- ..d consignee. Because the DOT has agreed that only the total package i i
activity needs to be reported, the spacing issue would now only involve Form
- . 541. On the multiple columnar presentation, the NRC would note that current l l
32 l
Transoortation Shipment Package Records that'have been used when conveying ,
radioactive material to processors, portray nuclides and their respective l activities in a triple columnar field. >
Column 16 [Now column 17]- LSA/SCO Class.
Comment: One commenter suggested codes for documenting this ,
information, while two comenters questioned the regulatory basis. ;
Response: The information in this column is based on a requirement proposed by DOT in their "IAEA Compatibility" rulemaking. Coding is not l allowed by DOT for reporting this information. The NRC has presumed that this l classification system will be incorporated into DOT's final rule. ]
Column 17 [Now column 18]- Total Weight or Volume.
Comment: One commenter questioned the multiple number of times that this type of information was r: quested on the.three manifest forms.
Besoonse: Although requests for volume and weight information do occur on each of the manifest forms, the volumes or weights requested are not necessarily identical. For example, the transportation package volume may not be the same as the disposal container volume, if multiple disposal containers are contained within a shielded overpack. The total volumes requested on Form 542 would represent the sum of all generator volumes which may be contained in a number of different disposal containers. This form 542 summary f contains information very similar to that required on the Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation Sheets used by a current disposal site operator.
This information is used for waste tracking purposes to ensure that sites are receiving wastes for which their State or Compact is rerponsible for disposal. l Column 18 [Now column 19]- Identification Number of Package.
f.gmment: One commenter suggested that this instruction should be worded as a requirement.
. Response: Although the listing of the disposal container nuniber on Form 541 is a requirement, this does not generally carryover to the transport packaging when the packaging and the disposal container are not identical.
DOT does not require.a package number to be provided on shipping papers.
Form 541. i Box 1- Manifest Totals.
f 33 j i
l
In addition to the change discussed in this section of the preamble, the headings for the shipment volume and weight totals have been changed to reflect that total net values are being requested for any low-level radioactive waste shipment to which manifesting applies.
Comment: Five commenters brought up the issue of reporting of radionuclides (specifically Tc-99 and 1-129) that are reported based on lower limits of detection (LLD). Concerns were expressed that if the totals, as presented in this box, represent the sum of the LLDs, or LLD's and "real" values in all disposal containers, a very significant overestimation of these nuclides in a disposal facility could result. One commenter suggested that this block require entry of net waste volume and weight.
Respon s: The NRC believes these comments have merit. Because it would be important to distinguish between 'real" and LLD values, the instructions have been modified to indicate that the sums of the "real" and LLD values should be separately reported in this box, with the summed LLD value in parenthesis. Although the NRC recognizes that this reporting scheme does not solve the problem, this reporting approach will " flag" the conservative nature of the appropriate fraction of the inventories of these nuclides. The commenter is correct in presuming that net waste volumes and weights are being requested. Appropriate clarifications have been made to the manifest forms and instructions.
Columns 5 through 10- Disposal Container Description.
Comment: One commenter stated that repetitive listing of a genarator ID number, if more than one container is attributed to a generator, is unnecessary. Another commenter pointed out that the container described may not always be the " disposal" container and that, in these cases (e.g.,
shipments [of LLW) to waste processors), this column may not need to be completed. One commenter suggested that Column 8 should pertain to net waste weight. One commenter asked how a shipper should respond if more than one container description code applies. Another commenter askec i* it was intended to use the numeric codes or the actual verbiage.
Response: The instructions have been clarified to avoid unnecessary repetition of generator ID numbers. The " exemption" referred to by the commenter was included in the instructions. This " exemption" is now the subject of a " Note" preceding the instructions for Column 5. The possibility 34
that some of the container information rqy be required by the consignee also appears-(talicized in'the introductory paragraph in the instructions for Form 541. Instructions that are not " tied" to information being required to comply,with Federal regulations also now appear in italles.
Column 8 refers to total container and waste weight (See discussion pertaining to Column 12).
The intent is to report code numbers, if applicable. If more than one container description code applies, multiple codes can be reported.
Column 9- Surface Radiation Level.
Coment: Two commenters suggested that this column could be better situated on Form 540 adjacent to the Transport Index.
Response: Combining this information with the information required by DOT on shipping papers would not, based on NRC staff interactions with DOT staff, be accepted by DOT. The information in this column is also required by one of the current disposal facility operators.
Column 10- Surface Contamination.
Comment: Four commenters questioned the need for this information, especially in light of 00T standards.
Response: The information being requested in this column is directed at contamination levels on the surfaces of disposal containers, not ,
l transportation packagings. This information is currently requested by one of the disposal facility operators on their manifest in order to minimize i contamination and centrol potential operational exposures. Through l typographical error, this informational need was included as an NRC requirement in the proposed Appendix F, paragraph I.C.10. As indicated in the response to comments on the rule, this requirement has been deleted from the rule but remains as a non-Federal information item on the manifest.
Column 12- Approximate Waste Volume (s) in Container. ;
Comment: Two commenters suggested that if the waste volume information [
is only intended to meet disposal site acceptance criteria, this column could be deleted because the certification statement could be used to accomplish the ,
same purpose. One commenter questioned whether the information on the manifest allowed an accurate estimate of the mass of the waste and whether the NRC recognized that the volume of the inner container may be substantially l different from the actual waste volume. One commenter suggested that i 35 i
i i
i l
adjustments be considered so that the weight of the waste would be documented.
One commenter suggested that _ this column be completed if the container fill [
volume was less than 9N. One commenter asked whether, if perlite was used to l fill void volume, this volume should be included in the total.
Resoonse:
For discrete waste items (e.g., activated metals), the volume of these items is of interest for waste classification purposes. The ;
instructions have been expanded to make this clear and, for homogeneous type i
wastes, the instructions indicate that ">85%" can be entered if this fill volume is exceeded. The NRC believes that the weight of the waste can be !
estimated by either knowing the volume and density of the waste or subtracting f container weight from the weight of the waste and container. If fill material l is used, this volume may be included in the reported volume, but may not be l considered for waste classification purposes. An alternative approach would {
[
be to report waste volume, but note that a " fill" has been used (e.g., to '
comply with disposal site acceptance criteria).
i Column 14- Weight % Che hting Agent. I "0" be
[omment: One commenter suggested a code for "None present" and l
provided in this column. Another commenter asked what methods would be used to identify chelating agents. ;
Response: The commenter's suggestion was not taken because only an "NP" or "0" would need to be entered, and space for providing the preprinted codes is limited. NRC's intent in identifying chelating agents is described in general terms in ti. " Final Waste Classification and Waste Form Technical Position," dated May 11, 1983.
Column 15- Radiological Description. ,
Comment: Two commenters questioned the desirability of reporting individual nuclide activities as a percentage of total container activity.
One commenter erroneously thought that this column limited the recording of nuclides to three entries. Another commenter suggested that the NRC consider establishing reporting thresholds for H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and 1-129, and stated ,
- that explicit instructions are needed on the reporting of source and special nuclear material, " daughter radionuclides," and the impact of nuclides with less than 5 year half-life on waste classification. One commenter pointed out that the passage of " Reportable Quantity" requirements should be considered in establishing the reporting thresholds defined in the instructions. A number ;
t 36
i l
of commenters questioned the effectiveness of allowing multiple-columnar reporting of radionuclides with.their respective activities. l Response: Percentage reporting is not boing mandated, but allowed. l This method of reporting is allowed by a current disposal facility operator. l The instructions have.also been appended to clarify how the reporting of more f than three significant radionuclides in a container should be achieved.
Although the concept of establishing threshold reporting quantities for f the four indicated nuclides has merit, the analysis needed to support a :
specific threshold has not been defined. Thus, consistent with the existing f regulation, no threshold for the reporting of these four nuclides is included in the instructions.
On the reporting of source material, the instructions have been expanded j to clarify that the " mass" beir.; askad for applies only to the elemental mass of uranium and thorium (including uranium and thorium contained in l
" unimportant quantities," as defined in 10 CFR 40.13), and not the weight of the waste containing these nuclides. The instructions now also specifically i state that the activities of the nuclides specifically referred to in the l
" Manifest Total" Box (i.e., H-3, C-14. Tc-99, and I-129) must always be f manifested. The instructions also state that daughter products must be either individually reported or, if within a factor of 2 of being in equilibrium with l t
1 its (their) parent, be reported as the parent with its activity listed, but with the symbol "D" or "NAT" indicating daughter products in equilibrium f (i.e., Cc-1370 or ThNAT). "Significant quantities" of nuclides with half-lives less than 5 years must be included in determining the waste l classification of a disposal container (Note that this will only apply in l determining whether the Class should be Class A or B). Finally, the instructions have been expanded to indicate that any radionuclide whose j activity represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations must be ;
included on the manifest. ;
In response to comments on multicolumnar reporting, the NRC has ;
reconfigured the item 15 column to indicate the possibility of using two ;
subcolumns. The first subcolumn must include the radionuclide and its activity in metric units. The second subcolumn may be (1) used to include the activity in English units, if required by the State or operating facility, (2) f left blank if not needed, or (3) used to report a second radionuclide and its l 37 i i
l activity. The line which splits column 15 is provided to minimize imputing and checking errors, if the third option.is chosen.
Column 16- Waste Classification.
Comment: One commenter suggested that boxes be provided to check a waste class. Two commenters stated that the " Class" designations do not establish whether Class B and C waste has been stabilized.
Response: The instructions have been broadened to indicate that Class B and C waste should be classified as BU or BS, or CU or CS; the V or S indicating whether the waste is in stable or unstable form. Because the combination of possibilities has been increased to six, the information to be recorded would only consist of two letters, and space on the form is limited,
" checkoff" boxes have not been added to the form.
Container, Waste, and Med a Ccdes.
Comment: One commenter stated that the waste descriptor codes should be consistent with existing NRC classifications of LLW. Another commenter pointed out that the codes do not match directly with those of US Ecology.
One commenter suggested that " EPA [or State] hazardous" should not be a physical descriptor for waste and questioned why " concrete" was specifically identified as an encapsulation media. One commenter suggested that the descriptor, " wooden box" be dropped and " woven polypropylene bulk bag" be added to reflect actual practices. This commenter also believed that the waste descriptors were excessive for the purposes being addressed. One commenter suggested that Zonolite grade 4 be deleted and " Vinyl Chloride" replace " Vinyl Toluene." One commenter suggested that " State hazardous" be added along with " EPA hazardous."
Response: The NRC believes the codes are somewhat more detailed than the waste streams characterized in the Environmental Opact Statement that supported the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. Although the codes are not identical to those used b.y US Ecology, the NRC staff believes that all the US Ecology codes can be related to the codes on Form 541, and the "other" code can also be used. If a rationale for a specific code, that is not included exists, it can be added to the list. The " EPA [or State) hazardous" descriptor is provided as a " tie-in" to EPA's or a State's Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
The specific identification of concrete as an encapsulation media has been deleted and the commenter's suggestion on container descriptions has been 38
r
.i accepted.- The NRC believes'that feedback from the-performance assessment process may indeed'1ead to a consolidation of waste descriptor codes, with time. The suggestions t'iat Zonolite_ grade 4 be deleted'and " Vinyl Chloride" i replace " Vinyl _ Toluene" have' been accepted. The phrase " EPA hazardous" has-been modified to read " EPA or State Hazardous." j FORM 542.
Column 5- Generator Name, Permit Number, and Telephone Number.
Comment: One commenter suggested that-the " generator type" code should also be included. Two commenters questioned why " permit number" is called -f for, given that the generator ID number is provided in Column 4.
Response: Because the generator ID number should allow the determination of generator type, the inclusion of this information was not j considered necessary. Permit number was included because, for certain _
r generators, the generator ID number assigned by the disposal facility operator 3 is not-identical to the permit number assigned by the appropriate regulatory authority. Optimization of these identifiers could lead to elimination of l this reporting need.
Column 9- Waste Code.
Comment: One commenter suggested that boxes be provided to check whether the waste represents processed or collected waste.
Response: Giv n the single letter entry needed, and the fact that en existing manifest does not preprint these letters, the NRC did not see a need to provide individual "C" or "P" boxes to be checked.
Column 10- Originating Compact Region or State.
Comment: One commenter suggested that codes be used for the Compacts or States. Another commenter stated that if the Generator ID number included the two-digit--State abbreviation, there would be no need to report this information in Column 10.
FJ_SDonse: The NRC's intent was that codes be used. The instructions have been expanded to state this preference. -Because' current generator ID ,
f numbers do not uniformly include the State abbreviation, it was included in !
Column 10. If generator ID numbers are systematized, as the commenter 39 l
l
suggests, and as membership in Compacts stabilizes, this column could be deleted.
National Data Base Comments.
Comment: In the proposed rule, the NRC discussed possible uses of and needs for a national computer LLW data base. The NRC expressed interest in public views on the benefits in developing such a system, and if developed, who would be an appropriate operator. Eighteen commenters spanned a spectrum of responses, from support for a national data base with NRC as the operator, to the belief that a national data base is unnecessary. Comments also spanned the topic of data availability, from making sure the information is publicly accessible to the need to ensure that sensitive data is protected. One commenter noted that because disposal options haae been significantly reduced, much LLW may end up in extended storage and a national data base as envisioned 1 (data reported by the LLW disposal facilities) would not yield the quantity of data originally expected. Two commenters noted that LLW data bases already exist and that the NRC should use these existing systems and work with the DOE to make any necessary modifications to meet the informational needs of both NRC and state regulators.
Resoonse: The NRC believes that because there will only be a few LLW facility operators in the near future, it is premature to establish a new national LLW data b se. The NRC agrees with those commenters that stated that the existing systems can be the basis for a broad and uniform national system.
The NRC will work with DOE and Agreement States to improve the existing data base, as necessary. Improvements may result from the use of the Uniform Manifest and the improved ability to report and compile this data.
Reaulatory Analysis Comments.
Comment: One commenter stated that the ecenomic impact analysis is unclear in the " Regulatory Flexibility Certification" section. The commenter stated that according to the discussion, the proposed rule would have a negative $480,000 to a positive $100,000 impact on the regulated community.
If one back calculates to the 34,000 cubic feet generated by hospitals, the 40
0 range would be negative $13,600 to a positive $2,400. These figures deserve to'be substantiated and justified.
ResDonse: The costs and cost savings associated with the uniform i manifest are mainly associated with additional entry costs from the uniform manifest having more fields than the currently used shipment manifest forms and from the development of computer software to generate the forms. The data entry costs are related to the amount of additional data entered per shipment, the number of shipments, and the degree of automation of data entry. It l l
appears that data entry costs were underestimated and the final regulatory analysis contains updated estimates. Whether there is a cost or cost savings related.to development of manifest generation software depends on the number f j
of different manifest forms there would be in the absence of a uniform manifest. If each regional disposal facility would require its own manifest )
forms, a savings in software development costs would result from the use of a l uniform manifest. If the current US Ecology and Chem-Nuclear Systems forms would still be used for all regional disposal facilities, additional software j generation costs would result from use of the uniform manifest. Because costs l are not related to waste volume, the impact of the proposed rule on hospitals that generate LLW is not directly related to the volume of LLW that these hospitals generate.
Comment: Two commenters questioned the incremental time and cost to generate the new uniform manifest versus current manifests in use. One ;
commenter stated that the requirements of Form 540 could increase the time to l generate a manifest to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> or more for a large shipment rather than the 1
0.65 hours7.523148e-4 days <br />0.0181 hours <br />1.074735e-4 weeks <br />2.47325e-5 months <br /> shown in the Federal Register notice (57 FR 14500; April 21,1992).
One commenter stated that the response time for collection of information is substantially underestimated and that the increased complexity of the forms is expected to significantly increase clerical costs well beyond the estimate of l c $5,000 to $15,000. !
i Response: The estimate of the amount of time it takes to enter data on I
the uniform manifest was based 4 the number of fields, the nature of the field (i.e., whether it contains fixed point, floating point, or alphanumeric data) and whether the data is entered manually on the forms, on a computer, or l from a waste management database. An experienced dats c6try clerk was '
consulted. From this-and other comments to tha notice of proposed rulemaking, 41 k
-.. -- - - _ .--.- .- -.- -. _ -.- .~~ - - . . . - - _ . . - _ .
i e
b j
inclLding the-comments made at the publ'c meeting held on June 15, 1993-:nd subsequent NRC experience, it appears that the effort required to complete the l manifest forms was underestimated. In the final regulatory analysis, the estimated time to complete a manifest by a generator (NRC Forms 540 and 541) j has been changed from 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to 2.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The estimated time to complete l the manifest for a collector / processor (NRC Forms 540, 541, and 542) has been (
changed from 3.1 to 9.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The significant change for the- f collector / processor comes from information in a January 1994, report prepared [
for the NRC-(NUREG/CR-6147) that resulted in more than twice the estimated size (number of containers) in collector / processor shipments. The end result, however, is not as drastic since the total number of shipments is accordingly- f i
reduced.
Final rule: The Regulatory Analysis has been updated to reflect more accurate estimates of effort. The resulting changes have not changed the j
conclusion to implement the final rulemaking.
IV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations The Commission is requiring that the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest be used by all shippers of low-level radioactive waste; that is, by all waste generators, waste collectors, and waste processors licensed by either the Commission or Agreement States. The Commission and Agreement State licensees required to use the Uniform Manifest, therefore, would also be required to record the minimal information requirements as called for on the applicable Uniform Manifest forms.
I In the development of the three sets of forms comprising the Uniform Manifest, the NRC staff has coordinated its efforts with staff at DOT and with Agreement and non-Agreement States. Most State representatives have indicated support for a base set of information needs and a uniform manifest. The Commission believes the information called for on the Uniform Manifest not only satisfies Commission requirements and D0T shipping paper requirements, but also the majority of requirements of Agreement State regulatory authorities (and land disposal facility operators). l The Commission recognizes that a particular Agreement State may require !
additional information for their unique regulatory purposes and that disposal 42
site operators may require further information to satisfy operational and administrative considerations. Therefore, this regulation does not prohibit Agreement States or disposal site operators from broadening manifest usage or from imposing additional manifest requirements which may be transmitted as additional pages to the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest. Sericus consideration should be given to the need for specific additional information vis-a-vis the advantages in maintaining a " uniform" manifesting system.
Caution must be taken, however, to ensure that any additional requirements for information are reported in a format which does not conflict with DOT Also, the NRC Forms, regulations for shipping papers (i.e., 49 CFR Part 172).
although requiring the use of metric units, does not preclude reporting in metric and English units.
Accordingly, the Commission designates 10 CFR Part 20.2006, Transfer for Disposal and Manifests (excluding Appendix F) - as Division 1. This designation maintains uniformity in manifest format and content while at the same time allowing flexibility for additional information being supplied in the manifest by adding supplemental pages. 10 CFR Part 20.2101, which discusses units to use, is designated Division 2, since although SI units must )
be used, English units can also be reported.
The Commission designates 10 CFR Part 61.12, Specific Technical Information, including the new paragraph (n) that deals with a description of an electronic record keeping system, as Division 2 because Agreement States can satisfy the principles using alternate language.
10 CFR Part 61.80, Maintenance of Records, Reports and Transfers, remains designated Division 3, except for 1 61.80(1)(1) which is designated Division 2 because it requires that the disposal facility licensee maintain an electronic record keeping systems. This designation will help ensure that j manifest information will be available in an electronic format for both NRC and Agreement State licensed sites. The new requirement to report such stored information on a computer-readable medium, however, should be the prerogative of each Agreement State, and this new requirement in 5 61.80(1)(2), is designated Division 3.
I i
43 l
ll j
V. Environmental' Impact: Categorical Exclusion The' Commission has determined that this final rule is the type of-action described in categorical exclusions 10 C."R 51.22(c)(3)(ii) and (iii).
Therefore, neither an environmental . impact statementL nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,.
approval' number 3150-0014, -0135, -0164, -0165, and -0166. !
i Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.04' hours per response under 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61, including the time.for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The time to complete standard shipping manifests required by this rulemaking, NRC forms 540, 541, and 542, depends upon the size and complexity of the shipment and whether the shipment is from a generator or a collector / processor. A shipment from a generator is estimated to require 2.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> (63 minu+as to complete Form 540 and 103 minutes for Form 541 -- no form 542 is needed). A shipment from a collector \ processor is estimated to require 9.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (161 minutes to complete Form 540, 363 minutes for Form 541, and 26 minutes for Form 542). The representative collector \ processor's manifest takes longer to complete primarily because it is assumed that their shipments have more than twice as many containers as from a generator's shipment. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 1 burden,'to the Information and Records Management Branch, Mail Stop T-6 F33, l
)
,U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the
[
Desk Officer,.0ffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE08-10202, (3150-0014, -0135, -0164, -0165, and -0166), Office of Management and Budget, j Washington, DC. 20503.
44 I
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _N
I l
1 VII. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. '(Lower Level), Washington, DC. '
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from M. Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, i
DC 20555, Mail Stop T-9 F33.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification ,
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),
the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. A significant number of hospitals and academic institutions are LLW waste generators, and most of :
these are non-profit organizations. During 1986-1990, about 4.6% of the 7.8 f mill' ion cubic feet of disposed of LLW was generated by hospitals and academic l institutions. Thus, a substantial number of small entities could be affected by the rule.
With an expected disposal fee of approximately $150/ cubic foot, annual disposal costs for these small entities will be in the range of $11 million.
The estimated upper limit costs to implement this rule for the small entities l is approximately $65,000. Similarly, the estimated upper limit of annual operational cost for these small entities is approximately $2,000. These costs are insignificant relative to the annual disposal costs (which do not include costs such as packaging and transportation). Because the percentage increases in disposal costs that may be caused by the rule is substantially less than 1%, the rule would not have a significant economic impact on the :
small entities affected by the rule.
IX. Backfit Analysis 1
The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does ,
not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not involve any 45
The provisions which would -impose backfits a defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
additional information to be placed on NRC manifest--forms.will not require nuclear power. licensees to change existing procedures used in operation of their facilities. Therefore, a backfit analysis'is not required.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Parts.20 and 61 10 CFR Part 20 Part 20 - Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, ,
Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiatinn protection, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
-10'CFR Part 61 Part 61 - Criminal penalties, Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, i
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, ;
as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61.
PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAIMST RADIATION
- 1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. ;
1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
I
- 2. Section 20.1009 is revised to read as follows:
1 20.1009 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. l i
46
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commis! ion has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMS) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0014.
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in ll 20.1101, 20.1202, 20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1601, 20.1603, 20.1703, 20.1901, 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1905, 20.1906, 20.2002, 20.2004, 20.2006, 20.2102, 20.2103, 20.2104, 20.2105, 20.2106, 20.2107, 20.2108, 20.2109, 20.2110, 20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203, 20.2204, 20.2206, and Appendices F and G to 10 CFR Part 20.
(c) This part contains information collection requirements in addition to those approved under the control number specified in paragraph (a) of this section. These information collection requirements and the control numbers under which they are approved are as follows:
(1). In 6 20.2104, NRC form 4 is approved under control number 3150-0005.
(2). In el 20.2106 and 20.2206, NRC form 5 is approved under control number 3150-0006.
(3). In 5 20.2006 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, NRC Form 540 and 540A is approved under control number 3150-0164.
(4). In 6 20.2006 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, NRC Form 541 and 541A is approved under control number 3150-0165.
(5). In 6 20.2006 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, NRC Form 542 and 542A is approved under control number 3150-0166.
- 3. Section 20.2006 is revised to read as follows:
1 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests.
(a)(1) The requirements of this section and Appendices F and G to 10 CFR Part 20 are designed to (i) Control transfers of low-level radioactive waste by any waste generator, waste collector, or waste processor licensee, as Jefined in this part, who ships low-level waste either directly, or indirectly through a waste 47
J collector or waste processor, to a . lice.ntd low-level waste land disposal.
facility (as defined in-Part 61 of this chapter); ;
.(ii) Establish a .ianifest tracking system; and J (iii) Supplement existing requirements concerning transfers and-j recordkeeping for those wastes.
(2) Beginning March 1,1998, all affected licensees must use Appendix G. Prior to March 1,1998, a LLW disposal facility operator or its regulatory authority may require the shipper to use Appendix F or Appendix G.
i Licensees using Appendix F shall comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Licensees using Appendix G shall comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
J (b)(1) Each shipment of radioactive waste intended for disposal at a licensed land disposal facility must be accompanied by a shipment manifest in accordance with section I of Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 20.
(2) Any licensee shippina radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility must document the information ,
required on NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and transfer this recorded manifest information to the intended consignee in accordance l with Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20.
(c) Each shipment manifest must include a certification by the waste generator as specified in section II of Appendix F or Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, as appropriate. See paragraph (a)(2) of this section to determine the appropriate appendix.
, (d) Each pet on involved in the transfer for disposal and disposal of waste, including the waste generator, waste collector, waste processor, and disposal facility operator, shall comply with the requirements specified in l section III of Appendix F or Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, as appropriate. f See paragraph (a)(2) of this section to determine the appropriate appendix. ]
i
- 4. Section 20.2101 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
6 20.2101 General Provisions.
(b) Not withstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 48 l
.)
. . -~ . - . . . - . . ~ . . -. - - .. . . -~
i
'ii section, when recording information on shipment manifests, as required in I
! 20.2006(b),.information must be recorded in the. International System of-Units (SI) or in SI and units as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.- i i
4 i
- 5. A new Appendix G is added to 10 CFR Part 20 to read as follows:
l
. i i
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20 - Requirements _for Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal _ at Licensed Land Disposal Facilities l and Manifests 3 i
I. Manifest A waste generator, collector, or processor who transports, or offers for l
transportation, low-level radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed low-level radioactive waste land disposal facility must prepare a
-Manifest (OMB Control Numbers 3150-0164, -0165, and -0166) reflecting i- information requested on applicable NRC forms 540 (Uniform Low-Level I
! Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper)] and 541 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description)] and, if necessary, on an applicable NRC Form 542 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation)]. NRC Forms 540 and 540A must be completed and must physically accompany the pertinent low-level waste shipment. Upon agreement between shipper and consignee, NRC Forms 541 f
and 541A and 542 and 542A may be completed, transmitted, and stored in
- electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and
> complete records on the respective forms. Licensees are not required by NRC '
to comply with the manifesting requirements of this part when they ship:
(a) LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage under their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal facility; (b) LLW that is being returned to the licensee who is the " waste generator" or " generator," as defined in this part; or (c) radioactively contaminated material to a " waste processor" that
)
- . becomes the processor's " residual waste." l
.For guidance in completing these forms, refer to the instructions that accompany the forms. Copies of manifests required by this appendix may be 1
49
, _-___A
legible carbon copies, photocopies, or enmputer printouts that reproduce the data in the format of the uniform manifest.
NRC Forms 540, 540A, 541, 541A, 542 and 542A, and the accompanying instructions, in hard copy, may be obtained from the Information and Records Management Branch, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-7232.
This appendix includes information requirements of the Department of Transportation, as codified in 49 CFR Part 172. Information on hazardous, medical, or other waste, required to meet Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as codified in 40 CFR Parts 259, 261 or elsewhere, is not addressed in this section, and must be provided on the required EPA forms.
However, the required EPA ems must accompany the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest reqJred by this chapter.
As used in this appendix, the following definitions apply:
Chelatina aaent has the same meaning as that given in 6 61.2 of this chapter.
Chemical description means a description of the principal chemical characteristics of a low-level radioactive waste. l Comouter-readable medium means that the regulatory agency's computer can transfer the information from the medium into its memory.
Consionee means the designated receiver of the shipment of low-level ,
I radioactive waste.
l Recontamination facility means a facility operating under a Commission or Agreement State license whose principal purpose is decontamination of equipment or materials to accomplish recycle, reuse, or other waste management objectives, and, for purposes of this Part, is not considered to be a consignee for LLW shipments.
Disposal container means a container principally used to confine low-level radioactive waste during disposal operations at a land disposal facility (also see "high integrity container"). Note that for some shipments, the disposal container may be the transport package.
EPA identification number means the number received by a transporter following application to the Administrator of EPA as required by 40 CFR Part 263.
50
- .- .~ -. . -. . - . - . . -. .. _ -- _ .. . . . .
t 4
t Generator means a-licensee operating under a Commission or Agreement State license who (1)-is a waste generator as defined in this Part, or (2) is the licensee to whom waste can be attributed within the context.of the Low-
- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (e.g., waste generated i as a result of decontamination or recycle activities).
Hiah intearity container (HIC) means a container commonly designed to meet the structural stability requirements of 9 61.56 of this chapter, and to ;
i meet Department of Transportation requirements for a Type A package.
Land disposal facility has the same meaning as that given in 6 61.2 of j this chapter. t NRC Forms 540. 540A. 541. 541 A. 542. and 542A are official NRC Forms referenced in this appendix. Licensees need not use originals of these NRC Forms as long as any substitute forms are equivalent to the original documentation in respect to content, clarity, size, and location of information. Upon agreement between the shipper and consignee, NRC Forms 541 '
(and 541A) and NRC forms 542 (and 542A) may be completed, transmitted, and
- stored in electronic media. The electronic media must have the capability for i producing legible, accurate, and complete records in the format of the uniform raani fest.
,Pg kagg means the assembly of components necessary to ensure compliance with the packaging requirements of D0T regulations, together with its radioactive contents, as presented for transport. ,
i Physical description means the items called for on NRC Form 541 to ,
describe a low-level radioactive waste. )
Residual waste means low-level radioactive waste resulting from l 4 processing or decontamination activities that cannot be easily separated into
- distinct batches attributable to specific waste generators. This waste is
^
attributable to the processor or decontamination facility, as applicable. ;
l Shioper means the licensed entity (i.e., the waste generator, waste collector, or waste processor) who offers low-level radioactive waste for transportation, typically consigning this type of waste to a licensed waste collector, waste processor, or land disposal facility operator.
Shionina Daoer means NRC Form 540 and, if required, NRC Form 540A which includes the information required by DOT in 49 CFR Part 172.
51
l l
Source material has the same meardr.g as that given in 9 40.4 of this ,
chapter. ]
Special nuclear raterial has the same meaning as that given in 170.4 ;
of this chapter.
Uniform low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest or uniform manifest means the combination of NRC Forms 540, 541, and, if necessary, 542, and their respective continuation sheets as needed, or equivalent.
Waste collector means an entity, operating under a Commission or ;
Agreement State license, whose principal purpose is to collect and consolidate waste generated by others, and to transfer this waste, without processing or l I
repackaging the collected waste, to another licensed waste collector, licensed waste processor, or licensed land disposal facility.
Waste description means the physical, chemical and radiological ]
i description of a low-level radioactive waste as called for on NRC Form 541.
Waste aenerator means an entity, operating under a Commission or !
I Agreement State license, who (1) possesses any material or component that contains radioactivity or is radioactively contaminated for which the licensee ]
foresees no further use, and (2) transfers this material or component to a licensed land disposal facility or to a licensed waste collector or processor for handling or treatment prior to disposal. A licensee performing processing or decontamination services may be a " waste generator" if the transfer of low-level radioactive waste from its facility is defined as " residual waste."
Waste Drocas M means an entity, operating under a Commission or Agreement State license, whose principal purpose is to process, repackage, or otherwise treat low-level radioactive material or waste generated by others prior to eventual transfer of waste to a licensed low-level radioactive waste land disposal facility.
Waste type means a waste within a disposal container having a unique physical description (i.e., a specific waste descriptor code or description; or a waste sorbed on or solidified in a specifically defined media).
Inform tion Requirements A. General Information.
52
The shipper of the radioactive waste, shall provide the following information on the uniform manifest:
- 1. The name, facility address, and telephone number of the licenses shipping the waste;
- 2. An explicit declaration indicating whether the shipper is acting as a waste generator, collector, processor, or a combination of these identifiers for purposes of the manifested shipment; and
- 3. The name, address, and telephone number, or the name and EPA identification number for the carrier transporting the waste.
B. Shioment Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following information regarding the waste shipment on the uniform manifest:
- 1. The date of the waste shipment;
- 2. The total number of packages / disposal containers;
- 3. The total disposal volume and disposal weight in the shipment;
- 4. The total radionuclide activity in the shipment;
- 5. The activity of each of the radionuclides H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and 1-129 contained in the shipment; and
- 6. The total masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the total mass of uranium and thorium in source material.
C. Disposal Container and Waste Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following information on the uniform manifest regarding the waste and each disposal container of waste in the shipment:
- 1. An alphabetic or numeric identification that uniquely identifies ,
cach disposal container in the shipment
- 2. A physical description of the disposal container, including the manufacturer and model of any high integrity container;
- 3. The volume displaced by the disposal container; l The gross weight of the disposal container, including the waste;
]
4.
- 5. For waste consigned to a disposal facility, the maximum radiation level at the surface of each disposal container;
- 6. A physical and chemical description of the waste; i
53
t
+
l
- 7. The total weight percentage o' chelating agent for any waste l containing more than 0.1% chelating agent by weight, plus the identity of the j principal chelating agent;
- 8. The approximate volume of waste within a container; i
- 9. The sorbing or_ solidification media, if any, and the identity of the solidification media vendor and brand name-
- 10. The identities and activities of individual radionuclides contained in each container, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in. special ;
nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in source material.
For discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters, sealed source / devices,- and wastes in solidification / stabilization media), the identities and activities of individual radionuclides associated with or contained on these waste types j within a disposal container shall be reported;
- 11. The total radioactivity within each container; and
- 12. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the classification of l the waste pursuant to 9 61.55 of this chapter. Waste not meeting the l structural stability requirements of 9 61.56(b) of this chapter must be identified; D. Uncontainerized Waste Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following information on the uniform manifest regarding a waste shipment delivered without a disposal container:
- 1. The approximate volume and weight of the waste;
- 2. A physical and chemical description of the waste;
- 3. The total weight percentage of chelating agent if the chelating agent exceeds 0.1% by weight, plus the identity of the principal chelating agent;
- 4. For waste consigned to a . disposal facility, the classification of the waste pursuant to 6 61.55 of this chapter. Waste not meeting the structural stability requirements of 6 61.56(b) of this chapter must be identified; 54 I
l
I l
- 5. The identities and activities of individual radionuclides contained in the waste, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in source material; and
- 6. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the maximum radiation f levels at the surface of the waste.
E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information. ;
This section applies to disposal containers enclosing mixtures of waste originating from different generators. (Note: The origin of the LLW resulting I
from a processor's activities may be attributable to one or more " generators" r (including " waste generators") as defined in this part). It also applies to j mixtures of wastes shipped in an uncontainerized form, for which portions of l the mixture within the shipment originate from different generators. ;
- 1. For homogeneous mixtures of waste, such as incinerator ash, provide l the waste description applicable to the mixture and the volume of the waste l attributed to each generator.
- 2. For heterogeneous mixtures of waste, such as the combined products ,
from a large compactor, identify each generator contributing waste to the l
disposal container, and, for discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters, sealed source / devices, and wastes
[
in solidification / stabilization media), the identities and activities of individual radionuclides contained on these waste types within the disposal g l
container. For each generator, provide the following:
(a) The volume of waste within the disposal container; (b) A physical and chemical description of the waste, including the solidification agent, if any; (c) The total weight percentage of chelating agents for any disposal l container containing more than 0.1% chelating agent by weight, plus the identity of the principal chelating agent; (d) The sorbing or solidification media, if any, and the identity of f l
the solidification media vendor and brand name if the media is claimed to meet stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b); and (e) Radionuclide identities and activities contained in the waste, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the I l
masses of uranium and thorium in source material if contained in the waste. ;
55 i
i- i I
II. Certification, j
)
An authorized representative _.of the waste generator, processor, or
' collector shall certify by' signing and dating the shipment manifest that the transported materials are properly class'fied, described, packaged, marked, and labeled and are in proper condition for transportation according to the applicable regulations of the Department of Transportation and the Commission.
A collector in signing the certification is certifying that nothing has been i done to the collected waste which would invalidate the waste generator's l certification. .
l III. Control and Trackina, l !
A. Any licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility or a licensed waste collector shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs A.1 through 9 of this section. Any licensee who transfers waste to a licensed waste processor for waste treatment or repackaging shall comply f with the requirements of paragraphs A.4 through 9 of this section. A licensee shall:
- 1. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according to ;
6 61.55 and meets the waste characteristics requirements in 6 61.56 of this chapter;
- 2. Label each disposal container (or transport package if potential f radiation hazards preclude labeling of the individual disposal container) of j t
! waste to identify whether it is Class A waste, Class B waste, Class C waste, i or greater then Class C waste, in accordance with 6 61.55 of this chapter;
- 3. Conduct a quality assurance program to assure compliance with ll 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter (the program must include management evaluation of audits);
- 4. Prepare the NRC Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest as required by this appendix;
- 5. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that either (i) receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is 56
E delivered to the consignee with the .faste at the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also acceptable;
- 6. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with the I shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph A.5 of this section; '
- 7. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the form ,
of a signed copy of NRC Form 540-
- 8. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-Level ,
Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter; and 1
- 9. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of receipt has not been received within the times set forth in this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance with paracraph E of this
. appendix.
B. Any waste collector licensee who handles only prepackaged waste l shall:
! 1. Acknowledge receipt'of the waste from the shipper within one week of j receipt by returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
- 2. Prepare a new manifest to reflect consolidated shipments that meet the requirements of this appendix. The waste collector shall ensure that, for.
each container of waste in the shipment, the manifest identifies the generator of that container of waste;
- 3. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that either (i) i receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is i delivered to the consignee with the waste at the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also acceptable;
- 4. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph B.3 of this section;
- 5. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the form of a signed copy of NRC form 540;
- 6. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter; 57
- 7. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which ;
acknowledgement of. receipt has not been received within the times sei Orth in '
$ this appendix, conduct tn investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this appendix; and-
- 8. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest Commission 1
Regional Office listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment, or part of'a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper that the shipment has been cancelled.
C. Any licensed waste processor who treats or repackages waste shall:
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from the shipper within one week of receipt by returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540; l 2. Prepare a new manifest that meets the requirements of this appendix.
Preparation of the new manifest reflects that the processor is responsible for ,
j meeting these requirements. For each container of waste in the shipment, the manifest shall identify the waste generators, the preprocessed waste volume, 1
and the other information as required in paragraph 1.E. of this appendix;
[
i 3. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according to s 61.55 of this chapter and meets the waste characteristics requirements in 6 61.56 of this chapter;
- 4. Label each package of waste to identify whether it is Class A waste, Class B waste, or Class C waste, in accordance with ll 61.55 and 61.57 of this chapter;
- 5. Conduct a quality assuranca program to assure compliance with Il 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter (the program shall include management ,
evaluation of audits);
- 6. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that either (i) 1 receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is delivered to the consignee with the waste at the time thE waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also acceptable; l
- 7. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph C.6 of this section;
- 8. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the form of a signed copy of NRC form 540; 58
l
- 9. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-Level i Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as [
the record of transfer of licensed material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of-this chapter;. ,
I
- 10. For any shipment or any part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of receipt has not been received within the times set forth in ;
this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this ;
appendix; and
- 11. ' Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest Commission Regional Office listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper that the shipment has been cancelled.
D. The land disposal facility operator shall: ,
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste within one week of receipt by r
returning, as a minimum, a signed copy of NRC Form 540 to the shipper. The shipper to be notified is the licensee who last possessed the waste and transferred the waste to the operator, if any discrepancy exists between materials listed on the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest and niaterials received, copies or electronic transfer of the affected forms must be returned indicating the discrepancy;
- 2. Maintain copies of all completed manifests and electronically store the information required by 10 CFR 61.80(1) until the Commission terminates the license; and
- 3. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest Commission Regional Office listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper that the shipment has been cancelled.
PART 61 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIDACTIVE WASTE
- 6. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
59
i 5842, 5846); secs. 10 and 14, Pub. L. 9E-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a _,
l and 5851) and Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. E851).
1 ;
Section 61.12 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows: j 7.
\
l 61.12 Specific technical information. )
(n) A description of the facility electronic recordkeeping system as required in.6 61.80.
- 8. Section 61.80 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and (i)(1), and adding paragraph (1) to read as follows:
-E 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers.
(f) Following receipt and acceptance of a shipment of radioactive waste, the licensee shall record the date that the shipment is received at the disoosal facility, the date of disposal of the waste, a traceable shipment I manifest number, a description of any engineered barrier or structural overpack provided for disposal of the waste, the location of disposal at the disposal site, the containmtnt integrity of the waste disposal containers as received, any discrepancies between materials listed on the manifest and those received, the volur of any pallets, bracing, or other shipping or onsite l generated materials tnat are contaminated, and are disposed of as contaminated or suspect materials, and any evidence of leaking or damaged disposal containers or radiation or contamination levels in excess of limits specified in Department of Transportation and Commission regulations. The licensee shall briefly describe any repackaging operations of any of the disposal l containers included in the shipment, plus any other information required by the Commission as a license condition. The licensee shall retain these i records until the Commission transfers or terminates the license that authorizes the activities described in this section. ]
60 i
i l
(i)(1) Each licensee authori cd to dispose of waste materials received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual reports to the appropriate Commission regional office shown in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 20, with copies to the Director, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Reports must be submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the preceding year.
(1)
In addition to the other requirements of this section, the licensee shall store, or have stored, manifest and other information pertaining to
- receipt and disposal of radioactive waste in an electronic recordkeeping system.
(1) The manifest information that must be electronically stored is --
(i) That required in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix G, with the exceptien of shipper and carrier telephone numbers and shipper and consignee certifications; and (ii) That information required in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) As specified in facility license conditions, the licensee shall report the stored information, or subsets of this information, on a computer-readable medium.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of , 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4 John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary of the Commission.
61
4 i
4 L
3 A
e t
5 4
e
! I ATTACHMENT 2 ;
1 Afif10TATED CHANGE PAGES k
l 4
J t
6-
)
l l
1 l
l 3 !
l l
d I d
,., 1
i The NRC has worked with DOT in an .:ttempt to minimize the burden of duplicative reporting. The 00T has made an interpretation of its regulations that the shipping paper need only include a listing of the significant nuclides in a transportation package and document the total activity information on a " package" basis. The proposed rule required activity information by radionuclide. The NRC believes that this interpretation will significantly reduce duplicative reporting initially required for each nuclide and its respective activity.
Within the Department of Energy's (D0E's) National Low-Level Waste Management Program, a software package is under development that will prompt the user to provide the information needed to complete the uniform manifest and will then be capable of producing the completed manifest forms. It is intended that this software will be provided to requesters, and, if this activity is successful, the reporting burden will be further minimized.
Comment: Six commenters noted that the NRC Forms use a combination of English and metric (International System of Units (SI)) units. These commenters wanted the NRC to standardize the use of reporting units to reduce j
the inherent confusion. Of the commenters stating a preference, English units I is the preferred choice. !
Response: The NRC agrees that the use of dual units causes confusion.
The proposed forms were designed to combine proposed requirements of DOT with ,
standard reporting currently in use. Based.on the presumed final DOT requirements and NRC's policy statement on the use of units (57 FR 46202;
^
October 7, 1992), the forms and instructions have been revised to require the use of metric units (except one column on form 540 to comply with a unique DOT ,
requirement). The NRC has presumed that final DOT regulations will require the use of metric units for shipping papers (NRC Form 540). Because this requirement is consistent with NRC goals, the NRC forms 541 and 542 will also require reporting in metric units. Note that reporting in metric units with English units following would also be acceptable. The rulemaking also modifies section 20.2101 (which requires records required by 10 CFR Part 20 to fusethecurie, rad,andremunits)torequireuseofSIunitsforthemanifest forms.
u 27
)
of commenters questioned the effectiver,e:s of allowing multiple-columnar reporting of radionuclides with their respective activities.
Response: Percentage reporting is not being mandated, but allowed.
This method of reporting is allowed by a current disposal facility operator. :
The instructions have also been appended to clarify how the reporting of more than three significant radionuclides in a container should be achieved.
Although the concept of establishing threshold reporting quantities for the four indicated nuclides has merit, the analysis needed to support a specific threshold has not been defined. Thus, consistent with the existing regulation, no threshold for the reporting of these four nuclides is included in the instructinns.
On the reporting of source material, the instructions have been expanded to clarify that the " mass" being asked for applies only to the elemental mass of uranium and thorium (including uranium and thorium contained in
" unimportant quantities," as defined in 10 CFR 40.13), and not the weight of ;
1 the waste containing these nuclides. The instructions now also specifically ,
I state that the activities of the nuclides specifically referred to in the
" Manifest Total" Box (i.e., H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and 1-129) must always be manifested. The instructions also state that daughter products must be either individually reported or, if within a factor of 2 of being in equilibrium with its (their) parent, be reported as the parent with its activity listed, but with the symbol "D" or "NAT" indicating daughter products in equilibrium (i.e., Cs-137D or ThNAT). "Significant quantities" of nuclides with half- )
lives less than 5 years must be included in determining the waste classification of a disposal container (Note that this will only apply in determining whether the Class should be Class A or B). Finally, the instructions have been expanded to indicate that any radionuclide whose activity represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations must be included on the manifest.
In response to comments on multicolumnar reporting, the NRC has ;
reconfigured the item 15 column to indicate the possibility of using two subcolumns. The first subcolumn mginclude the radionuclide and its activity in metric units. The second subcolumn may be (1) used to include the activity in English units, if required by the State or operating facility, (2) left blank if not needed, or (3) used to report a second radionuclide and its ]
37 l l
i l
1 l
suggests,- and as membership in Compacts :tabilizes, this column could be deleted. ,
National Data Base Comments. ,
Comment: In the proposed rule, the NRC discussed possible uses of and needs for a national computer LLW data base. The NRC expressed interest in public views on the benefits in developing such a' system. and if developed, ,
who would be an appropriate operator. - Eighteen commenters spanned a spectrum l of responses, from support for a national data base with NRC as the operator, to the belief that a national data base is unnecessary. Comments also spanned :
the topic of data availability, from making sure the information is publicly _
accessible to the need to ensure'that sensitive data is protected. .One commenter noted that because disposal options have been significantly reduced, much LLW may end up in extended storage and a national data base as envisioned (data reported by the LLW disposal facilities) would not yield the quantity of ]'
data originally expected. Two commenters noted that LLW data bases already exist and that the NRC should use these existing systems and work with the DOE to make any necessary modifications to meet the informational needs of both NRC and state regulators.
Response: The NRC believes that because there will only be a few LLW l
facility operators in the near future, it is premature to establish a new \
national LLW data ba:e. The NRC agrees with those commenters that stated that i the existing systems can be the basis for a broad and uniform national system.
I The NRC will work with DOE and Agreement States to improve the existing data l base, as necessary. Improvements may result from the use of the Uniform
{Manifestandtheimprovedabilitytoreportandcompilethisdata.
Reaulatory Analysis Comments.
l Commen1: One commenter stated that the economic impact analysis is unclear in the " Regulatory Flexibility Certification" section. The commenter stated that according to the discussion, the proposed rule would have a i negative $480,000 to a positive $100,000 impact on the regulated community.
.lf one back calculates to the 34,000 cubic feet generated by hospitals, the 4
40 i
5 F
site operators may require further infoitaation to satisfy operational and administrative considerations. Therefore, this regulation does not prohibit Agreement States or dispasal site operators from broadening manifest ustje or .
from imposing additional manifest requirements which may be transmitted as ;
additional pages to the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. Serious consideration should be given to the need for specific additional information vis-a-vis the advantages in maintaining a " uniform" manifesting system.
Caution must be taken, however, to ensure that any additional requirements for information are reported in a format which does not conflict with DOT Also, the NRC Forms, fregulationsforshippingpapers(i.e.,49CFRPart172).
although requiring the use of metric units, does not preclude reporting in i
metric and English units. ,
~
Accordingly, the Commission designates 10 CFR Part 20.2006, Transfer for Disposal and Manifests (excluding Appendix F) ~ as Division 1. This designation maintains uniformity in manifest format and content while at the same time allowing flexibility for additional information being supplied in the manifest by adding supplemental pages. 10 CFR Part 20.2101, which discusses units to use, is designated Division 2, since although SI units must t
be used, English units can also be reported.
The Commission designates 10 CFR Part 61.12, Specific Technical Information, including the new paragraph (n) that deals with a description of an electronic record keeping system, as Division 2 because Agreement States can satisfy the pri. iples using alternate language.
10 CFR Part 61.80, Maintenance of Records, Reports and Transfers, remains designated Division 3, except for 9 61.80(1)(1) which is designated Division 2 because it requires that the disposal facility licensee maintain an electronic record keeping systems. This designation will help ensure that manifest information will be available in an electronic format for both NRC and Agreement State licensed sites. The new requirement to report such stored information on a computer-readable medium, however, should be the prerogative of each Agreement State, and this new requirement in 6 61.80(1)(2), is l j
designated Division 3.
43
+
section, when recording information on ;hipment manifests, as required in t 20,2006(b), informationg be recorded in the International System of
.[LVnits(SI)orinSIandunitsasspecifiedinparagraph(a)ofthissection.
5; A new Appendix G-is added to 10 CFR Part 20 to read as follows:
Appendix G to 10'CFR Part 20 - Requirements for Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal at Licensed Land Dispo;al Facilities and Manifests r I ~. Manifest A waste generator, collector, or processor who transports, or offers for transportation, low-level radioactive waste ' intended for ultimate disposal at
.a licensed low-level radioactive waste land disposal facility must prepare a Manifest (0MB Control Numbers 3150-0164, -0165, and -0166) reflecting information requested on applicable NRC Forms 540 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper)] and 541-[ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description)] and, if necessary, on an applicable NRC Form 542 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
-Manifest '(Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation)]. NRC Forms 540 and f 540A must be completed and must physically accompany the pertinent low-level waste shipment. Upon agreement betren shipper and consignee, NRC Forms 541 l
and 541A and 542 and 542A may be completed, transmitted, and stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and !
complete records on the respective forms. Licensees are not required by NRC l to comply with the manifesting requirements of this part when they ship:
( a). LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage under their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal facility; j (b) LLW that'is.being returned to the licensee who is the " waste
-generator" or " generator," as defined in this part; or (c) radioactively contaminated material to a " waste processor" that :
becomes the processor's " residual waste." ,
~For guidance in completing these forms, refer to the instructions that {
-accompany the forms. Copies of manifests requ' ired by this appendix may be- ,
49
[
\
t
- I I
l i
i i
i i
i i
ATTACHMENT 3 i t
CONGRESSIONAL LETTER PACKAGE & DISKETTE l
i i
i I
1 i
1 l
i i
J l
The Honorable Lauch Faircloth, Chaiman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety ,
. Committee on Environmen+ and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61.
The amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests that are required to control transfers of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal f acility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms, that captures the information needed to meet NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest
.information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information needed for the safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through 1
disposal.
In developing the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded to l comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State !
regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also worked with the Department of Transportation on those aspects of the Uniform Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uni'orm Manifest forms, and associated instructions. We believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final product, however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the earlier Federal Register notice.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham
- See previous concurrences See next page for Distribution
[CG3]
Offc: RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* DD:DRA:RES* 0:DRA:RES* 0:RES*
FCostanzi BMorris ESBeckjord Name: MHaisfield RAuluck SBahadur Date: 04/26/94 06/03/94 06/30/94 10/20/94 10/20/94 10/21/94 0
Offe: OCA '
Name: DKRat hbun Date: / /95 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY I
'W4& $5
. . .I
_ j. i t@%y[k UNITED STATES i
- 1- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
1' "
{
~
i! - W ASHIV'oN ' O C. 29555 4 001 -
'j Q-**..s-l^ -t j
i q
- The . Honorable Lauch Faircloth, LChairman ~!
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private- j Property and Nuclear. Safety. ,
Committee: on. Environment and Public Works United States Senate' j
' Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr; Chairman:
The NRCihas'.sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the l enclosed final amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61. ;
1The amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information !
. contained on manifests that are required.to controlL transfers of low-level j
- radioactive waste-(LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a. land disposal +
facility;.(2) establish a set of NRC forms, that captures the information needed to. meet.NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact l information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require 'l disposal site operators to be capable of submitting . reports of stored manifest l information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability.of information needed l for the: safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through disposal.
In developing the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded to comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State l
{
regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal !
facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also worked with the Department of Transportation on those aspects of the Uniform Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions. We believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final product, '
however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the earlier. federal Register notice.
Sincerely, l
Dennis K.=Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs 1
i
~
Enclosure:
federal Register Notice l cc: ' Senator Bob' Graham-V ] -
- - . -- . - }
-- , ,_- - -- - - ----. . .. -.. . - ... .. .. ... . .. . . ~ . _ --
[ .'
r i
i 4
i Distribution:
subj-circ-chron-Reading' files-ESBeckjord-i
, BMorris w/ encl. ,
FCostanzi LRiani l SBahadur i RAuluck- -
Mfiaisfield.
[
f l i 2.
+
I b
. -, w - 4 r.- , - m... ., _ .
I i
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Chairman i Subcommittee on Clean ~ Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate !
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 1
The NRC has sent to the Office.of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final amendments to the Comission's rules in 10 CFR Parts 20 an The amendments will: (1).' improve the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests that are required to control transfers of low-level . i radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms, that captures the information !
needed to meet NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest '
i information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information needed ;
for the safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure 1 that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through disposal. !
In developing the final rule, the Comission has sought and responded to comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also worked with the Department of Transportation on those aspects of the Uniform e
Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the 1
We l
. final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions. l believe that thete commenters have helped to improve the final product, however,.the coneept ad context has remained similar to that presented in the [
earlier Federal Register notice. ]
Sincerely, j
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director J 4
Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
' Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson , ,. [ '
'[CG3] *See previous concurrences
~See next pa (otDis>-i tion E [
00: RES .D;D hRES S jor: ;
.Offc: RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* 'RDB:DRA* .) mer SBahadur FCos anzi 83 ris -
Name: MHaisfield RAuluck ,/ n /94 10/71/94 Date: 04/26/94 06/03/94 06/30/94- e/ % /94 (c/J7 /94 Offc: OCA l Name: DKRathbun 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Date: / /94 r W v1-c : 5 7 q.
l
- , - - - , -~ .-.
The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of ".epresentatives Washington,.DC 20515
Dear Mr.- Chairman:
The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed. final amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61.
The amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests that are required to control transfers of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility;.(2) establish a set of NRC forms, that captures the information needed to meet NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information needed for the safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through disposal.
In developing the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded to comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also r worked with the Department of Transportat. ion on those aspects of the Uniform ,
Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule. the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions. We believe that these mmmenters have helped to improve the final product, however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the earlier Federal Register notice. j Sincerely, i Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
l Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Frank Fallone
{CGl] *See previous concurrences See next page for. Dist ribution
'Offt: RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* DD:DRA:RES* D:DRA:RES* D:RES*
Name: .MHaisfield RAuluck SBahadur FCostanzi BMorris ESBeckjord i Date: 04/2/94 06/03/94 06/30/94 10/20/94 10/20/94 10/21/94 l Offc: OCA l Name: DKRathbun Date: / /95 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY h% o ^rtrth , p .
l f %.
A k. . L UNITED STATES !
L iM E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
E' "5 WASHINGTo"
- C TMS-0001 i 8, - n l
'%p+s ...?
.f j t
The'Honorabie Dan Schaefer, Chairman !
-Subcommittee on. Energy and. Power. j Committee on Commerce j United States House-of Representatives j
-Washington, DC 20515'
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has'sent' to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the. .
enclosed firial amendments to the Commission's' rules in 10' CFR Parts 20 and 61'. l The. amendments will: (1) improve the quality and' uniformity of.information- l contained on manifests that are required to controlitransfers of low-level l
radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a. land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of'NFsC forms,'that captures the information .
needed'to meet NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact l information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to !
electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require !'
disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes). ;
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information needed i for the . safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through [
Jisposal. :
In developing the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded to :
comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State l regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal i facilities operators. LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, ,
Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission h s also j worked with the Department of Transportation on those acpects of the Uniform l Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety j requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions. We believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final product, however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the earlier Federal Register notice.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice ec: Representative Frank Pallone T15;I v 4 o f i V. pg.
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power i Committee on Energy and Commerce (
United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has sent to the Office of the federal Register f The amendments will:
(1) improve the quality and uniformity of information ;
contained on manifests that are required to control tranj facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms, that captures the information ;
needed to meet NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact !
information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to ,
electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require l disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest' information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes). l These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information need .
that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from gen ,
disposal. I In developir.g the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded toComm 1 comments and inputs provided by public commenters. l regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact The Commission has also Commissio l l
Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. l worked with the Department of Transportation on those aspects of the Uniform Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation We requirements. final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions.
believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final pro however, the ancept and earlier FederC Register notice.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice g,7 l cc: Representative Michael Bilirakis ,Seenextpa9%forDistribuion ) !
1
[CG2] *See previous concurrences DD:0RAIRES *0kA:RES Dr . s Offc: RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA* RDB:DRA*
Morris R' <er s jord SBahadur FCostanzi Name: MHaisfield RAuluck 06/30/94 lo/w/94 /v/10/94 ,/yl/94 g /g /94 Date: 04/26/94 06/03/94 i
l Offc: OCA Name: DKRathbun Off!CIAL RECORD COPY Date: / /94 l l
l
%M c ! W 2 et ;
j
l' Distribution:
subj-circ-chron ,
Reading Files ;
ESBeckjord BMorris w/ encl. i FCostanzi LRiani :
S8ahadur RAuluck
.MHaisfield ,
r s
i L
4 i
e t
l 6
r
, , - ' I, a
4 4
8 1 ,
3 1-i
.E :
. -i i
1 4 !
i, i
1 4
i
! t i !
i i !
t 1
I 4
'I ATTACHMENT 4
, r I-i REGULATORY ANALYSIS r t
? I i
2 S
I I
t >
a 1-4' i
5 4
4 l
1 t
1 i
n I
(-
l i.
}' .
,,-n,. .-~;. . -- , - - - , . . . - - , , , . - , - - - , . - . - , ,
- . - . - _ . _ . .- ~. . _ _
'ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY ' ,
9700 South Cass Avenuel Argonne, Illinois 60439 ,
e t
i REGULATORY ANALYSIS - ,
l LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING I
l i
By ;
.I l
Philip H. Kier !
Decision and Information Sciences Division and i
Natalia K. Meshkov Energy Systems Division I -
October 1994 i
work sponsored by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office'of Nuclear Regulatory .Research l
l Y1910i W 'taf f q.
CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................... ......... ......... ............ iii 1
1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ......................... ..... ..
............ 1 1.1 Background ..............................
3 1.2 NRC Responsibilities and information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
1.2.1 Technical Studies for Disposal Facility Licensing ............4 1.2.2 Monitoring Adequacy of LLW Disposal Regulations ..........5 6
1.2.3 Development of New Regulations ......................
7 1.2.4 Inspection of Licensees .............................
1.2.5 Emergency Access Determinations .....................7 1.2.6 Other Tachnical Studies and Analyses ...................8 1.3 Problems with Current Information Management .................8 1.3.1 Issues with Existing Shipment Manifests .................8 1.3.2 Issues with Disposal Facility Recordkeeping ... ....... ... 10 10 1.3.3 Access to information ........ ...... . ............
11 1.4 Waste Tracking Objectives of the Amendments Act ....... ...
.. ... .... ... ...... 12
- 2. OBJECTIVES ................ ...
........... .......... . .... .. ... . 12
- 3. ALTERNATIVES ..
Alternative 1: No Change ............... . 12 3.1 ......... ..
............ 13 l 3.2 Alternative 2: Amend Parts 20 and 61 ..... ..
3.2.1 Shipment Manifest Information ..... . . ...... ...... 13 !
........... 16 3.2.2 Use of a Uniform Manifest ...... ......
3.2.3 Recuirements for Recordkeeping for Disposal Facilities ..... 17 and Reporting
....... ... .... ... 17
- 4. CONSEQUENCES . .. .............
Facility Design ................ .. .... 17 4.1 .......... ...
Accountability for LLW ....... ............. ......... 19 4.2 .
1 Improved Knowledge .... .. 20 4.3 ..... .... ...... . ....
Industry implementation Costs 20 4.4 .................... .......
4.4.1 Uniform Manifest .. .... ........... ............. 21 4.4.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping System ... .......24 4.4.3 Reporting on a Computer-Readable Medium .............. 25 i
CONTENTS (cont.) f Industry O perations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7
4.5 4.5.1 Shipment Manifest Preparation ........................ 25 4.5.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ,
4.5.3 Reporting of Manifest Information .................. . . 34 35 ,
4.6 NRC Costs ...........................................
4.6.1 Implementation ................................... 35 4.6.2 Operations ...................................... 36 4.7 Reg ula tory E f ficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Summary of Costs to industry and the NRC ...................36 !
4.8.
F
................. 40
- 5. DECISION RATIONALE .....................
40
- 6. IMPLEMENTATION ........................... ..............
........................ 41
- 7. EFFECT ON SMALL ENTITIES .. .... .
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ANALYSIS ............ .... ..... 42 8.
8.1 Justification ........ ....... . . ..... ...... ...... 43 1
8.2 Description of the Information Collection ............... .....45 8.3 Estimate of the Burden ............... .. ........ ..... 46 ;
1 1
8.4 Cost to the Federal Government ........................... 53 1
- 9. REFERENCES ... ... . ........ .............. . ........ 56 ,
I APPENDIX .............. . . ... .......... ... ......... .... 59 I
TABLES 41 Projected Effects of Amendments on Facility Design and Accountability for LLW 20 4-2 Net Additional Fields on the Uniform Manifest Compared with ........... 29 US Ecology Manifest l 4-3 LLW Shipments for Disposal, 1987-1991 ......................... 30 i 4-4 Summary of estimated Costs to Industry and the NRC ................ 39 8-1 Data Fields on the Uniform Manifest and Their Entry Times .............55 ,
82 Summary of Information Collection Costs ... ...................... 56 i A-1 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests- Form 540 . . . . . 59 A.2 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests- Form 541 .....62
-A-3 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests Form 542 . . . . . 64
{
l
i l
ABSTRACT l The U.S. Nuclear Rec,ulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 to: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained in manifests that are required to control transfer of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) that is ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms j that allows LLW to be tracked from its origin, that serves as a national Uniform Low-Level l Radioactive Waste Manifest, and that meets NRC, U.S. Department of Transportation, State, I
and Compact information requirements: (3) require LLW disposal facility operators to electronicallu !! ora container specific information in the Uniform Manifest documents; and (4) j require the disposal f acility operator to report the stored Uniform Manifest information on a i computer-readable medium, in bre:d terms, these amendments are intended to assure the availability of information needed for the regulation and safe operation of LLW disposal facilities; and to assure that the chain of custody of LLW, from generation through collection l
or processing to disposal, can be tracked. They would also enhance NRC's ability to achieve the objectives of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
t A regulatory analysis of the costs and benefits of the amendments has been i completed. We estimate that the annual operations costs for industry and the NRC would l range from $61,000 to $127,000, and that, depending on the number of manifest forms that the Uniform Manifest supplants, the costs to industry for implementation would range from about $634,000 to a savings of about $1,200,000. (To put these costsin perspective, annual .
fees at LLW disposal facilities are expected to be approximately $220 million.) Any costs f described above may be offset by relatively large benefits that cannot be quantified. For :
example, the enhanced availability of information could speed up the licensing process for new dispos,al facilities, so that long-term storage costs or charges for disposal of LLW generated f in non-sited compact regions or unaffiliated States could be minimized. The enhanced ,
availability of information could also reduce costs associated with data uncertainties. By ,
improving accountability for LLW, the amendments will reduce the likelihood of disposal of I
. LLW in other than licensed disposal f acilities and will thereby reduce risk to the public health and safety.
I
. + .
I h
i REGULATOPV ANALYSIS LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING 1, STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.1 Background
Low-level radioactive waste (LLW)is disposed of at land disposal facilities licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or by Agreement States,i.e., States that have
. entered into an agreement with the NRC under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.), and have the authority to regulate the disposal of LLW
. under such agreements.
LLW may be shipped to a disposal f acility in several ways. It may be shipped directly from a waste generator or it may be shipped from a waste collector or processor. A waste collector is a licensee who typically handles prepackaged waste from hospitals, laboratories, or other licensees who generate only small volumes of waste. Waste collectors also frequently prepare shipment manifests for their customers. Waste processors receive waste from other licensees (generators, collectors, or other processors) and either repackage the waste or change its chemical or physical characteristics. For example, a waste processor may compact or incinerate the waste, or segregate contaminated waste from non-contaminated waste. A single container of waste shipped from a waste processor or a waste collector may contain wastes from several generators Data for the years"19861990-indicate that about 15% of LLW shipments to disposal facilities were handled by collectors or processors.
(However, a representative of a waste processor indicated that in 1990 approximately 50%
of the waste by volume delivered to disposal facility was from processors and collectors).
Each shipment of LLW is accompanied by a set of documents, collectively referred to as shipment manifests. These are large, detailed documents that contain the information required by NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 (Section 20.1006 and Appendix' F), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR Part 172, and State requirements (imposed as conditions in disposal facility licenses).
1
The NRC has compiled characteristics of LLW disposed of during 1987 through 1989 in NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990). In this period, disposal facilities received an average of 4548 shipments annually, and the average number of containers per shipment was 27. The average annual volume of waste was 1.64 x 10' cubic feet with an average annual activity of 4.65 x 10' curies. The generators contributing waste were classified as utilities, private industry, hospitals, colleges and universities, and governments. The utilities class includes commercial nuclear power reactors. The private industry class includes research and development companies, manufacturers, mining, fuel fabrication facilities, and radiopharmaceutical manuf acturers. The colleges and universities class includes university hospitals and university medical and nonmedical research f acilities. The governmental class includes state and federal agencies. State agencies generally do not handle radioactive materials; however, some may be tasked with the cleanup and remediation of radioactively contaminated sites. The largest contributors were utilities (54% of the waste by volume and 84% by activity) and private industry (35% by volume and 15% by activity).
Over the last five years, three LLW disposal facilities have operated: the Barnwell, S.C.
f acility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, inc. (CNSI), and the Richland, Wash, and Beatty Nov. f acilities operated by U.S. Ecology (USE). All these facilities are in Agreement States.
In the period 1987-1989, Barnwell received 61% of the waste by volume (82.7% by activity); Richland received 28% of the waste by volume (12.8% by activity); and Beatty received 11% of the waste by volume (4.5% by activity). Currently, the Beatty facility has !
closed and a f acility operated by Envirocare for the disposal of certain low activny LLW has opened in Clive, Utah. The Barnwell facility is planned to close in f avor of a facility in North Carolina that will serve the Southeast Compact, while the Richland facility serves only generators approved by its Compact.
Each disposal f acility operator has independently devcloped a shipment manifest f orm and an onsite computer recordkeeping system. LLW exists in a variety of chemical and physical forms and can contain about 200 different radionuclides in concentrations that can range from a few microcuries to several hundred curies per cubic foot. To characterize LLW, therefore, requires much data, and to analyze the inventory of LLW at a disposal facility resulting from thousands of shipments, the operators of the existing disposal facilities have 2
developed computer recordkeeping systems. Wastes are described and stored differently on these computer recordkeeping systems. A major difference is that on the USE system, information is stored on a container basis, while manifest information is not storr d on a container basis on the CNSI system, but is summarized across the entire shipment. Neither disposal facility operator stores all the manifest information. For example, neither stores the i
quantities of chelating agents within the wastes, t
Severai more disposal f acilities are expected to be developed. Pursuant to the 8 w-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-573) and the Low-Level ;
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99 240), referred to as the l
" Amendments Act," States have organized into regional Compacts to site and operate new disposal f acilities. The Amendmerm Act established a series of milestones, penalties, and ;
incentives that were intended to ensure thst the Compacts will be able to manage waste l
generated within their member States. While new disposal capacity is being developed, the two remaining sited States (Washington and South Carolina) were allowed to impose surcharges on waste from outside their compact regions and had allocated disposal capacity to waste from nuclear utilities. Af ter December 31,1992, the compact regions were to be i
responsible for managing their own wastes and were allowed to prohibit disposal of waste generated from outside their compact region.
it is uncertain how many disposal f acilities will be sited pursuant to the Amendments Act. Compacts have been formed, and each intends to site a disposal facility. in addition,-
several States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia are unaf filiated. Some unaffiliated
- States plan to site new disposal f aciiities; others plan or hope to contract for disposal capacity with Compacts, if these plans were all carried to completion, there could be more than ten disposal facilities. Problems associated with use of different shipment manifests and collection of inconsistent and incomplete information at disposal facilities could be expected to intensify as the number of disposal facilities increases.
1.2 NRC Responsibilities and information Needs As will be discussed below, NRC needs information contained in shipment manifests to fully discharge its responsibilities in protecting public health and safety. NRC's licensing 3
responsibilities include activities such as: lice' ring of new disposal facilities; issuing license renewals; monitoring f acilities' waste disposal activities; and approving eventual closure and license termination. NRC '. iso conducts other waste management activities independent of licensing. These other activities include: monitoring the adequacy of NRC's regulations; developing new regulations; inspecting to determine compliance with NRC's requirements for waste characterization and classification, and for safe transportation and disposal of the waste; and ensuring accountability and control of radioactive materials. NRC also conducts various technical studies, and responds to information requests from the Congress and other government agencies, States, Compacts, and the public.
To conduct ther,e activities NRC needs accurate and timely information about LLW and its management. NRC has identified needed improvements in procedures for reporting inf ormation on LLW shipments. The inf ormation in existing shipment manifests is inconsistent among disposal facility operators and does not contain information in sufficient detail and unif ormity to provide an adequate basis for evaluating the source term for use in performance assessment and in support of regulatory actions. Moreover, unless that information can be conveniently retricved (i.e., through a computer-readable medium), its practical use in performing these activities could be significantly impacted. The final rule addresses these issues.
The remainder of this section describes NRC's responsibilities in greater detail. Need for better information is discussed in Section 1.3.
1.2.1 Technical Studies for LLW Disposal Facility Licensing Section 9.2 of the Amendments Act encourages NRC, or an Agreement State, to act More on an application for a license for a waste disposal facility in a timely manner.
specifically, NRC should "to the extent practicable, complete all activities associated with the review and processing of any application for such a license (except for public hearings) no later than 15 months af ter the date of receipt of such application."
As part of the licensing process, the applicants and the regulatory agencies need to assess the perf ormance of the disposal f acility for its effectiveness in protecting public health 4
l
and safety. Similar assessments would be pe 'ermed for' disposal facilitylicense renewals and closure (10 CFR 61.27). , Licensing assessments and decisions are subject to considerable : ,
public scrutiny and may be controversial.
Performance assessments are based on models which estimate the long- and short-team likelihood of human exposure to radionuclides and other hazards in LLW via various ,
exposure pathways, such as ingestion, inhalation, and direct radiation. For performance :
assessments to be credible, reliable data must be readily available on physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of LLW, and on the confinement capabilities of the various waste -
+
forms and waste containers. At some disposal facilities, maximum inventories of specific radionuclides may be established (10 CFR 61.7(b)), and cumulative totals of disposed of
- radionuclides may have to be maintair.ed. The knowledge of the identity of the . waste generator can also provide useful information on waste' characteristics. Waste generation i
processes can be inferred from the identity of the generator, and from knowledge of the process, absent direct information, the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste can be surmised.
The less that is known about the waste, the more the approach to assessments involves the inclusion of conservative, rather than realistic assumptions, in addition, easily accessible data make timely and independent performance assessments possible. There is a monetary incentive to have efficient licensing of new facilities because there are substantial costs for storing or disposing of the waste outside of the compact region or unaf filiated state l in which waste is generated.
At present, the quality of data on LLW and its accessibility to NRC or other regulatory bodies is not always sufficient to allow realistic performance assessments through which compliance with licensing requirements can be demonstrated, nor is the data believed to be suf ficient to ensure compliance with the Amendments Act's statutory schedule for reviewing .
1 i license applications.
1.2.2 Monitoring Adequacy of LLW Disposal Regulations ;
An important NRC responsibility is monitoring the adequacy of the existing regulatory 5
t i
i
l r i
structure for LLW disposal. The LLW disoosal regulations were established in 1982 in the form of a new 10 CFR Part 61 (" Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste") and in amendments to 10 CFR Part 20. A major concept in the Part 61 regt !ations is the establishment of perf ormance objectives that are achieved through various requirements on waste form and disposal facility siting, design, operation, and closure. In 10 CFR 61.55, waste is classified in terms of concentrations of a limited number of key radionuclides, such -
as cesium-137. From data available in 1982, NRC staff concluded that limits on the concentrations of these key radionuclides, together with possible limitations on site inventories pursuant to 10 CFR 61.7, were needed to ensure public health and safety. That is, the requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 were developed from a i understanding of the radiological, physical, and chemical characteristics of LLW as understood in 1982.
Since 1982, however, an NRC staff review of disposal records indicates that the physical, chemical and radiological characteristics of LLW are changing. There has been a trend to reduce wasto volumes, leading to increased radionuclide concentrations. Licensees have increasingly become involved in decontamination processes. As a result, amounts of
' chelating agents, which can increase the movement of radioactivity from disposed of waste, -
appear to be increasing. Technology changes lead to changing radionuclide distributions in f we waste. If these trends are verified and continue, or if it develops that certain important radionuclides are present in larger quantities than previously believed,it may be necessary to amend the Part 61 regulations in light of the new information.
NRC's ability to monitor and verify such trends is hampered by the lack of an accessible data base containing LLW manifest information. As described in Section 1.3, only limited amount of information is available, most of it has to be handled manually, and it must be purchased by NRC from the disposal f acility operators. Thus f ar, the disposal f acility l operators h_ ave been cooperative in providing current inf ormation to NRC, but reliance on this f cooperation should not be required.
i 1.2.3 Development of New Regulations NRC needs information to perform studies that must precede development of regulations, guidance and associated documents. To determine costs and radiological 6
_ _ _ _ . _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ __ . ~
l l
impacts, it is necessary to analyze shipmant manifest information to determine what fraction i of a particular waste stream exceeds specific radionuclide concentrations. It may also be necessary to know other infermation such as radionuclide distributions and current packaging !
i trends. Manual sorting of manifestinformation could require substantial staff effort. Without !
access to a LLW computerized data base, which would be facilitated by a requirement to term, ,
} report in a computer-readable medium, compilation of a defensible radiological .;su.;;:
for example, would be difficult.
l 1.2.4 Inspection of Licensees j
NRC is responsible for inspecting licensees to assure compliance with Part 61 r requirements for waste classification and characterization, DOT recuirements for identifying and labeling radioactive materials for shipment, and DOT and 10 CFR Part 20 requirements t
for describing wastesin the shipment manifests. Currently, as part of the inspection process, NRC reviews licensee records by hand at the licensee's f acility. This is a laborious, time-consuming process. The availability of shipment manifest information in a computer-readaole medium would greatly expedite this task. Using a calculational package, NRC staff could quickly review the licensee's shipment records and calculations. Greaterinspection ef ficiency, l
]
in turn, would mean that more aspects of a licensee's waste management program could be checked in a given period of time than is currently possible.
1.2.5 Emergency Access Determinations Section 6 of the Amendments Act makes the NRC responsible for determining wnather l J
i to grant emergency access to a non-federal LLW disposal f acility in a compact region or in an !
unaf filiated state "if necessary to eliminate an immediate and serious risk to the public health j
and safety or the common defense and security." Such a determination must be made within ,
l 45 days of receipt of a request. NRC must decide whether emergency accessis necessary ,
and whether there are other alternatives that would mitigate the risk. l On February 3,1989, NRC published rules in the Federal Reaister, at 54 FR 5409, for j a new 10 CFR Part 62 with criteria and procedures for granting emergency access. Section 62.26 contains criteria for excluding a disposal f acility from consideration. These criteria require NRC staff to judge the significance of the waste specified in the emergency access ,
7 i I
request with respect to- the waste. already disposed of at the facility. Among the considerations are the disposal facility's capacity.and license criteria, which could contain radionuclide inventory limi'.s. Equitable emergency access determinations should be based on license conditions and knowledge of the amount, types of packaging, and physical and chemical characteristics of the we ste inventory at the waste disposal facilities. To make such equitable determinations within the statutory 45-day limit would be very difficult without access to a comprehensive LLW data base.
1.2.6 Other Technical Studies and Analyses NRC has other needs for a comprehensive, easily accessible LLW data base. Up-to-date data on total volumes of disposed wastes, the total activities of disposed radionuclides, volumes and activities contributed hv specific generators or by geographic regions, and other information would be readily accessible. Establishment of trends and projections in waste generation and disposal would be much easier. This type of information can assist NRC, unaffiliated States, and compact regions in their waste management plans and decisions.
NRC has responded to requests for this type of information from states, Congress, or general public. In one instance, North Carolina requested information on the volumes and activities of waste generated in the Southeast Compact; in another, Congress requested information on wastes containing activated metals.
Other technical studies might address the appropriateness of a particular disposal method for a specific waste stream. Such studies would be greatly assisted by a-computerized data base containing detailed information about the physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of the waste stream.
1.3 Problems with Current Information Management in this.section, the regulatory needs for manifest information are considered with regard to the information contained on current LLW shipment manifests and stored at disposal facilities on existing recordkeeping systems.
1.3.1 issues with Existing Shipment Manifests To assure safe disposal of LLW,it is necessary to understand the mechanisms and 8
rates by which radioactivity can be relcased from LLW to the environment. This knowledge in turn requires a detailed understanding of the ' physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of LLW. Part 20 regulations prescribe, in general terms, the minimum information that must be included in LLW shipment manifests.
Disposal f acility operators must comply with performance standards of 10 CFR Part
- 61. The standards include implementing quality control measures to confirm the content of shipments, pursuant to 10 CFR 61.12(j); performing safety and environmental assessments for license renewal or for closure of the disposal facility; tracking disposed inventories of specific radionuclides; and complying with existing reporting requirements. Confirmatory assessments would be conducted as needed.
Data requirements in existing 10 CFR Part 20 regulations and information on existing manifests are not sufficiently detailed to provide realistic (i.e, not overly conservative) and consistent assessments of the performance and operation of LLW disposal facilities and to demonstrate that the perf ormance objectives are met (as required by 10 CFR 61, Subpart C).
In existing manifests, waste charabteristics are often described in vague terms, such as " dry solid" (description for 38% by volume and 11% by activity of the waste in 1987, and 13%
by volume and 4% by activity of waste in 1988). The container descriptions in existing manifests are often too general (such as " strong tight. containers") to make inclusion of container degradation in' performance assessments meaningful. Yet, container degradation is part of a performance assessment code developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory.
(Sullivan and Chen,1989), which NRC believes could be used in licensing some disposal facilities. Current NRC regulations do not require tracking of the waste generator identity ,
through brokers and processors. Such tracking is important for several reasons, among them are accountability during waste transfers, usefulness in defining waste characteristics when conducting performance assessments, and responsibilities under the Amendments Act.
An additional problem is that different manifest formats describe waste differently making comparisons difficult (see Table 19 of NUREG-1418 to compare the waste descriptions used by Chem-Nuclear Systems and US Ecology). This problem is likely to be compounded if additional manifest formats are developed.
9 1
l
i 1,3.2 issues with Disposal Facility Recnrakeeping At present, NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 require that operators of waste disposal facilities maintain copies of all complete manifests or equivalent documentation but do not require use of comparable recordkeeping systems. The disposal facility operators have independently developed computerized systems that store manifest information. However, these recordkeeping systems are not readily compatible, e.g. USE stores the information by container, while CNSI summarizes it over the whole shipment. The same manifest inf ormation, suf ficient to address regulatory needs, should be recorded in each disposal f acility recordkeeping system.
1.3.3 Access to information The information on shipment manifests is not easily accessible to NRC. Title 10 CFR 61.80 contains a general requirement for a licensee to provide annual summaries on selected LLW characteristics and other reports as may be required. However, there are no specific requirements in current Federal regulations that would define how NRC or Agreement States can access such information.
Recently, int lation on radionuclide inventories at disposal facilities was purchased annually by NRC. NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990), which contains data on characteristics waste disposalin 1987-89, was compiled from microfiche copies of shipment manifests purchased from the disposal f acility operators and from computer printouts of the LLW data sorted in different ways. NRC has also purchased limited data summaries generated by the operators' computer systems, and has had,in the past, limited access to one f acility operator's computer system. Compilation of such data in the future would be greatly facilitated by reporting in a computer-readable medium.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been operating a LLW data base called the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS), which can be accessed using personal computers equipped with modems. However, the system's information is limited; it is provided on a shipment-summary rather than on a container-specific basis, and it does not identify generators by name. Also, DOE's mandate to support MIMS is not directly tied to regulatory needs.
1 10 l
l l
1.4 Waste Tracking Objectives of the Amenriments Act Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 20 requires that licensed waste processors treating or repackaging wastes prepar , a new shipment manifest that describes the waste, in preparing the new shipment manifest, the processor does not need to identify the original generator of waste. Provisions in the Amendments Act, however, require the identity of the waste generator to be known so that the state in which waste was generated be known when the waste reaches the disposal facility. LLW generated in a state outside the compact region in which the disposal f acility is located may not be disposable at the Compact's disposal facility or may be subject to a surcharge.
Compacts or Host States need to know the state in which waste originates to know whether a surcharge could be charned, and, if so, how large a surcharge; or whether access to a disposal facility should be denied. Because of this provision in the Amendments Act, shipment nianifests are currently used to provide information that allows the disposal f acility operator to trace waste in shipments from processor back to the generator. By providing a uniform manifest that contains this information, NRC will continue to provide the means to achieve the objectives of the Amendments Act.
Tracking the identity of the waste generator, and meeting the provisions of the Amendments Act, become more complicated when the waste characteristics or packaging are changed by a waste processor. To reduce disposal costs, generators increasingly ship LLW to offsite processing facilities, which are frequently located in another State. The processed waste, of ten significantly reduced in volume, may then be shipped to a disposal facility. Each container of waste shipped from the processor may contain waste from several different generators.
The importance of tracking the identity of the waste generator through waste processors and brokers to insure accountability and control of radioactive materials is discussed in Section 4.2. Knowledge of generator identity may also enhance performance assessments as discussed in Section 1.2.1. Finally, consistency with the Amendments Act is a third reason for preserving the identity of the waste generator.
11 s
- - - - .. ~ . . - - - = . - . - . .- - -~.
I i
- 2. ORJECTIVES l The amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 in the final rule have the objectives of addressing the issues ider'tified in Section 1 of this report. These amendments will: (1) !
i improve the quality and uniformity of information contained in manifests that are required to >
control transfer of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) that is ultimately intended for disposal l at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of forms that allow LLW to be tracked from its l origin, that serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, and that is responsive to requests from Compacts and States (3) require the use of one of these forms as a mandatory shipping paper for LLW transport; (4) require LLW disposal facility operators to electronically store specific information in the Uniform Manifest documents for each l disposal container in a containerized shipment; and (5) require the disposal facility operator to report the stored Uniform Manifest information on a computer-readable medium.
r These amendments in the final rule willimprove NRC and Agreement State programs f or regulation of LLW disposal and allow NRC regulations to achieve the objectives of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
- 3. ALTERNATIVES There appear to be only two alternatives that need be considered in this regulatory analysis. One alternative is to make no changes in the regulations. The other alternative is to amend the regulations as outlined in Section 2, above.
3.1 Altemative 1: No Change This alternative would continue the status quo by not amending the regulations. The following problems would continue. NRC would continue to get manifest information that may not be suf ficiently complete to realistically determine whether disposal f acility operators ,
are meeting the technical requirements of Part 61. NRC and State disposal facility regulatory agencies may not have complete source term information needed to conduct performance assessments of disposal sites for license renewals or to conduct needed evaluations, if problems should arise. The NRC would not have available suf ficiently detailed information on i 1
waste characteristics and inventories to identify significant trends that may result from volume reduction techniques or new chemical processing that may have implications requiring
-12 i
- , .- - . _ = . - . . .- . . .
amendments to existing regulations. Responses to incidents during transportation of LLW ,
may not be as ef ficient without a uniform manifest because local responders may have to be f amiliar with a multiplicity of forms to efficiently extract usefulinformation. Failure to proceed with the rulemaking could impact: NRC's ability to efficiently inspect licensees for compliance .
with NRC and DOT regulations pertaining to LLvV; Nf:C's ability to foster accountability and control of radioactive materials; NRC's capacity to meet the Amendments Act's statutory deadline to review a LLW license application in 15 months; NRC's ability to react promptly and ef f activelyin event of a suspected release from an NRC-licensed disposal facility: NRC's ability to provide technical assistance to States in the event of detection of releases from a State-regulated f acility; and NRC's ability to respond to requests for inf6rmation from the Congress, States, compact regions, and the public. Inaction would be expected to result in higher t
expenditures of staff time and agency funds to ct.rry out NRC's s atutory mission.
- 3.2 Alternative 2: Amend Parts 20 and 61 j
This alternative has four functional elements: (1) upgrade the quality and uniformity of information contained in LLW shipment manifests: (2) require the use of a uniform LLW l shipment manifest; (3) require efectronic storage of shipment manifest information in recordkeeping systems for LLW disposal facilities; and (4) require disposal facility operators to be capable of reporting manifest information on a computer-readable medium.
1 .
4 3.2.1 Shipment Manifest Information The first functional element would be met by amending 10 CFR 20.2006 to call forthe use of a new Appendix G to Part 20 to supplant Appendix F to Part 20 when the requirement for using the Uniform Manifest is implemented in accordance with a schedule contained in Section 20.2006. Appendix G, and Appendix F, address ultimate transfer of radioactive waste to a land disposal facility and establish a manifest tracking system. Section 20.2006 l outlines general requirements and refers to the appendices for details. l J
l Section 20.2006 The revision to this section contains the schedule for replacing use of Appendix F with use of Appendix G.
Anoendix G - Section I Section I addresses the information that shipment manifests l l
13 i
I
)
-- . . . - . . . . . - ~ .. . - . - - - . - . . - .. -- . . - - .
i must contain. Currently in Appendix F, Section I is tersely written and generally is not l
specific on the level of detail required. Generally, it does not distinguish between information that must be provided for each container and information that is aggregated to, or applicable !
to, the entire shipment. Conversely, Section I of Appendix G discusses requirements I
according to the level of detail needed. It also clarifies that the use of the Uniform Manifest is not required f or certain shipments (when waste will be stored at the generators facility after i
processing rather than being sent by the processor for disposal, and when radioactivity is i l
being sent to a waste processor and that radioactivity becomes the processor's residual waste, such 'as the radioactivity that is removed at a decontamination facility).
Section I of Appendix G is divided into 5 subsections. Subsection A covers general l f
information; subsection B covers information needed on a per-shipment basis; subsection C l
covers information that must be provided for each container of waste; subsection D covers t information on waste delivered to a disposal facility in an uncontainerized form, e.g., large contaminated components from a nuclear power plant; and subsection E applies to waste l containers enclosing LLW originating from more than one generator (and in the rare case, uncontainerized waste from more than one generator).
- 1. Subsection A. Generalinformation. In Appendix F, the manifest must contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person generating the waste and the name, address, and telephone number or name and EPA identification number of the person transporting the waste to the land disposal f acilityr in Appendix G, these requirements are-clarified and expanded to reflect the public health and safety information currently required on existing manifests by both Federal and State regulatory authorities. One clarification is to change the waste generator " address" to " facility address." A number of waste generators, e.g., nuclear utilities, operate more than one f acility, and this clarification ensures that waste could be tracked back to a specific f acility. The final rule also corrects an oversight in which information on the person transporting the waste is required only for shipments "to the land disposal f acility." This carrier information is required for all shipments -- to collectors and processors, as well as to disposal facilities.
i- !
- 2. Subsection B. Shipment Information. A number of items (e.g., date of shipment, t
14 1
_ .y. _. -_ .. _ ._ .. _ _ ._- .__ -_ _ _ _ . _ _
s total volume of shipment, total radioactivity in the shipment) are required on a shipment basis.
All these items are required by existing NRC or DOT regulations and are supplied on existing shipment manifests. These items continue to be required. j l
- 3. Subsection C. Package / Waste Disposal Container Information. The revisions in Appendix G clarify the information that must be provided for each container under current j regulations, and require five items of information not currently required by 10 CFR Part 20 but that are included in existing manifests and four new items of information. The 5 items not i currently required are: (1) container identification that corresponds to a specific container of waste in the shipment; (2) structural stability indicator for Class A waste pursuant to Sections j 61.55 and 61.56; (3) weight of the waste plus container; (4) masses of source and special l 3
nuclear material; and (5) maximum radiation level at the surface of each disposal container surface. The 4 new items are: (1) a physical description of the waste container, including I information which would identify a high-integrity container, if utilized; (2) an improved :
physical and chemical description of the waste; (3) solidification agent identification; and (4) the total weight percentage of all chelating agents in the waste,if contained in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent by weight, plus the identity of the most prevalent of these agents. !
i
- 4. Subsection D. Uncontainerized Waste information. In a great majority of shipments, waste is delivered to disposal f acilities in containers. However, that is not always l the case. Contaminated soil or large components are not delivered in containers. To avoid confusion as.to what inf ormation is needc.1 for such uncontainerized waste, Subsection D is added in Appendix G. This information is similar to that required by subsection C, but does not include information on containers, or information not relevant for uncontainerized waste.
- 5. Subsection E. Multi-Generator Container Information. For each container with waste from more than one generator, the information required by subsection E will be provided. The type of information required depends on whether there is a homogeneous mixture of waste (e.g., incinerator ash), or heterogeneous waste (e.g., a container filled with
' compacted containers or " hockey pucks"). For homogeneous waste, only the fractions attributed to each waste generator are needed. For heterogeneous waste, requirements would include information needed to identify the radioactive material so that its chain of custody 15
I could be readily tracked, and information needed to evaluate any potential release of l i
radioactive materials. f
- . Anoendix G - Section il Section il concerns certification of the contents of manifests.
i This section is changed from that in Appendix i to clarify that not only generators, but also ,
l collectors and processors must certify that the material is properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and labeled to meet DOT and NRC regulations. Since a collector will not - ;
have'first hand knowledge of the waste material, a collector would be certifying that nothing has been done to the waste that would negate a generator or processor certification.
Anoendix G - Section til Section 111 contains specific requirements for the control and ,
tracking of LLW by generators, collectors, processors and land disposal facilities. These f requirements include packaging, labeling, quality control, shipping and verification, and record I
retention. Subsections A through D deals respectively with generators, waste collectors who handle only prepacked waste, processors who treat or repackage waste, and land disposal facility operators. The amendments to Section lli not only require use of uniform manifest forms, but allow the licensees to develop systems that could reduce the amount of manifest information physically accompanying an LLW shipment, raad clarify existing regulations to ensure that all waste is properly tracked.
3.2.2 Use of a Uniform Manifest The amendments to Sections I and lit of Appendix F contained in Appendix G require The the use of an NRC uniform low-level radioactive waste manifest (Uniform Manifest).
Unif orm Manifest consist of three forms (NRC Form 540, NRC Form 541, and NRC Form 542) and their respective continuation forms (NRC Form 540A, NRC Form 541 A, and NRC Form 542A). The principal purpose of NRC Form 540 (and Form 540A)is to satisfy DOT shipping paper requirements (49 CFR Part 172). The principal purpose of NRC Form 541 (and Form 541 A) is to obtain the information necessary for disposal operations and to assess and monitor the disposed of radioactive waste. The principal purpose of NRC Form 542 (and 542A)is to provide inf ormation on waste generators for waste shipped through collectors and processors for waste tracking purposes.
16
3.2.3 Requirements for Recordkeeping for Disposal Facilities and Reporting The third and fourth functional elements described in Section 3.2 are met by amending 10 CFR 61.12 and 61.80.
Section 61.12 This section discusses specific technical information necessary to demonstrate that performance objectives and applicable technical requirements for land disposal f acilities are met. The amendment adds a new paragraph (n) requiring a description of the facility's electronic recordkeeping system.
Section 61.80 This section addresses maintenance of records, reports, and transfer of radioactive materials at land disposal facilities. The amendments in paragraph (f) and new paragraph (1) require that licensees store information pertaining to receipt and disposal of LLW in an electronic recordkeeping system and be capable of reporting the stored information, or subsets of the information, on a computer readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
- 4. CONSEQUENCES This regulatory analysis f ollows the guidance found in NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC,1984),
" Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regu4atory Commission" (" Guidelines")
and NUREG/CR-3568 (Heaberlin,1983), "A Handbook for Value-impact Assessment"
(" Handbook"). For the most part, this section is organized in terms of attributes described in the Handbook: however, it is more logical to discuss certain potential cost savings in terms of the design of LLW disposal facilities and a facility's accountability for LLW. Tnese topics- l span several of the Handbook's attributes. l One of the conventions of regulatory analyses is that costs and benefits are defined 1 in terms of changes from the status quo. Alternative 1, which would not ( nange the relevant (
1 regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61, would continue the status quo. The application of this I
convention means that there are neither costs nor benefits associated with Alternative 1.
However, the problems discussed in Section 3.1 would persist if the status quo is continued.
The remainder of this section therefore addresses Alternative 2.
4.1 Facility Design 17 l
1
/
l Better quality information with greater e-cessibility is likely, in the long run, to reduce !
uncertainties in the data and the models used in the engineering design of a waste disposal l f acility. When uncertainties exist there is a tendency by designers and regulators t err on j the conservative side, which often results in selecting more costly treatment and disposal ]
alternatives than those which would be required if more precise data were available, in view of the public perception of radiation risks and the public's awareness of environmentalissues, data and model unce-tainties could lead to questions regarding possible releases of radioactive 5 materials into the environment and the increased risk of adverse health effects to the public. -;
1
- The costs incurred by regulatory agencies in responding to these questions could be J 1 significant and could include substantial costs resulting from delap in a dispct,al facility's
- operational date.
1 I
To assess . the costs that could be mitigated from reducing the degree of j overengineering in designing a disposal facility, consider the costs of alternative disposal 4
methods for commercial LLW, as estimated in a paper presented at a DOE LLW management forum (Foutes and Queenan,1987). In this analysis, four disposal cost components were included: packaging, transportation, processing, and disposal. Waste volumes over a 20 year 8
generation period, from 1985 to 2004,were projected to be approximately 2.9 million m , of which about 25% would be below regulatory concern (BRC). Ten combinations of treatment and disposal options were considered. The range of costs of these ten options varied by about a factor of five. For example, solidifying waste and burying it in an earth-mounted
$ concrete bunker would cost more than three times the current disposal practice.
] 1 4
More costly disposal methods would also be associated with higher occupational risks,
! both radiological and non radiological. Because more workers would be needed over longer In time periods, the likelihood of non-radiological industrial accidents would be greater.
addition, there would be more handling of wastes, leading to higher occupational radiological exposure.
I i
Improved and more accessible inf ormation about waste would likely encourage disposal f acility designs best suited to the waste and would potentially prevent unnecessary costs and l i
I risks resulting from data uncertainties. Better quality data would enable more accurate 18 l 4
l i
l
projections of the kinds and quantities of wasta providing better assessment of the adequacy of existing LLW disposal facilities and requirements for new facilities. Table 4-1 shows the relationship between the f' .:ility design and the attributes affected by this rulemaking.
4.2 Accountability for LLW An important NRC concern is tracking waste from generation to disposal to keep accurate account and control of the radioactive materials. This is important for maintenance of public health and safety, potential improved responses to accidents that might lead to occupational and public exposure, and offsite and onsite property losses. From its generation to its disposal, LLW may change hands many times. Prior to 1990, about 25% of LLW shipments to disposal facilities were from collectors and processors. A representative of a waste broker estimated that in 1990 approximately 50% of the waste by volume was handled by collectors and processors. Under the existing manifest and recordkeeping regulations, tracking the chain of custody of LLW is difficult when the LLW is processed by waste processors. The final rule improves accountability for LLW as it passes through different hands from generation to disposal.
To illustrate the need for better accountability, an incident will be described. It involves unauthorized possession and use of unsealed americium-241 by the John C. Haynes Co. of Newark, Ohio (NRC,1985). During the 1970s, the licensee was authorized to use l curie (Ci) quantities of americium-241 for inducing color changes in diamonds by irradiation. l In 1974, the licensee claimed that he stopped irradiating diamonds, and that he disposed of I all but 85 mci of the radioactive materials at a commercial burial site. Later, however, NRC determined that these claims were false: 23 Ci of americium-241 were eventually confiscated I
from licensee's premises. In 1985, the licensee f acility was decontaminated at a total cost of $385,000. The funding was made available through the EPA's Superfund Trust, because the licensee was financially unable to pay for the decontamination. To insure that nearby residents were not exposed o radioactive material. NRC surveyed offsite areas. No offsite contarnination was detected. However, NRC estimateo that, had there been a fire or an intrusion at the facility, public health risk would have greatly exceeded permissible limits.
Under the final rule, the likelihood of this type of accident could decrease as NRC's 19
- -- -.-. - - . - - - _ ~_. = ~ . _ . _. .. ..--=
inspection program for waste generato's wou'd be improved. Better recordkeeping would "
enable NRC to quickly check a licensee's statements about the quantities of disposed I
radioactive materials by c.iecking the disposal facility's records. This discourages illegal possession of such materials. It improves NRC's inspection program for LLW management by generators. The relationship between accountability and various attributes under the final rule is displayed in Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1 Projected Effects of Amendments on Facility Design and Accountability for LLW Facility Design Accountability Attribute ,
for LLW i
+ +
Public Health Occupational exposure + +
Offsite property + 3 Onsite property +
Explanation: The plus sign (+) signifies beneficial effect, i.e. reduction in uncertainties regarding public or occupational exposure or property losses; blank space signifies no effect.
4.3 Improved Knowledge A more nearly complete, accurate, and accessible data base on LLW results from the (
final rule and enables better quality and more cost-effective research for LLW management, f it enables more timely and reliable performance assessments by LLW disposul facility licensees -
and independent verification by regulatory bcdies. It could facilitate the development of new
> treatment and disposal methods by providing better information on waste streams. It will assist NRC in establishing research priorities.
a 4.4 Industry implementation Costs Three classes of licensees are affected by the final rule: (1) waste generators; (2) waste brokers, i.e., collectors and processors: and (3) disposal facility operators. All three classes are affected by the shipment r"anifest requirements. Only disposal facility operators !
~
are affected by the disposal facility recordkeeping requirement and the requirement to be capable of submitting reports on a computer-readable medium. The implementation costs to i
20 1
industry are almost entirely for retrain:nC data entry clerks, and for development or modification of software (for generation of the Uniform Manifest, for the disposal facility recordkeeping requirement, and for the reporting requirement).
The final rule applies directly to licensees in States that are not Agreement States.
i Licensees in Agreement States are subject to regulations issued by regulatory agencies in those States, which must be generally consistent with the final rule. Consequently, in this regulatory analysis,it is assumed that the final rule applies to alllicensees within the classes i defined above.
4.4.1 Uniform Manifest There are both costs and savings associated with industry implementation of the Uniform Manifest. The costs are from developmant of software and from retraining data entry clerks on preparing the new Uniform Manifest forms. On the other hand, having only one set 1 of shipment manifest forms instead of several results in savings in both sof tware preparation l and in personnel training for processor and collector licensees, and organizations that develop and license shipment manifest software. There will also be savings for licensees who ship waste out-of-state or -compact for processing or collection, if the processor or collector requires use of manifest forms dif ferent from the licensee's host disposal facility. These costs and savings are estimated below.
Costs to Develoo Shioment Manifest Software Shipment manifests are multi page documents that contain large amounts of data. Because of these large amounts of data, there are several firms that offer the service of completing shipment manifests and that license software for completing shipment manifests as part of more general waste management sof tware. These firms will be referred to as " manifest contractors". Their software license agreements usually contain maintenance fees that the licensee pays regardless of whether there is a change in the software. Therefore, waste generators and waste brokers that use !
the services of manifest contractors would not have any software development costs associated with use of the uniform manifest. Only generators and brokers who use their own manifest software and manifest contractors would have to update sof tware in response to a uniform manifest. Forty-two of the approximately 70 nuclear utilities use the manifest 21 o
is
t i
f preparatien software of a single manifest contractor. It is inferred from this, that a large f l
majority of nuclear utilities use the manifest preparation software of manifest contractors !
rather than their .own. It is expected that most waste Srokers would use the tranifest
_ preparation software of manifest contractors.
i i
Two individuals who were'recently associated with development of LLW management and shipment manifest software estimated that it would require approximately 4 months of effort of a computer programmer with some assistance from an engineer to develop, debug, and quality assure manifest software to NRC standards, if starting from scratch. They estimated that this effort would be cut in half, to two' months, if e<isting software were to {
be modified. In estimating the cost of personal effort, it is assumed in accordance with Abstract 2.2.2 of NUREG/CR-4726 (NRC,1986), " Generic Cost Estimates," that fringe benefits are 70% of base salary, it is estimated, based on Argonne National Laboratory's pay l schedule, that a profession computer programmer's salary ranges between $15.00 and f
$30.00 per hour. Assuming that there are 160 salary hours in a month, the. cost of f developing manifest software from scratch ranges between $16,300 and $32,600. If existing software were modified, the cost range is reduced to $8,100 to $16,300.
It is estimated that 6 nuclear utilities and 6 other generators use their own manifest software. A representative of a waste processor indicated that there are 23 waste brokers (8 processors and 15 collectors). Assuming that 5 waste brokers use their own manifest software and that there are 3 manifest contractors, then the total number of manifest sof tware packages that would have to be modified to generate the uniform manifest would be 20, and the total cost would be approximately $163.000 to $326,000.
Costs to Retrain Data Entry Clerks in addition to the costs of developing software, ,
there would be costs in retraining data entry clerks for preparing the uniform manifest formats l when they would be implemented (there would not be corresponding annual costs because I
new hires would have to be trained on some manifest forms, anyway). All waste brokers and manifest contractors would have data entry clerks. Also waste generators that use their own manifest sof tware, use manifest contractor sof tware, or complete manifests manually would have data entry clerks. Based on the number of generators sending LLW for disposal during 22 l
1
19861990 as reported in NUREG/CR 6147 trMhmel, et al,1994b), there are approximately 3,500 generators that would have to retrain data entry clerks. It is assumed that the average number of data entry clerb needing retraining is two per generator and that retraining requires two hours, so that approximately 14,000 student-hours of training would be necessary.
NUREG/CR-4627 in Abstract 2.2.3 estimates the cost of training nuclear power plant personnel. Assuming that these costs apply and that the retraining is "on-the-job", then the cost of retraining in 1986 dollars would range between $7 to $9 per student-hour. Assuming cost increases of 5% per year, the retraining costs would be $10.30 to $13.30 per student-hour in 1994, or a total of $144,200 to $186,200.
Savings The proposed use of a uniform manifest could reduce manifest !,oftware development costs and data entry rGraining costs for waste brokers and manifest contractors.
Pursuant to the Amendments Act, there could eventually be up to 14 disposal facilities and the license conditions for each disposal facility could require a different manifest form.
Currently there are three disposal facilities and each has a different operator. One of the existing disposal f acilities (Barnwell)is assumed to close. There is no indication that additional firms are trying to enter the field. Thus, it is assumed that there will continue to be orly three j
disposal facility operators. In the absence of a uniform manifest, the number of new sets of l
manifest forms would range from 0 (one for each new disposal facility operator) to 12 (one l 1
l for each new disposal facility). It is also assumed that waste brokers will ship waste to all the disposal f acilities, as they do now. Waste brokers who have their own manifest sof tware and manifest contractors would need the capability to generate each set of manifesi forms.
If it would cost each entity $8,100 to $16,300 to develop the capability to generate a set of manifest forms, then the total cost for 8 entities (5 brokers and 3 manifest contractors) to modify software to generate up to 12 different sets of manifest forms would cost up to i $ 1,565,000. In other words, with a uniform manifest the 8 entities would realize the cost savings up to $1,565,000. There would be no equivalent cost savings to waste ge nerators from use of a uniform manifest if all the waste from a generator would be disposed of at the host disposal f acility (i.e., the disposal f acility in the compact region or unaffiliate(f State in which the wasteis generated.). However, cost savings could accrue if a waste generator that develops its own software ships some of its waste to an out-of-state or -compact processor that requires use of different manifest forms than the waste generator's host disposal f acility.
23 l
I 1
The use of a uniform manifest would fso save costs associated with retraining the data entry clerks of waste brokers and manifest contractors. If there is a total of 25 waste 3 1
brokers and manifest contractors and each of three data entry clerks at each firm requires two ,
hours of on-the-job retraining for each manifest form, then up to 1,800 student-hours of l i
retraining would be saved. (We have assumed that because waste brokers and manifest ;
i contractors prepare more manifests than the average waste generator, they have an extra j
data entry clerk). If the cost of each student-hour of retraining is $10.30 to $13.30, then the savings in data entry clerk retraining from the use of a uniform manifest would range up to approximately $24,000.
4 4.4.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping System 2.
To estimate costs to waste facility operators of the recordkeeping requirements of the
' f proposed amendments, several assumptions are made, it is assumed that each existing disposal facility operator currently uses an electronic recordkeeping system with a data base management system (DBMSI that provides for quality assurance in accordance with NRC or State standards. With these assumptions, the recordkeeping systems have to be modified to record a few more data fields and to read shipment manifests electronically transmitted to the disposal f acilities from waste generators and waste brokers it is estimated that it requires ,
three months of effort (480 hours0.00556 days <br />0.133 hours <br />7.936508e-4 weeks <br />1.8264e-4 months <br />) of a computer programmer effort to meet the incremental !
recordkeeping requirements of the final rule. Assuming fringe benefits of 70% of base salary, and a base salary of $15.00 to $30.00 per hour, the cost to each disposal facility operator l
i 1
recordkeeping requirements would be between "12,240 and $24,480. Assuming that these costs apply to 3 disposal facility operators, then the sof tware development costs of meeting the incremental recordkeeping requirements for disposal facility operators would be between i $36,700 and $73,400. ,
1 1
The software costs considered above are those associated with the proposed recordkeeping requirement. Disposal f acility operators may have other sof tware development costs, those associated with the cost of developing software to do calculations for safety and perf ormance assessments. However, such assessments are required to obtain a license, and theref ore their costs are attributable to substantive licensing requirements and not to the final rule.
24
- , y m -.:
i Thcra are also costs associated with re'.ninirig of data entry clerks at disposal facilities about the recordkeeping requirements. At new disposal facilities, these clerks would have to receive initial training anyway and it would not appear to be more costly to train them on the recordkeeping requirements of the final rule. However, data entry clerks at two currently 4
operating facilities will need retraining. If each has four data entry clerks requiring 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of on-the-job retraining each, then 32 student-hours of training would be necessary. At
$10.30 to $13.30 per/ student-br, retraining costs would be approximately $400.
4.4.3 Reporting on a Computer-Readable Medium j
- The final rule requires that disposal facilities be capable of reporting manifest ,
information to NRC on a computer-readable medium as a license condition. It is presumed that the license would specify the formm requirements for the information to be reported.
Each disposal facility operator will develop software to be used in generating the reports. As each disposal f acility is expected to have a computer with a modern data base management system, the reporting software should be relatively simple to develop. It is estimated that it would require two months of effort of a computer programmer to write, debug, and quality !
assure reporting sof tware to NRC standards per disposal f acility operator. With fringe benefits !
at 70% of base salary, and a base salary between $15.00 and $30.00 per hour, the cost of ]
4 reporting software is estimated to be $8,160 to $16.320 per disposal facility operator. For
- three disposal f acility operators, the cost of developing reporting software would be between
$24,500 to $49.000.
d 4.5 Industry Operations The costs to industry operations from the final rule arise mainly from increases in data entry costs. There are smaller costs associated with the reporting requirement. In developing the final rule, NRC professional staf f was cognizant that shipment manifests currently contain i voluminous data, and thatit was important not to require additionalinformation that could not be justified. However, there would be several new data fields that would have to be entered by waste generators and brokers in generating manifests and by disposal facility operators in the recordkeeping system. ;
4.5.1 Shipment Manifest Preparation 25
Additional data entry costs for shipment manifests will depend on the type of shippers.
As explained below, nuclear utilities are not expected to incur any additional costs. The cost to other shippers will depend on the amount of additional information required from that shipper, and on the degree of sophistication of the shipper's data management and data entry system. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that there are three types of shippe (1) nuclear utilities who incur no additional data entry costs, (2) generators other than utili who ship directly to a disposal facility'or to a collector or processor, and (3) collectors and processors who combine waste ' rom several generators bef ore shipping it for disposaf i
also assumed that, except for nuclear utilities, all additional data would be entered the same way,i.e. by data entry clerks with use of a keyboard onto a personal .omputer or a computer terminal. This last assumption might ov'erestimate the effort at large-volume non-utility generators where shipment manifests might be prepared electronically from waste f
management data bases: and might underestimate the effort at small-volume generators l where shipment manifests might be prepared completely by hand.
To estimate the additional annual cost to prepare shipment manifests, estimates are needed for the number of shipments for each of the three types of shippers, the number of Number of entries per additional entries per shipment, and the effort and cost per entry.
shipment depend on the number of additional data fields, and the characteristics of the shipment, e.g., number of containers per shipment, number of generators contributing waste to the shipment, or number of significant radionuclides :.1 a container. l An estimate of the net additions; data fields on the uniform manifest and attributable to the rufemaking was obtained by comparing the Uniform Manifest forms with the manifest forms used by US Ecology (USE) for disposal at their Richland f acility. Information required by DOT regulations (see 49 CFR Part 172) is not considered to be attributable to this rulemaking and is not considered in determining additional data fields. The net additional data fields are difference between the data fields on the uniform manifest forms that are the USE manifest forms and the data fields that are on the USE manifest for uniform manif est f orms. The implicit assumption in this comparison is that in the absence of this rulemaking, all disposal f acilities would require use of manifests with essentially the same information as is contained on the USE manifest forms. The appendix contains tables with 26 u
detailed item-by-item comparisons of the Uniform Manifest forms and the US Ecology manifest forms. The number of additional fields by form and frequency of entry obtained from the tables in the appendix re given in Table 4-2.
From Table 4 2, it is seen that there are relatively few differences in the forms for information that is on Forms 540 and 541 in the NRC scheme. The only major difference is '
that Form 540 requires a listing of radionuclides in each package and the USE form does not.
There are more differences in the information on Form 542 in the NRC scheme continuation sheet for shipments from brokers contains inf ormation that fits on both Form 541 and Form 542. The continuation sheets are organized to provide container information. NRC i
requires information on Form 542 by generator while the corresponding information on the
.USE form is by container or by each generator contributing to the waste in a container.
To estimate the additional effort to complete the Uniform Manifest, estimates of the values of the parameters (e.g., shipments per year, containers per shipments) that determine the number of times the additional fields are entered must be made. Estimates o of shipments per year can be made using disposed of volume, shipment, and disposal l container data for the years 19871989 (Roles,1990), and disposed of volume data for the f years 19901991 (DOE,1993). These data are presented in Table 4-3. For 1987-89, the i average number of annual shipments to disposal f acilities was 4,548 and the average volume of LLW per shipment was 359 ft' per shipment. Assuming that this average volume per f shipment is maintained, the average number of annual shipments to disposal f acilities for the five-year period (1987-1991) would be 4,130. There was an average of 27 disposal 1987-89. A recently containers per shipment for shipments to Richland and Beatty for published study of the characteristics of Class A waste (Dehmel, et al,1994a,b) using l inf ormation contained in the Manif est inf ormation Management System (MIMS) electronic data base for the years 1986-1990 has different statistics for the number of containers per shipment. These data, which are for 1988 through 1990 for shipments to Beatty and Richland have 103,355 containers in 2,901 shipments for an average of 35.6 containers per shipment. There were 45,989 containers in 686 shipment from broker to Beatty and Richland during 1988-1990 for an average of 67 containers per shipment (Dehmel,1994a). From the difference between total number of shipments and containers, and number of shipments and 27
containers for brokers,the average number of cnntainers per generator shipment would be 26.
There are 18,776 shipments in the MIMS data base for the period from January 1,1986 to November 1,1990, a perbd of 4 5/6 years. Based on the MIMS data, there were 3,884 shipments per year. Of the total shipments, 2,874, or approximately 15%, were from brokers.
it will be assumed that there will be 4,000 shipments per year to disposal facilities, which is approximately the average of the estimates given above, and that 15% of these shipments (600) are from brokers. It is assumed that the average number of containers per shipment is 26, for shipments from generators and 67 for shipments from brokers. These 1988-1990 (Dehmel, et al, assumptions are based on the container information for the years 1994a,b). This container information is used rather than the container information for 1987-1989 (Roles,1990), because it contains means to distinguish shipments from brokers and from shipments from generators and because it is for a more recent 3-year period. A waste manager at a nuclear utility stated that starting in 1990, there has been a trend to use larger containers to ship radioactive trash such as " land-sea" containers used in transoceanic shipments. if this trend continues, then the number of containers per shipment, or the number of shipments, would be expected to decrease in the future and this estimate of effort would be conservative.
Radionuclide and other data are entered for each generator contributing waste for each l container and for each discrete waste type tha' a generator contributes. it is assumed that on the average there are 1.2 discrete waste types per generator-container. This is equivalent to assuming that 20% of the containers have two discrete waste types per generator. It is estimated that the average number of significant radionuclides in each waste type (for each generator contributing waste to each container)is 12. The instructions for Form 541 provide that a radionuclide should be listed if: it contributes at least 1 % of the total activity of the container; its concentration is greater than 1% of certain concentrations in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55;its concentration represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations; or 8
it has a concentration greater that 0.26 Mbequerels/cm . NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990) lists aggregate activities by waste type for LLW disposed of at Richland during 1987-89 (in Tables C.1 through C.3).
28
T 4
Table 4 2 Net Additional Fields on the Unifo - Manifest Compared with US Ecology Manifest
- Form / Frequency Alphanumeric Floating Point Fixed Point _
Form 540 (540A)*
' each shipment each radionuclide in each package 2 0 3 -
1 0 0 Form 541 (541 A)*
0 1 3 !
each shipment
-1 2 2 sach container 0 2 0 each waste type (from generatorsi 1
- Form 542 (542Al' 4 0 each shipment 1
' 6 4 0 each generator / shipment 2 -6 0 each container 2 1 0 each generator / waste code
-3 -2 0 each generator / container 0 0 shipments to broker / generator 1 4
Total (from generatorsi 2 1 6 each shipment
-1 2 2 each container each radionuclide in each package 1 0 0 each waste type 0 2 0 i
Total (from brokars) each shipment 3 5 6 each generator / shipment 6 4 0
-3 -4 0 each container each generator / waste code 2 1 0 each generator / container -3 -2 0 shipments to broker / generator 1 0 0 each radionuclide in each package 1 0 0
- Does not include fields required by the U.S. Department of Transportation regulation
- Based on the US Ecology " Radioactive Waste Shipment and Disposal Manifest" revised as of April 1991 and its instructions.
- Based on the US Ecology " Processed Waste Continuation" revised as of October 10,1988.
4 29
e !' s ,
f , , ! ) :
0 .
1 1
9 AAA AAA AAA xA 9 NNN NNN NNN 9 N -
1 6 3
1 -
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 .
0 xAA xAA xA 9 xAA NN N 9 NN 3 NN 8 3 1 0 4 4 8 5 1 8 9 9 5 1 7 2
- * '
- 3 -
- *
- 9 0 0 0' 0 9 1
1 1 5 1 2 1 5 .
7 x1 9 67 x 21 8 x9A x 6, E 1
08, 1 O
3 9. N 9 8 3 2 3 8 8 3 2 4 D 0 2 1
8 3 6 6 1 0 1 m
1 4 1 1
o r
f _
1 0 -
9 3 .
9 1
- *
- 0 1 * * *
- 9 _
9 0 0 0 0 9 9 1 4 1 1 3 1 1
1 4 8 .
h 8
8 x3A x 03 x 97 3 x4 7,
r o -
g 9 7, N 7 6, 2 7, 9 3 f u 1 0 2 4 7 9 1 7 2 o 2 3 2 4 0 r
3 0 3 4 9 h 1 9 .
T 9 4 9 1 7 ,
8 s _
9 e 1 lo
, R la * *
- m s * *
- o
- 0 0 0 o r
p 0 1 f 6 3 1 1 1 7 -
is 1 1 D 7 8A x3 7 x 0 73, 5 x8 9 3, 9, 8 7, 8 -
r o
9 x 6,N 6 4 7 6 5 5 9 f
1 52 6 6
2 3 2 2 4 1 s 5 5 3 8 7 _
t 9 1 8 n 5 3 9 e 1 m r _
p a ih
?
S n o e WL ) )
ss
)
ss
)
't s it a lb a
L 't ss 't t r
't t r f t m l y f t r ne f
( ne f
( ne ( n r ia _
e en
(
it e en e en i e e f o v a
lic m mia t m mia p t m pma t m pm n t a uinp o I
l d uin uin ui 3- F lel h o wo SC n
a lo SC V
h o y t
lo SC V
h o l
lo S V
h :
s e
N -
4 e
nV r
lh c
t a t a
o c
r =
a e u lb B i
R B T o A _
a S N T
From inspection of these tables, for most wastes types there are 6-8 radionuclides with activities greater 1% of the aggregate disposed of activity for the waste type. The estimate of 12 significant radionuclidr.s roughly doubles the six with activities greater than 1 % of total activity to account for the other four criteria for considering a radionuclide to be significant.
It is assumed that, on the average, there are 18 radionuclides per package (Form 540) and 1.5 generators contributing waste to each container for shipments from brokers. A representative of a processor considered these to be reasonable estimates. For shipments from brokers (Form 542),it is assumed that there are 16 generators contributing waste to a shipment and that all waste in a shipment is either collected or processed. Also, for shipments from brokers, it is assumed that all the waste from a generator was shipped to the broker in one shipment.
The waste manager referred to earlier indicated that data entry clerks at nuclear utilities do not, usually, prepare shipment manifests from waste information on paper. Rather, when an internal waste generator transfers radioactive waste to the waste management department, da;a about the waste are entered onto a computerized waste management data base. When waste is shipped offsite, the waste management data base is accessed when the shipment manifest is prepared. The waste manager estimated that only about 15 minutes of effort is i required to prepare a shipment manifest in this way. This effort would not be expected to Also, increase because of a few additional data fields that are required by the final rule.
nuclear utilities maintain waste management data bases for purposes other than preparing shipment manifests (e.g., maintaining accountatRity). Generation of shipment manifests is f
just one capability of the software that uses the waste management data base. Therefore, the effort required to enter information on the waste management data base should not be i
attributed completely to the requirement of preparing a shipment manifest. The additional information required by the proposed amendments would be expected to be entered on the waste management data base. Consequently, we estimate that there is no additional data entry costs attributable to the final rule amendments for shipment manifests prepared by nuclear utilities.
In the MIMS database for the years 1986-1990,10,652 shipments of the shipments l to disposal f acilities were from nuclear utilities, which is 56% of the total number of 31 1
i shipments and 67% of the shipments from generators. We will assume that approximately
~
65% of all waste shipments from generators are from nuclear utilities and we estimate that
.there are 7,400 shipments annually from generators,4,000 to brokers and 3.400 directly to disposal facilities. We assume that the changes in data entry effort apply only to the 2,590 shipments (1,400 to brokers and 1,190 to disposal facilities) from non-utility generators. No i
credit is taken for entry into a data base of manifest information upon arrival of a shipment 1 i~
of waste at a broker because such a data base will be attributed entirely to the need to l generate manifests when the waste is shipped by the broker. This estimate is conservative in that it does not account for use of computerized internal waste management data bases ,
by generators other than nuclear utilities. '
' The effort to enter data denends on the degree to which computers are used to automate the process. At one extreme, there is no use of computers; the Uniform Manifest 4
forms are completed by hand and all checking is by visually scanning the manually completed
] l forms. At the other extreme, computers are used to their full capability. Here, a generator j
or a broker would use data stored in a computer readable medium and computer software to electronically generate a Uniform Manifest and to transfer it electronically to the consignee.
To estimate the effort needed to complete the Uniform Manifest forms, a middle approach is used. It is assumed that the relevant information is well-organized on paper and that a data I '
- entry clerk enters it into a computer with use of keyboard and software prints the Uniform
- Manifest forms (but there is no electronic transfer to the consignee). The software used is assumed to have consistency checking capabilities and to have been quality- assured in conformity to NRC requirements. For example, it would check whether a code has been entered properly (e.g., 25 is a proper waste descriptor code: 45 is not), and would do the additions so that the " Manifest Totals" in item 1 of Form 541 are consis'.ent. The sof twa f ;
i is also assumed to have a menu of radionuclides so that it is not necessary to enter the l
chemical symbol for a radionuclide, which saves time and precludes spelling errors. This f
middle approach is used to estimate the time required to complete the Unif orm Manif est f orms by non-utility generators and brokers.
4 An experienced data entry clerk estimated that for repetitive data entry from paper i
' onto a computer with use of a keyboard,it requires 5 seconds to enter an alphanumeric field t
)
4 32 .
k
- -s ,e-,
3 seconds to enter a floa:ing noint field (20 fields / min); and 2 seconds to (12 fields /rrin):
enter a fixed point field (30 fields / min). Two seconds are added to each time estimate to account for checking the accuracy of the keypunching of numbers and other quality assurance. Then the effort required to enter and quality assure these fields are estimated to be 7 seconds for an alphanumeric field,5 seconds for a floating point field, and 4 seconds for a fixed point field. Because radionuclide names, alphanumeric fields, are assumed to be entered with use of a menu, the effort to enter a radionuclide name is assumed to be only 3.5 seconds.
Based on these assumptions about the characteristics of shipments and data entry effort, and the additional data fields summarized in Table 4-2, it is estimated that it would require an additional 38 minutes to enter the data on Forms 540 and 541 for a representati shipment from a generator and an additional 8 minutes to enter the data on Forms 540,541 and 542 f or a representative shipment from a broker, as compared with entering the data on the US Ecology manifest forms. This additional effort is assumed to apply to 2,590 shipments annually from generators and 600 (15% of 4,000) shipments annually from brokers. Then the additional annual effort for entering data on the Uniform Manifest forms is estimated to be 1,640 hours0.00741 days <br />0.178 hours <br />0.00106 weeks <br />2.4352e-4 months <br /> for shipments from generators and 80 hotra for shipments from brokers, for a total of approximately 1,720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />. Assuming that this estimate is high or low by 20%, the additional effort to complete the Uniform Manifest forms would range from 1,376 to 2,064 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> annually. To estimate the cost of this additional data entry effort, '
it is estimated that the salary of data entry clerks is $8.40 to $13.70 per hour and that fringe benefits are 70% of base salary. (This estimate of salaries is based on the current range of salaries of data entry clerks at Argonne National Laboratory.) Then the costs of entering the additional data fields are estimated to range from $19,700 to $48,100.
The final rule allows manifest information to be transferred from waste generators to waste brokers on a computer-readable medium (e.g., on a diskette) as well as on hard copies accompanying a shipment. The waste broker could then use computer software to generate its manifest rather than have data entry clerks entering data from hard copies. In Section 8.3, it is estimated that it requires 550 minutes to complete a representative broker's manifest.
This effort would be significantly reduced if waste generators transmitted manifest 33
information to waste brokers on a computmreadable medium and computer software manipulated the transmitted information to help prepare the waste brokers' manifests.
4.5.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping Waste disposal facilities currently record the information on shipment manifests that they receive, and it would be expected that they would continue to do so regardless of the proposed recordkeeping requirements. Then, the additional data entry costs associated with the recordkeeping requirements would be the costs of entering the data on the additional fields in the uniform manifest forms. It is assumed that the effort of data entry clerks in entering the additionalinformation on the recordkeeping system is the same as the effort of entering the additionalinformation on the manifests for shipments to disposal f acilities (3,400 from generators and 600 from brokms anr.ually). This effort is estimated to be approximately 2,230 hours0.00266 days <br />0.0639 hours <br />3.80291e-4 weeks <br />8.7515e-5 months <br />. Assuming that this estimate can be high or low by 20% (450 hours0.00521 days <br />0.125 hours <br />7.440476e-4 weeks <br />1.71225e-4 months <br />), then the '
To range of additional data entry effort would be approximately 1,780 to 2,680 hours0.00787 days <br />0.189 hours <br />0.00112 weeks <br />2.5874e-4 months <br />.
estimate the cost of this additional data entry effort, it is estimated that the salary of data entry clerks is $8.40 to $13.70 per hour and that fringe benefits are 70% of base salary.
Then the costs of entering the additional data fields on the recordkeeping system would range from $25,400 to $62,400. As discussed in Section 4.5.1, if manifest information were to -
be transferred to disposal f acilities in a computer-readable medium, this data entry cost could be significantly reduced.
4.5.3 Reporting of Manifest Information The final rule requires that a disposal f acility operator have the capability to report shipment manifest information and additional waste disposalinformation to NRC at intervals specified in the disposal f acility's license. With the great computing power of personal computers (PCs), it will be assumed that the disposal f acility operators and NRC use PCs. The most economical ways for disposal facility to report to the NRC would be to write the manifest information on a diskette with use of software on a PC and then mail the diskette i
to the NRC, or to telephonically transmit the information with use of a modem. It is assumed )
that NRC will specify which information it wants and how this information should be sorted, so that special sof tware could be developed for these periodic reports and a non-professional j technician or clerk could run the sof tware to generate the reports. It is estimated that it will 34 .
I
require approximately 30 minutes of effort of a non-professional technician. Based on the salary schedule at Argonne National Laboratory, this technician salary will range between
$10.00 and $16.50 per hour. Assuming fringe benefits of 70% of base salary, the e' fort to produce a report would cost between $8.50 and $14.00. Mailing a diskette first ciasc costs
$0.52. The price of a 1 megabyte (1 MB) diskette varies from $0.35 to $2.00 and of a 2 MB diskette varies from $0.60 to $3.00 depending on brand ar.d supplier. The cost of making a report to NRC on a 2 MB diskette is estimated to range between $9.60 and $17.50.
Assuming that there are 14 disposal facilities and reporting is quarterly, the annual cost of reporting would range between $500 and $1,000.
The inf ormation in these reports is currently sold by disposst facility operators to NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and probably Host States. The final rule will result in a revenue loss to the disposal f acility operators (less than $25,000 per year per operator) from such sales be;ng terminated. This effect is not included in this cost-benefit analysis because it is not an incremental societal cost, but is a transfer analogous to a tax (if this revenue loss would be considered a cost here, then there would be a canceling cost saving to NRC, and not a not societal cost).
4.6 NRC Costs The costs to NRC of the final rule are divided into three classes: development, implementation, and operations. Development costs are the costs of preparation prior to implementation. They may include expenditures for research in support of the proposed l regulatory action, for publishing notices of rulemaking, for holding public meetings, for l responding to public comments, and for issuing a final rule. NRC uses a narrow definition of l development costs-namely, those costs incurred af ter the issuance of the final rule. Fer lis l rulemaking, there would be no significant development costs. Implementation costs are those
" front-end" costs necessary to realize the regulatory action and may arise from developing procedures and guides to assist licensees in complying with the final rule. Operations costs are annual costs associated with the administration of the final rule.
4.6.i M.plementation M would be expected that following issuance of a final rule, NRC staff would provide 35 l
assistance to those subject to the final rule on an as needed basis, e.g., by responding to telephone calls for assistance. The effort needed to provide this assistance is not expected ,
to be significant. l 4.6.2 Operations The' goal of the final rule is to enhance NRC's performance of its regulatory '
The responsibilities, thus. maximizing its ability to protect public health and safety.
amendments will affect the manner in which NRC spends funds for affected responsibilities:
however, it is not anticipated that the level of spending would be changed. Expenses for 3 purchase and manual' manipulation of shipment manifest and disposal-facility inventory information would be replaced by the cost of software development and the cost of using such software for a variety of applications of interest to NRC, and possibly to State regulatory .
agencies. Applications could include developing source terms for performance assessment ,
evaluation, rnonitoring the adequacy of LLW regulations and performing assessments !
necessary for the development of regulations. It is currently an extremely laborious process '
to track down the location of specific waste shipments or waste types. The final rule, by facilitating the tracking of waste from generator through broker, if any, to disposal facility, will enable NRC to perform its accountability function more effectively and more efficiently.
1 NRC's level of spending for activities relating to LLW are not expected to change, !
except for the cost of providing uniform manifest forms to licensees, which is taken to be ,
attributable to the rulemaking. Approximately 10,000 sets would be distributed eacn year.
It is estimated that the cost of printing 10,000 of each of the three forms is $3,400.00 per form, for a total printing cost of approximately $10,000, annually. There is also the expense of postage. It is assumed that 100 pages of forms are mailed fourth class to each of 3,000 entities. The postage for mailing 100 pages fourth class is $1.79, or there would be total mailing costs of approximately $5,000 annually.
4.7 Regulatory Efficiency Agreement States, and the NRC for Non Agreement States, license LLW land disposal f acilities. NRC regulations governing such licenses are found in 10 CFR Part 61. Basically, the regulations require that an applicant for a license provide sufficient information and
. 36 1
l l
l l
. _ - _ - _ _ .1
-- - ~ . .- ~~ - - - .. -- . - = - -
i perform safety and performance asse:tments to convince the regulatory agency that 6 l
operation of the facility will not endanger the public health and safety, or the environment.
The Amendments Act mar'Jates that the non-sited compact regions and unaffiliated States !
i
~
open waste disposal f acilities. The Amendments Act also encourages NRC, or an Agreement l State, to act upon an application in a timely manner. More specifically, the regulatory agency f should complete all review and application processing (except public hearings) within 15 4
months of receipt of the application. l i
f Experience to date, such as in Michigan and Illinois, has shown the siting and approval of a LLW disposal f acility is controversial and involves political as well as technical, and health t and safety considerations (English,1992) Therefore, it is important for political reasons, as f well as for health and safety reasons, that the application be technically sound and the l j
regulatory review be thorough. Otherwise, the granting of the license will be unduly delayed, or the license may not be granted. Without the capability of ready manipulation of existing f i
l manifest idormdon or access to the information that could be stored on a national LLW data i l
system, both of which are facilitated by the final rule, NRC or an Agreement State would be l' 1
hard pressed to perform timely, credible independent assessments in the review of an
- application. I 2
It can be extremely expensive if the regulatory process for new LLW disposal f acilities 2
is not carried out in an efficient manner, in 1992, LLW from a non-sited compact region or from an unaffiliated State and disposed of at one of the three existing waste disposai facilities 4
is subject to a minimum surcharge of $40/ft'. In 1986, approximately 1,000,000 f t' of disposed LLW was generated in non-sited compact regions and unaffiliated States (DOE, 1987). If new disposal facilities could be opened one month earlier, on the average, the savings in surcharges could be approximately $3.6 million, it is not possible to estimate how many months in the licensing process will be saved as a consequence of implementation of the final rule. However, as illustrated above, f acilitating the licensing process can result in substantial savings in surcharges averted or in f
storage costs if disposal is not available. Also, as discussed in Sec. 4.1, more credible technical reviews of disposal f acility license applications can result in substantial dollars saved 37 i
- .. . ~ _ . _, -- - . , - - _ , - , - . .
i from reductions in information uncertainties. l i
4.8 Summary of Costs to Industry and the NRC l l
The industry and NRC costs estimated in previous sections are summarized in Table !
4-4.' in this table, upfront implementation costs and annual operations costs are distinguished, j and dollars are 1994 dollars. The present value of the annual operations costs are estimated using a 10% real annual discount rate and a 30-year period, in accordance with the guidance i
in the Handbook.'
The costs of implementing the final rule are estimated to range between a cost saving of approximately $1.2 million and a cost of $0.63 million. Whether there will be an l I
implementation cost or an implerr.;ntation cost savings depends strongly on whether there i
would be additional manifest forms, such as one for each new disposal facility, or not, and on the cost of modifying manifest software, if there would not be any new manifest forms, implementation costs would be at their maximum; if there would be new manifest forms for each new disposal f acility, implementation cost savings would be at their maximum.
The additional costs of snnual operation attributable to the final rule are estimated to range between $61,000 and $127,000. The present value of these additional costs is estimated to range between $573.000 and $1,189,000. These additional operational costs arise mainly from the additional ef fort of data entry clerks in entering additional data fields of the Uniform Manifest forms.
I l
38
Table 4 4 Summary of Estimated Costs to la6;stry and the NRC ($1,000)
Annual Present implementation Operation Value Cost item INDUSTRY COSTS f Shioment Manifest Software Development Uniform Manifest 163 to 326 Multiple Manifests -1,565 to O Additional Data Entry 19.7 to 48.1 185 to 452 Retraining 144.2 to 186.2 pisoosal Facility Recordkeeoina Software Development 36.7 to 73.4 Additional Data Entry 25.4 to 62.4 242 to 587 l f
Electronic Reoortina 24.5 to 49.0 0.5 to 1.0 5 to 9 Data Transfer
-1,197 to 634 46 to 112 432 to 1,048 )
INDUSTRY TOTAL 15 141 NRC COSTS (manifest distribution) 1,197 to 634 61 to 127 573 to 1,189 TOTAL COSTS
- The manifest data entry expense for brokers and recordkeeping data entry costs for disposal sites could be substantially reduced if shippers would electronically transfer shipment manifests.
- A potential savings up to $24,000 in retraining data entry clerks of waste brokers and manifest contractors from the use of a uniform manifest, as opposed to use of multiple manifests, is not included.
l 39 l l
l i
l
- 5. DECISION o.ATIONALE The final rule will entail quantifiable costs to industry and the NRC, and unquantifiable benefits. In Sec. 4 of this taalysis, we estimated that th proposed amendments would entail the following costs (or savings): industry implementation between a savings of $1,200,000 and a cost of $634,000; and annualindustry and NRC operations costs of between $61,000 and $127,000. The present value of the annualindustry operations costs is estimated to be/
between $573,000 and $1,189,000. To put these costs in perspective, disposal fees at LLW disposal facilities are of the order of $200 million annually. The unquantifiable costs that could possibly be averted by issuance of the final rule are potentially much larger than the costs described above. They are measured in millions of dollars; the implementation and annual operations costs are measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The final rule facilitates the availability and use of information by NRC and State licensing agencies that could speed up the licensing process for new disposal facilities so that surcharges for disposal of LLW generated in non-sited compact regions or in unaffiliated States could be avoided. Several million dollars a month in surcharges could be avoided. The increased availability of this information could result in substantial saving from reductions in data uncertainties. The final rule, by facilitating improved accountability for LLW, could enhance the public health and safety by reducing the likelihood of disposal in other than licensed disposal facilities.
The quantifiable costs to industry of the final rule are quite small relative to the costs of LLW disposal. As a consequence of the final rule, savings larger than the quantifiable costs could possibly be realized in several v.1ys. Also, risks to the public health and safety, and to the environment could be reduced. Under these circumstances,it is concluded that the final rule is justified.
- 6. IMPLEMENTATION The final rule creates an Appendix G to 10 CFR 20.1001 through 20.2402 with ,
requirements for transfers of LLW intended for disposal, including the required use of the Uniform Manifest, that will replace the requirements in Appendix F. The final rule provides that Appendix F will be used before July 1,1996 (except as noted below) and Appendix G 40
e L
( l l
i will t'e used after July 1,1997. Between Ju'v 1,1966 and July 1,1997, the consignee of the shipment will specify to the shipper which appendix to uso. In the event that a new LLW disposal facility becomes operational prior to July 1,1996, that facility may require all incoming shipments to meet the requirements of Appendix G.
i q
Implementation of the final wie requires that the retraining of data entry clerk and the development of software to generate the Uniform Manifest. In Section 4 it was estimated that software to generate the Uniform Manifest can be developed with four months of a j computer programmer's effort. It is estimated that the development or modification of l software and retraining of data entry clerks can be accomplished in less than six months after f issuance of the final rule. If the final rule is issued during 199 4, thera are at least 16 months before July 1,1996, which is the arliest Appendix G would be implemented except for the unlikely event that a disposal facility that becomes operational before July 1,1996 would specif y that the requirements of Appendix G be followed. Licensees appear to have suf ficient time to prepare for implementation of the final rule.
I
- 7. EFFECT ON SMALL ENTITIES l The Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L.96-534) requires an analysis of any proposed rule, or final rule that is preceded by a proposed rule,likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of "small entities" (small business establishments, non-profit organizations, and small govern nent estaLUshments). Government entities that generate LLW include research and testing environmental laboratories, medical facilities, and military installations. Governmental generators of LLW would not be expected to be small generators within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A significant number of hospitals and academic institutions are LLW generators, and most of these are non-profit organizations. It will be assumed that all hospitals and academic institutior S als "small entities." According to NUREG/CR-6147 (Dehmel, et al 1994b), approximately 1,200 hospitals and academic
' institutions shipped 4.6% of the 7.8 million it' of LLW disposed of at commercial disposal facilities during 1986-1990.
Although, a significant number of small entities will be affected by the final rule, the
' economic impact would not be significant. The small entities affected are hospitals and 41 e
- _ ~ ,
- - - - - . =. - _ .-- - - , . - . .-.
academic institutions that generated an aver vie of only 60 ft' per year. They would not be
)
expected to develop manifest software, so that their only expenses from the final rule would be an implementation cost to retrain data entry clerks and an ennual cost to enter additional f 34% (1,200 of l data fields. Hospitals and academic institutions comprise approximately l 3,500) of the generators. Therefore, approximately 34% of the cost of retraining data entry l i
clerks could be attributed to hospitals and academic institutions. From Table 4-4, this one-time retraining cost would be bounded by $64,000, or $53 per generator. The annual cost -
of data entry can be assumed to be roughly proportional to the amount of waste generated. f Then approximately 4.6% of the cost of additional data entry could be attributed to hospitals and academic institutions. From Table 4-4, this cost is bounded by $2,200 per year, or less .P than $2 per year per hospital or academic institution.
i l
A recent study has used $150/ft' as a representative median disposal cost at commercial disposal facilities in the near future (Schafer and Schlueter,1992). Using this l f
representative cost, disposal costs for an average small entity that generates 60 ft' per year of LLW would be $9,000. The annual cost of disposal of LLW is larger when account is taken of packaging and transportation costs and the fees of collectors or manifest contractors. The average costs associated the proposed rule per small entity ($53 upfront and $2 per year) are very small absolutely and in comparison with the total costs of disposal of LLW. ,
- 8. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ANALYSIS The Guidelines require that a regulatory analysis address the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L.96-511) when a proposed regulatory action may impose additional collection requirements (applications, reporting, recordkeeping) that affect 10 or more persons. The final rule requires that the numerous waste generators and waste brokers complete a shipment manifest on a set of fa's whose format is specified by the NRC. The final rule also improves the quality of informF in on shipment manifests. Waste generators and waste brokers currently complete shipment manifests on forms specified by the disposal 1 facility operators. The LLW information reported on these forms is that needed by the ,
disposal facilities and needed to comply with DOT regulations in 49 CFR Part 172 and with l
current NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. The incremental costs of completing the NRC Uniform Manifest was considered in Sec. 4.5. However, as the Uniform Manifest is a new ,
b 42
,- w
(
federal reouirement, the total cost of comptedca will be estimated for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The final rule i equires that disposal f acility operators electronically store the inf ormation It is current contained on shipment manifests together with some disposal information.
industry practice to record all or part of the manifest information on a computer system, although NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 only require that disposal facilities maintain copies of all complete manifests. The incremental costs of recording the additional information that the final rule requires was considered in Sec. 4.5. However, as the recording of manifest information at disposal facilities is a new federal requirement, the total costs of '
entering manifest information on the recordkeeping system will be estimated for the purposes of the Panerwork Reduction Act (as there may be fewer than 10 disposal facility operators, the Paperwork Reduction Act may not apply to the disposal facility recordkeeping requirement). The final rule also requires that disposal facility operators be capable of supplying manifest information to NRC on a computer-readable medium in reports that wou be specified in license conditions. This is a new federal reporting requirement.
8.1 Justification The final rule imposes three information-collection requirements: (1) that the shipment manifest that accompanies a shipment of LLW be a set of forms whose format is specified by NRC; (2) that there be electronic storage of manifest information in a recordkeeping system for any disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) that the operator of any disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR Part 61 be capable of reporting manifest information to NRC on a computer-readable medium. The final rule also improves the quality of the information on shipment manifests by removing vagueness in waste descriptions and by requiring several new information fields. However, as discussed above, the total cost of completing the shipment manifest forms, not the incremental cost, are relevant for the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.
Uniform Shioment Manifest: NRC could have required that specified information be contained on shipment manifests without requiring uniform shipment manifest forms.
Most shipment However, uniform shipment manifest forms have several advantages.
43
manifest preparation is computerized. Manifest preparation sof tware is developed by waste generators, waste brokers, and manifest contractors who license manifest preparation software. Waste brokers who ship LLW across compact region and State bounda ;es and manifest contractors would have to develop additional manifest preparation software if there would be a proliferation of manifest forms to meet host state and unaffiliated state requirements in the absence of the Uniform Manifest. In Sec. 4.4, it was estimated that savings, up to $1.56 million in software development costs could result from use of a uniform manifest.
There are other potential advantages that are difficult to quartify. A uniform manifest could enhance the ability of first-on-the-scene responders from local governments to properly cope with any potential transportation incidents involving radioactive waste shipments because they would have to become f amiliar with only a single set of forms. It could reduce delays in incident assessment or incident response. it could also reduce the number of data entry errors and reduce waste handling times, thereby promoting efficient operations.
l Electronic storage of manifest ;
Storace and reoortina of manifest information:
information on a recordkeeping system assists a licensee in operating a disposal facility in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61. These requirements include: performing quality control reviews of shipment manifests (Sec. 61.12(j)); performing safety and environmental assessments for periodic license renewals and eventual facility closure (Sec.
61.27): establishing inventories of specified radionuclides -(Sec. 61.7(b)); reporting !
radionuclide inventories as a function of waste class (Sec. 61.80(j)). Voluminous data must be manipulated to meet these requirements and electronic storage of the information on a recordkeeping system is very helpful. )
I NRC requires manifest information from disposal facilities so that its regulatory staff has the ability to perform independent safety and environmental assessments and to monitor compliance with regulations and disposal f acility license conditions. NRC also needs this information to meet its national regulatory oversight responsibilities (e.g., monitoring the adequacy of NRC regulations). NRC uses computer programs to perform its regulatory functions relative to LLW. As a result, the availability of LLW information in a computer-44
readable medium would be highly efficient and useful. If the NRC were to accept manifest information on paper copies, the information would have to be entered into a computer, which would be an inefficient usr of NRC staff resources and would duplicate data entry efforts at disposal f acilities.
A requirement to submit information on a computer-readable medium is consistent with the requirements and purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. One of the express purposes of this Act is to ensure that automatic data processing, telecommunications, and other information technologies are acquired and used by the Federal govemment in a manner that improves service delivery and program management, improves the quality of decision making, and reduces the information processing burden for the Federal govemment and for persons who provide information to the Federal government. Reporting in a computer-readable medium fosters this purpose.
8.2 Description of the information Collection '
The inf ormation that is subject to collection is contained on shipment manifests and The is necessary for the safe transport and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW).
persons required to prepare shipment manifests are waste generators and waste brokers, who collect or process waste from generators and then ship the collected or processed waste to disposal f acilities. There are approximately 3,500 waste generators. There are several types of waste generators. These include: operators of commercial nuclear power plants; hospitals; colleges and universities; governments; and nuclear fuel cycle. industries (e.g., facilities where fuel for nuclear power plants is f abiicated). There are far fewer waste brokers, approximately 25 (Dehmel et al,1994c). Another type of entity that prepares manifests is the " manifest contractor" who prepares shipment manifests for waste generators and who develops and licenses manifest preparation sof tware. There are approximately three manifest contractors.
The requirements to electronically store shipment manifest information on a recordkeeping system and to report such information to NRC on a computer-readable medium apply to LLW disposal f acility operators. Currently, there are three disposal f acilities, each with a different operator. Pursuant to the Amendments Act, the number of disposal f acilities is expected to increase over the next several years. It is estimated that there will be over 10 45
disposal f acilities, but that the number of opvators will remain at three, since there is no indication that new companies are entering the field.
The information collection and reporting methods required by the final rule minimize the burdens on the affected parties. It is necessary that paper copies of the portion of the manifests that contain DOT requirements accompany shipments. For example, in the event of an accident during transport, local emergency response personnel may be able to use this information to ascertain the nature of the hazard so that they could respond appropriately.
However, the final rule allows the shipper to send other manifest information to the consignee If the consignee electronically (e.g., on a diskette or telephonically with use of modems).
were a broker, the broker could use the electronically transmitted manifest information to prepare its manifest to reduce significantly the effort of data entry clerks. Similarly, if the consignea were a disposal facility, the operator could enter the electronically transmitted manifest information on its recordkeeping system after the shipment has arrived and its content verified. Again, the effort of data entry clorks would be reduced significantly. The f requirement of reporting manifest information to NRC electronically would reduce the burden (
on NRC staff, as was discussed previously.
8.3 Estimate of Burden )
j in this section, the amount of effort (in hours), and cost, required of waste generators i and waste brokers to prepare the uniform manifest forms, and the amount of effort and cost required of disposal f acility operators to enter this information in recordkeeping systems and report to NRC are estimated. Also, software development costs are estimated, as are reduction in data entry costs from electronic transmission of shipment manifest information.
In relating effort to cost, for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, it is assumed that the of fect of workers engaged in a profession (e.g., computer programmer) cost j
$133 per hour, and that the effort of other workers (e.g., data entry clerk, technicians, and laborers) cost $45 per hour.
The amount of data entered, and therefore the cost and effect, depend on a number of parameters. The parameters, together with their assumed average values are:
- Number of shipments to disposal facilities per year (4000; 3400 from generators and 46
i
' 600 from brokers);
- Number of shipments to brokers (4000);
- Number of packages, and disposal containers,in a shipment from a generator (26);
- Number of packages, and disposal containers,in a shipment from a broker (67) '
4
- Number of radionuclides in each package on Form 540 (18);
- Number of generators contributing waste to a container (1 for shipments from l
generators to brokers and from generators to disposal facilities: 1.5 f or shipments from j
brokers to disposal facilities); ;
r !
- Number of discrete waste types for each generator contributing waste for each container (1.2);
- Number of radionuclides for each discrete waste for each generator contributing waste J
to each container on Form 541 (12);
- Number of generators contributing waste to a shipment (16; this parameter is needed only for shipments from brokers to disposal facilities);
- - Number of Waste Codes (P f or Processor, or C for collector) for each generator (1; this parameter is needed only for shipments from brokers to disposal facilities); and ;
- Number of waste shipments to the broker from each generator (1; this parameter is needed only for shipments from brokers to disposal facilities).
Entrv of data on Uniform Manifest Forms: There are three uniform manifest forms: (1) NRC Form 540 (and continuation Form 540A) contains information needed to satisfy DOT shipping paper requirements in 49 CFR Part 172 and the waste tracking requirements in 10 CFR Part 20;(2) NRC Form 541 (and continuation Form 541 A)contains information needed for disposal operations and to assess and monitor disposal of radioactive waste; and (3) NRC Form 542 (and continuation Form 542A) contains generator information for shipments from waste 1
brokers, For the purpose of estimating data entry effort, data on these forms is classified as:
(1) alphanumeric (e.g., names, container identifications, units); (2) floating point numbers (e.g., activities of radionuclides, volumes); or fixed point numbers (e.g., coded waste descriptions, checkmarks). .
47 ,
1
The effort to enter data depends on the degree to which computers are used to automate the process. For the greatest effort, there is no use of computers; the Uniform Manifest forms are compieted by hand and all checking is by visual scanning the manually completed forms. When computers are used to their full capability data entry effort is minimized. Here, a ' generator or a broker would use data stored in a comput3r readable medium and computer software to electronically generate a Uniform Manifest and to transfer it to the consignee. To estimate the effort needed to complete the Uniform Manifest forms, a middle approach is used, it is assumed that the relevant information is wel!-organized on -
paper and that a data entry clerk enters it into a computer that prints the Uniform Manifest forms. This sof tware is assumed to have consistency checking capabilities and to have been quality assured in conformity to NRC requirements. For example, it would chack whether ,
r codes are entered' properly (e.g., 25 is a proper waste descriptor code: 45 is not) and would i
- do the additions so that the " Manifest Totafs" in item 1 of Form 541 are consistent with the quantities of radionuclides given elsewhere. The software is also assumed to have a menu of radionuclides so that it is not necessary to enter the chemical symbol for a radionuclide, which saves time and precludes spelling errors. This middle approach is used to estimate the '
t time required to completed the Uniform Manifest forms. )
i k !
An experienced data entry clerk estimated that for repetitive data entry from paper onto a computer with use of a keyboard,it requires 5 seconds to enter an alphanumeric field l (12 fields / min); 3 seconds to enter a floating point field (20 fields / min); and 2 seconds to enter a fixed point field (30 fields / min). Two reconds are added to eacn time estimate to l ,
account for checking the accuracy of the keypunching of numbers and other quality l l
assurance. Then the effort required to enter and quality assure these fields are estimated to be 7 seconds for an alphanumeric field,5 seconds for a floating point field, and 4 seconds for i a fixed point field. Because radionuclide names, alphanumeric fields, are assumed to be entered with use of a menu, the effort to' enter a radionuclide name is assumed to be only 3.5
- seconds.
Based o'n these estimates of the time to enter data fields, the number of data fields on the Uniform Manifest forms, and the assumed values for the shipment parameters, the estimates of the time to complete the Uniform Manifest forms are given in Table 81, along 48 9 - g --t- -r" ----i e - -*~-r -
- l l
i with the number of data fields. As showr5 in Table 8-1, the estimated time to enter data on !
)
the forms are: 63 minutes for representative generator's Form 540 and 161 minutes for a ;
representative broker's Form 540; 103 minutes for representative generator's Form 541 and 363 minutes for a representative broker's Form 541: and 26 minutes to complete a representative Form 542. Then the time to enter manifest information for a representative shipment from a generator would be slightly less than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> (63 + 103 = 166 min) and for a representative shipment from a broker about 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> (161 + 363 + 26 = 550 min).
The representative broker's manifest is estimated to take so much longer to complete primarily because it is assumed that a representative shipment from a broker has more than twice as many containers than a representative shipment from a generator.
Preoaration of Shioment Manifest: Waste generators are estimated to make 7,400 shipments of LLW annually; 4,000 to waste brokers and 3,400 to disposal f acilities. As was discussed in Section 4.5, a majority of shipments from waste generators (65%) are assumed to be from nuclear utilities, based on manifest information for shipments to the Beatty and Richland disposal f acilities during 1986-1990. Furthermore, it was assumed that manifests I
from nuclear utilities are prepared with 15 minutes of effort by electronically accessing a waste management data base. The effort to prepare these manifests would be 0.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> / manifest x 4,810 manifest or 1202 hours0.0139 days <br />0.334 hours <br />0.00199 weeks <br />4.57361e-4 months <br />. The effort to complete the remaining 2,590 manifests from non-utility generators would be 7,165 hours0.00191 days <br />0.0458 hours <br />2.728175e-4 weeks <br />6.27825e-5 months <br /> (2,590 manifests x 166/60 hr/ manifest). Waste brokers would prepare manifests for 600 shipments annually. The effect for waste brokers' manifest preparation would thc., be 5,500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> (600 manifez x 550/60 hr/ manifest). The cost of the effort of data entry clerks to prepare shipment manifests, at
$45/hr, would be $45 x (1,202 + 7.165 + 5,500) or $624,000.
The information in items 5-9 of Form 541 concerns the containers within which LLW is contained when it is disposed of. The containers used in the shipment of LLW to brokers are not disposal containers. Therefore, the information in items 5-9 of Form 541 is not necessary for shipments to brokers and NRC's instructions do not require its entry for such shipments. From the number of fields, it is estimated that 16 minutes per average shipment is saved by not completing these fields. With 1400 non-utility shipments annually to brokers, the annual savings from not entering disposal container information for shipments to brokers 49
.- . . - . . .~ .. .- --. - - . _ . . . .. - - - - . - . - - . . - .
l
< would be approximately $17,000.
l The above estimate of the effort required to prepare shipment manifests does not ~
include a component for effort to collect information. Licensees possessing radioactive material are required to strictly account for that material, independent of a shipment manifest I requirement. When radioactive materialis transferred internally to the department responsible
[ for shipment, the transfer is accompanied by a requisition with information on the material transferred. When the radioactive material is shipped, activities of individual radionuclides must be summed. If the system is not automated, considerable effort may be required to sum the activities. For example, at Argonne National Laboratory where radioactive material from up to 80 intemal generators may be in a shipment container and where a spreadsheet is used, it may require up'to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of c" ort to do the summations. However, such effort is
~
attributed to the requirement to account for radioactive transferred offsite (e.g.,10 CFR 40.51) and is not attributed to the shipment manifest requirement, per se.
A shipment manifest requires a survey of each container to obtain the surf ace radiation j.
level. The cost of such radiological surveys can be attributed to the shipment manifests but i
would not be an incremental cost associated with new information that would be required by l
the proposed amendments. it is estimated that surveying a container requires conservatively an average of 2 minutes (30 per hour). If there are 7,400 shipments annually from generators, with an average of 26 containers, and 600 shipments from brokers, with an of
' 67 containers, then the annual effort to survey containers for surface radiation levels would be 7,753 hours0.00872 days <br />0.209 hours <br />0.00125 weeks <br />2.865165e-4 months <br />. If the surveying is done by a health physics technician with a cost of l
$45/ hour, then the cost of ascertaining surface radiation levels is estirlated to be approximately $349,000.
A shipment manifest also requires that each container be weighed. The cost of weighing containers can be attributed to the shipment manifests but would not be an incremental cost associated with new information that would be required by the proposed amendments. A waste manager at Argonne National Laboratory estimated that it requires approximately 5 minutes of effort of a laborer to handle a 55-gallon drum for weighing and to weigh it (from NUREG-1418, more than 75% of LLW containers shipped to disposal 50
facilities were 55-gallon drums in the period 1097 1989). If the cost of a laborer's effort is
$45/hr then the annual cost of weighing 232,600 containers (assumed to be all 55-gallon drums) at the rate of 12 per hour would be approximately $872,000.
Disoosal Facility Recordkeecina: The information on manifests received by disposal f acilities would have to be entered into a recordkeeping system. As discussed above, the time to enter information from paper to a generator's representative manifest is estimated to be 166 min. and a broker's representative manifest is estimated to be 550 min. It is assumed c
that the time to enter information from a paper Uniform Manifest form onto a disposal facility recordkeeping system is the same as to enter that information onto the Uniform Manifest form, it is estimated that disposal facilities would receive annually 3,400 shipments from waste generators and 600 shipments from waste brokers. Then proceeding as before, it is estimated that about 14,907 hours0.0105 days <br />0.252 hours <br />0.0015 weeks <br />3.451135e-4 months <br /> (3,400 x 166/60 + 600 x 550/60) of effort at a cost of about $671,000is required to enter the manifest information in the recordkeeping systems.
The final rule allows the manifest information to be transmitted in a computer-readable medium to a disposal facility. The disposal facility can be assumed to have software to enter the information from this medium as an alternative to manual entry. If there are 15 minutes of effort to enter an electronically transmitted manifest, then the savings in data entry effort for a representative manifest from a generator would be (166 min 15 min) x $0.75/ min, or
$113.25, and the savings for a representative broker's manifest would be (550 min. - 15 min.) x $0.75/ min., or $401.25. It can be expected that most shippers would take up the option of electronically transferring the manifests. If 75% of manifests are electronically transmitted, then the savings in entering 2,550 manifests from generators and 450 manifests from brokers would be approximately $469,000 annually.
Reoortina to NRC - The most economical ways for a disposal f acility to report to the NRC would be to write the manifest information on a diskette with use of software on a I
personal computer, and then mail the diskette to the NRC, or to telephonically transmit the information with use of a modem. It is assumed that NRC would specify which information it wants and how this information should be sorted, so that special software could be l I
51 l l
l
i s
i i
developed for these periodic reports and a nor p'ofcssional technician or clerk could run the software to generate the reports, it is estimated that it would require approximately 20 minutes of effort of a non professional technician at a cost of $15 to generate a report.
Mailing a diskette first class costs $0.52. The price of a 1 megabyte (1 MB) diskette varies from $0.35 to $2.00 and of a 2 MB diskette varies from $0.60 to $3.00 depending on brand and supplier. Assuming that 2 MB diskettes are used at an average cost of.$2.50, the cost of making a report to NRC would be $18. Assuming that there are 14 disposal facilities and I
reporting is quarterly, the annual cost of reporting would be approximately $1,000.
Software Develooment Costs -In Section 4.4.1, it was estimated that among waste generators, waste broker s, and manifest contractors, there are twenty sof tware packages that produce hard copies of completed manifeat forms. Just as the entire cost of data entry has been attributed to this rulemaking in the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, so the entire cost f of software development will also. In Section 4.4.1, it was estimated that 3 months (12 i' weeks) of a professional programmer's effort and a month (4 weeks) of a supervisory engineer's effort would be required to develop and verify manifest software from scratch. .
Assuming a cost of $133/ hour for the programmer's and the engineer's effort,it would cost about $86,000 to develop a manifest software package from scratch. More likely, existing software would be modified rather than starting from scratch, in this case, it is estimated that two months of professional effort would be needed, at a cost of $43,000. The cost of manifest software for the Uniform Manifest is estimated by assuming that 75% (15) of the manifest software packages will be modified and 25% will be written from scratch. Then, approximately $1,075,000 would be needed for manifest software development.
' It is assumed that software for entering manifest information on a disposal facilit'/
recordkeeping system would be developed by each disposal f acility operator (3) rather than a for each disposal f acility (14). It is assumed that a data base management system (DBMS)
! would be used to store the information in a sortable data base, it is estimated that it would require approximate two weeks of effort of a profession programmer to design the sortable recordkeeping data base and an additional six weeks to develop and test the software for storing manifest inf ormation in the recordkeeping data base. Assuming a programmer's cost of $133/hr, then it is estimated to cost approximately $43,000 to develop and verify 52
F recordkeeping sof tware. If this is done by three disposal f acility operators, then the total cost l would be $129,000. .
1 Disposal f acility operators would also have to develop software for reporting to NRC.
Assuming that NRC would want manifest information sorted such that tables similar to those-in NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990) would be in the reports, it is estimated that it would require 3 weeks of effort of a professional programmer at a cost of approximately $16,000 to ;
develop and verify report-writing sof tware. If this is done by three disposal facility operators, j then the total cost would be approximately $48,000. ,
4 Summarv We have estimated that the total annual cost of the information collection requirements is about $3.8 million. This total is itemized in Table 8-2. Approximately
$457,000 could be saved in data entry costs at disposal f acilities from electronic transmission of manifest data, and an additional $17,000 more by not entering container information fitems 5-9 on Form 541) for shipments to brokers. Annual disposal fees charged by disposal .
facilities are estimated to have a median value of $150/ft' (Schafer and Schlueter,1992). If the volume of LLW disposed of is maintained at the average amount of the years 1987-91 (1,480,000 ft' annually), the annual disposal costs are approximately $220 million. There are additional significant costs for transporting and packaging waste (from Abstract 2.1.4 of NUREG/CR-4627), in the mid-1980's burial cost were approximately 40% of total disposal j l
costs). Even with the entire effort of preparing shipment manifests and entering the information on manifests on recordkeeping systems at disposal facilities, and software
' development, attributed to the rulemakirig, the associated costs are less than 2% of the total cost of disposal of LLW.
8.4 Cost to the Federal Government There would be no additional cost to the Federal government and NRC specifically from information collection in terms of staff time and administrative expense, except for the cost of printing and mailing manifest forms and instructions (approximately $15,000 annually) discussed in Section 4.6.2. NRC staff would not be involved in the preparation of shipment manifests or in the recording of manifest data at disposal facilities. Receiving manifest information from disposal f acilities on computer readable media would decrease significantly l 1
1 I
53
NRC staff' effort required to process this infortration so that it could be better used for other purposes.
\
1
\
l 54
w Table 81 Data Fields on the Uniform Manifc: ind Their Entry Times Number of Fields Time' [
Alphanumeric Floating Pt Fixed Pt (min)
Frequency / Form (4 sec)
(7 sec) (5 sec)
Fach Shipment 4.0 30 0 8 540 (540A) 12 4 1.5 541 (541 A) 2 4 0 0.7 ;
542 (542A) 3 Each Package / Container
- 33.8 9 3 0 540 (540A) from gen 87.1 9 3 0 540 (540A) from broker 2 23.4 541 (541 A) from gen 3 5 5 0 60.3 541 (541 A) from broker 3 ,
Each Radionuclide in Each Package 27.3
% 0 0 540 (540A) from gen 70.4
% 0 0 540 (540A) from broker)
Each D;screte Waste Type Each Container 6 24.9 541 (541 A) from gen 2 2 2 2 6 96.4 541 (541 A) from broker' Each Radionuclide for Each Discrete Waste Type for Each Container 53.0 541 (541 A) from gen % 1 0
% 1 0 205.v ,
541 (541 A) from broker * !
Generator (16) 16.5 I 6 4 0 542 (542A)
Each Waste Code for Each l Generator (Il 6.9 !
3 1 0 542 (542A)
Each Shipment to Shipper for Each Generator (1) 1.9 0 0 542 (542A) 1 Total Time 63.1 540 (540A) from gen 161.5 540 (540A) from broker 102.8 541 (541 A) from gen 363.2 541 (541 A) from broker 26.0 542 (542A) 15.0 Utilities (540 & 5411 55
}
y e - ,
Table 8-1 Notes
- The relevant enclosure is the package for Form 540 and the disposal container for form 541.
- Times based on 26 packages and containers per shis. ment from a generator and 67 packages '
and containers in a shipment from a broker; 18 radionuclides per package and 12 radionuclides per generator-container; 1.2 discrete waste types per generator-container.
- Based on waste from 1.5 generators in each container for shipments from brokers.
j Table 8 Summary of Information Collection Costs Entities incurring the Cost Cost (1000$) j item Entry of information on Uniform 624 Manifest form Shippers (generators, brokers) i Entry of Uniform Manifest 671- )
information onto disposal f acility Disposal facility operators recordkeeping system 1
1 Reporting to NRC Disposal facility operators Manifest generation software Generators, brokers, manifest 1,075' j development. contractors Developing software for storing 129 manifest data in a disposal facility Disposal facility operators j recordkeeping system.
Disposal facility operators 48 Developing software for creating reports for transmission to NRC Shippers (generators, brokers) 349 Radiological survey of containers Shippers (generators, brokers) 872 Weighing of containers 3,769 Total
' Based on 75% of manifest software being modifications of existing software and 25% being written from scratch.
9 REFERENCES Dehmel, J C, D. Loomis, J. Mauro, and M. Kaplan,1994a, Characteristics of Class A Low-Level Radioactive Weste 1986-1990: Executive Summary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR 6147, Vol.1, Jan.
Dehmel, J C, D. Loomis, J. Mauro, and M. Kaplan,1994b, Characteristics of Class A Low-Level 56
I 1986-1990: Main Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR- 1 Radioactive Waste !
6147, Vol. 2, Jan.
Dehmel, J C, D. Loomis, J. Mauro, and M. Kaplan,1994c, Characteristics of Class A low level ,
1986-1990: Main Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR-Radioactive Waste 6147, Appendix G, Vol. 6, Jan.
The Public Policy English, M.R.,1992, Siting Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities:
Dilemma, Quorum Books, New York, N.Y.
Foutes, E.C., and C.J. Queenan,1ll, Economic Analysis of LLW DisposalMethods, Proc. Eighth Annual Session I, pp.
DOE Low-Level Waste Management Forum, U.S. Department of Energy CONF-860990, 36 53 (1987).
Heaberlin, S.W., et af,1983, A Handbook for Value-impact Assessment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR-3568, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-4646, December.
Roles, G.W.,1990, Characteristics of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposed During 1967 Through 1989, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG-1418, Dec.
Schafer, J.J. and R.O. Schlueter, 1992, Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity of LLW and TRU Weste Transportation, Disposal, and Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning, Proc. International '
Topical Meeting on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management, Spectrum '92, August 23-27, Boise, idaho, August 23-27, 1992.
Sullivan, T.M., and C.J. Chen,1989, Low-Level Waste Shallow land Disposal Source Term Model:
Data Input Guides, U.S. Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR-5387, Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-NUREG 52206, July.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),1987, The 1986 State-by-State Assessment of Low-level Radioactive Wastes Received at Commercial Disposal Sites, U.S. Department of Energy Report DOEiLLW 66T, Dec.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),1993, Disposal of Low level and Mixed Low-Level Radioactive 57
- c. -
i Waste During 1990, U.S. Department of Energv Racort DOE /EH-0332P, August, f
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),1984, Regulatory Analysis Guide /ines of the U.S. Nuc/ ear Repu/atory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/8R-0058, May.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),1985, Inspection Report of Unauthorized Possession of Unsealed Americium-241 andSubsequent Confiscation at J.C. Haynes Co., Newark, Ohio, U.S. Nucfear '
Regulatory Commission Report NUREG 11,53, Tl86 900411, November.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),1986, Generic Cost Estimates, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
, Commission Report NUREG/CR-4627, June.
t 6
i 58
APPENDIX ' Table A 1 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests - Form 540 US Ecology US Ecology item # and Name Uniform Manifest from Generator from Broker 1 Emergency Contact Telephone 1 alphanumeric ' lot found Fot found once ar shipment Organization 1 alpaanumeric Not found No found once per shipment 1 checkmark Not found Not found 2 Exclusive Use once per shipment 1 fixed point 1 fixed point 1 fixed point 3 No. Packages -
once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 4 EPA Reg. Waste Yes or No 1 checkmark Since mixed waste is Since mixed waste is once per shipment prohibited, not prohibited, not 1 alphanumeric needed needed Manifest #
once per shipment 5 Shipper Name & Facility 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric User Permit #
once per shipment each page each page I Shipment # 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric )
once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment !
1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric l Contact once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment l 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric l Shipper ID #
once per shipment once per shipment each page Shipper Type 1 checkmark Not found Not found once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Telephone No.
once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment l l
6 Carrier 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumenc j Name & Address once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment l Contact 1 alphanumeric Not found Not found once per shipment SignMure & Date 2 alphanumeric Not found Not found once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric ;
-EPAID once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment Shipping Dcte 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment Telephone 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 59 l
i
Table A 1 (Cont.)
US Ecology US Ecology ltem # and Name - Uniform Manifest from Generator from Broker 7 Number of Pages 3 fixed point Not found Not found Pages per Form once per shipment 1 fixed point 1 fixed point Total No. Pages 1 fixed point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 8 Manifest No. each page each page each page 9 Consignee 3 alphanumeric 1 checkmark 1 checkmark Name and Address one per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 2 alphanumeric (preprinted) (preprinted)
Signature & Date once per shipment Contact 1 alphanumeric once per shipment Telephone 1 alphanumeric once per shopment 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 10 Certification once per shipment Signature / Title /Date once per shipment once per shipment 11 DOT Description 1 alphanumeric 2 floating point 2 floating point i Proper Ship Name each DOT description !
each package each DOT description 1 alphanumeric (DOT descriptions are (DOT descriptions i Hazard Class '
each package preprinted) are preprinted)
UN ID Number 1 alphanumeric each package 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric i 12 DOT Label each package
" Radioactive" each package each package 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point 13 Transport Index each package each package each package I
60
Table A-1 (Cont.)
US Ecology US Ecology Item # and Name ' niform Manifest U
from Generator from Brok6cs 14 Phys / Chem Form 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Physical Form each package each package each package 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Chemical Form each package each package each package 1 alphanumeric Not found Not found 15 Individual Radionuclides each radionuclide per package 16 Package Activity 1 floating point Not found Not found each package 17 Total Not found; attributed Weight / Volume 1 floating point Not found; attributed each package to Form 541 Items to Form 541 items 1 alphanumeric 8,9 8,9 Unit each package 1 alphanumeric Not found; attributed Not found; attributed 18 Package ID each package to Form 541, item 5 to Form 541, item 5 61
_ __ _ . _ _ _ -. . _ ~- _ _ . . . _ ._ _
Table A-2 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ect/7y Manifests Form 541 US Ecology US Ecology Item # and Name Uniform Manifest from Generator from Broker 1 Manifest Totals 1 fixed point _
1 fixed point 1 fixed point No. Containers once per shipment i
once per shipment once per shipment 1 floating point 1 floating point Disposal Vol. 1 floating point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 1 floating point not found not found Disposal Wt.
once per shipment 5 floating points 5 floating points Activity 5 floating points once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 1 floating point 1 floating point Source 1 floating point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 4 floating point 4 floating point SNM 4 floating point &
once per shipment once per shipment 3 fixed point once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 2 Manifest No, 1 alphanumeric each page each page each page _
2 fixed points 2 fixed points 2 fixed points '
3 Page each page each page each page 4 Shipper Information 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Name once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric ID 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 5 Disposal Container 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Container ID each container each container each container 1 alphanumeric " alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric l Generator ID each generator in each generator in each generator in each container each container each container 1 fixed point 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 6 Container each container Description each container each container 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point 7 Container Volume each container each container each container l
1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point l 8 Container & Waste each container each container each container Weight l
l 4
l 62 4
f t
Table A-2 (Cont.) !
r US Ecology US Ecology item # and Name liniform Manifest from Generator from Broker i
n 9 Surface Rediation Units 1 fixed point .
each container 2 floating points 2 floating points Level 1 floating point each container each container each container 4
10 Surface Contam. Not found alpha / beta - 1 floating point Not found each container 1 floating point Not found Not found gamma each container 3 fixed points 3 fixed points 11 Waste Descriptors 3 fixed points each waste type' each waste type' each waste type' Not found 1 floating point 12 Waste Volume 1 floating point each waste type each waste type 3 fixed point 3 fixed point 3 fixed point 13 Sorbent Media each waste type ec@ waste type each waste type 14 Chemical Descp.
2 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric 2 alphananeric Form /Chel Agent each waste type each waste type each waste type 1 ?!oating point 1 floating point 1 floating point Wt % Chel Agent each waste type each waste type each waste type 15 Rad Description 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Radionuclide each waste type-each waste type- each waste type-radionuclide radionuclice radionuclide 1 floating point 1 floatinD point 1 floating point Activity each waste type- l each waste type- each waste type-radionuclide radionuclide radionuclide '
1 floating point Not found 1 floating point Total Activity each waste type each waste type 1 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric 4 16 Waste Class each container each container each container
- each waste type for each generator contributing to each container l
1 63
Table A-3 Cor .parison of Uniform Manifest snd US Ecciogy Manifests Form 542 US Ecology b ltem # and Name Uniform Manifest 1 Waste Collector / Processor 1 alphanumeric Name 1 alphanumeric t onc.e per shipment ' each container ,
1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric ID once per shipment each container ,
1 alphanumeric not found Shipping Date once per shipment 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 2 Manifest Number each page each page 1 fixed point I fixed point 3 Page Number each page each page
.1 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric 4 Generator Identification each penerator container each generator 5 Generator information 1 alphanumeric N at. . 1 alphanumeric each generator each generator container i
1 alphanumeric Not found Permit No.
each generator 1 alphanumeric Not found Telephone each ganerator 2 alphanumeric Not found 6 Generator Facility Address each generator 1 floating point Not found 7 Preprocessed Waste Vol.
each waste code 1 alphanan,aric Not found 8 Original Manifest No.
each ship to broker per gen.
3 k
t 64 .
i
.- - - - . ~ ...-. --
i I I t
Table AO (Cont.) ,
J I US Ecology i ltem # and Name Uniform Manifest 1 alphanumeric (coded) Not found 9 Waste Code (P or C) each waste code for each generator 1 alphanumeric (coded) Not found i 10 Compact Region / State each waste code for each .
generator 11 Totals 1 floating point ;
Source Material 1 floating point each generator + total each generator-container + .
each container 1 floating point 1 floating point ;
Special Nuclear Material each generator-container +
each generator + total 4 x each container ;
1 floating point 1 floating point Activity .
each generator 4 total each container 1 floating point Not found; attributed to item Volume -
each generator + total 12, Form 541 i
i I
)
1 l
I i
65 l l
,, . . - - , ~ - -.. . . . . ~ . . . . . .. . - . . -
V ' ,
h, ;
.l .,
yg 1 ;
l q
i e
.f I
l N_ovember 8, 1994 SECY-94-273 l r
EQB: The Commissioners i i
ERQM: 1 James M.. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations -l T
SUBJECT:
FINAL AMEN 0MENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 61 ON LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST.INFORMATION AND REPORTING gg- -
j
~
- To obtain: approval to publish the final amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 l
.that im) rove both the quality of the information contained in low-level waste j
~
'(LLW);stipment manifests and its utility for performance assessments.
CATEGORY: )
-l
-This paper covers a routine matter requiring Commission consideration.- !
SUMMARY
All shipments 'of LLW, made directly or indirectly (e.g., through processors) !
to disposal sites, must' currently be accompanied by a manifest that describes i the contents, of the shipment.1 Manifests are large, detailed documents ;
containing tnformation required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
(NRC), the U.S. Department'of Transportation (DOT), and State regulatory )
agencies ~. In addition, manifests are being considered by several LLW Compacts J or States-as the " vehicle" through which they can' track LLW shipments and !
carry out their responsibilities, as defined in<the Low-Level Radioactive !
Waste-Policy)AmendmentsAct~of1985'(LLRWPAA). l i
o ;
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
- NOTE: )
CONTACTSi.' ,
W. ' Lahs? ! MSS; 415-6756 , WHEN THE FINAL SRM ISoMADE j f .M. Haisfjeld, . RES,l415-6196 :
3
.AVAILABLE !
q " j[
. : j e o ,
Y.. '.- f
- oN g s .i g , . , ; M.s w. ,
.. If V I Y - I I' , e ; ; '-
The Commissioners 2 The recommended amendments to Parts 20 and 61 (Attachment 1) will:
(1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests that are required to control transfers of LLW ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms, that serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, and captures the information needed to meet NRC, DOT, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments will improve implementation of NRC and State regulations on LLW disposal by providing more accurate source-term information. This information will be used in performance assessments that can be evaluated against the performance objectives of Part 61. Using the Uniform Manifest will not require generators to report information that is not readily and currently available. Rather, its use will improve the consistency and increase the level of detail over presently reported information, and will require the reporting of other useful and currently available information (e.g., identity of high-integrity containers, when used). In addition, to support the intent of the LLRWPAA, these amendments will facilitate tracking of LLW back to the original generator.
HACKGROUND:
NRC initiated this rulemaking in April 1989, to improve the quality and consistency of reported information that is on existing manifest documents.
After a draft rule was provided to Agreement States in October 1989, the Commission became aware that a significant improvement to the current manifesting system would be the development of a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. This was described in letters to former Chairman Carr from the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee and the LLW Forum.
Subsequent letters to Chairman Selin from the LLW Forum continue to support this rulemaking activity.
In SECY-91-415 dated December 27, 1991, the staff proposed amendments to Parts 20 and 61 that included the use of a proposed set of NRC Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest Forms and instructions. The proposed forms were intended to: (1) capture the information collected on the existing manifest forms developed and used by the current disposal facility operators; (2) comply with DOT radioactive material transportation (shipping paper) requirements in 49 CFR Part 172; (3) provide more detail on vaste containers and their contents so as to provide more realistic source terms for performance assessments; and (4) facilitate electronic storage and transfer of manifest information.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Reaister on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500). The proposed rule references the forms and associated instructions. NRC received 40 comment letters on the proposed rule, forms, and instructions. Over two-thirds of the commenters specifically stated their
y The Commissioners 3 support for the development of a Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest. None opposed the concept, although, as discussed below, some of the commenters did not see a need to change the existing manifest format. Many of the commenters identified specific areas that they believe could improve NRC's rulemaking proposal.
During the comment period, the LLW Forum members also received input from parties in their respective Compacts. As a result, the LLW Forum suggested that, to produce a more effective rule, NRC should sponsor a public meeting to further discuss concerns raised by commenters, and thereby clarify the purpose of the rule. In response to this request, NRC held a public meeting (April '
27, 1993; 58 FR 25578) with interested parties on June.15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland.
The most significant concerns expressed at the meeting and in the comment letters involved NRC changing the current appearance and format of existing manifests that have been used for over 10 years and the fact that the proposed for- would result in duplication of some information. The duplication involves having to report radionuclides and their activity on both the NRC and D0T portion of the forms. Commenters did not object to the improved -
(increased) information requirements. Before the public meeting, D0T had agreed to an NRC staff proposal that significantly reduced duplicative reporting on the Uniform Manifest forms. Specifically, D0T agreed that their requirements would be satisfactorily addressed if only radionuclide identity, along witn the total package activity from all contained radionuclides, were reported on shipping papers. The revised manifest requirement was discussed at the public meeting and was considered a significant improvement. However, several commenters still did not believe that there was a need for a format change from existing manifests. As a result of suggestions at the meeting on .,
the need for a written statement from D0T, NRC requested in a letter dated l August 23,1993, that D0T evaluate whether the existing industry manifests !
i adequately satisfy DOT's radioactive material transportation (shipping paper) requirements. The request included statements from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
and US Ecology supporting their position as to the adequacy of their respective manifests in meeting D0T's requirements. On January 6, 1994, D0T confirmed that because the shipping paper information was commingled with oth.er information, the existing manifests did not meet their requirements for priority and non-commingled placement of D0T transportation information.
Many of the commenters gave specific suggestions to improve the rulemaking package, and many of these comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and supporting instructions. The overall I rule and associated forms, as presented in this final rule, however, are not j substantially different in concept and context to those presented in the proposed rule.
DISCUSSION:
Three LLW disposal facilities are currently in operation: the Barnwell, South l Carolina, facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.; the Richland, 3
1
The Commissioners 4 i
Washington, facility operated by US Ecology (both of these facilities are only accepting waste from their respective Compacts); and the facility near Clive, Utah, operated by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Waste may be shipped to these i disposal facilities directly from a waste generator, or from waste collectors or processors. Waste collectors typically consolidate prepackaged waste fror generating licensees, whereas waste processors receive waste or radioactive materials from licensees and produce waste with different chemical or physical characteristics. A single disposal container of waste from a waste processor may contain multiple waste types from several different generators.
Each year, operators receive thousands of shipments of LLW, accompanied by a manifest that contains information on the shipment's contents. Each corresponding manifest can consist of several to several tens of pages filled with detailed information about the waste, required by NRC in 10 CFR Part 20, and by DOT. In addition, the State agencies regulating the disposal t facilities to which the wastes are shipped have required additional information on the manifests.
There are general provisions in the current regulations for obten ing LLW information from disposal site operators that would typicalb b M in performance assessments of LLW disposal facilities. However, the existing NRC regulations do not provide specific requirements to ensure that the data on quantities and forms of waste, such as those that would be required on the Uniform Manifest, can be readily accessed by NRC or other regulatory bodies, for independent analysis. Given this situation, NRC, to date, has obtained information about LLW characteristics by purchasing microfiche copies of shipment manifests from the disposal facility operators, along with limited data summaries generated by the operators' computer systems. A significant cross-checking effort between individual manifests and data summaries is required to sufficiently characterize the disposal site waste inventories for performance assessment purposes, and, even after this effort, uncertainties still remain as a result of vague or inconsistent descriptions.
When the rule was proposed, it was anticipated that several new disposal i facilities would be in operation soon, with more to follow. This increasing )
number of facilities, with the possibility of different manifest formats, !
provided an additional reason for uniform reporting of information. The j schedules for operation of most of these facilities, however, have been delayed or are uncertain; but the staff is still presuming that a number of new disposal facilities will eventually be in operation, and therefore, continues to support the need for a uniform manifest.
As discussed in SECY-91-415, the staff believes this rule will improve NRC and State regulation of LLW disposal in the following areas:
Uoaraded data reouirements. As part of licensing new LLW disposal facilities, I applicants and regulatory agencies will assess the expected performance of the disposal facilities. Similar assessments will be performed for disposal facility license renewals and closures. The chemice ,' physical, and radiological characteristics of the disposed waste, the quantity disposed of, l
The Commissioners 5 and the waste retention capabilities of various disposal containers and waste forms will be considered in these assessments. The better the information, the more accurately a quantitative source term can be estimated which is needed in conducting performance assessments. The improved data reporting requirements of this final rule will provide the consistency and detail of information necessary to conduct more realistic performance assessment evaluations.
. Uniform Manifest. A uniform manifest will reduce paperwork, particularly for LLW shipments traveling across State and Compact boundaries, by eliminating the need for various disposal facilities (Compacts) to each develop its own unique form containing similar information. Because a uniform manifest will reduce paperwork, it should promote more efficient operations in the movement of LLW from generators to processors, collectors, and disposal facilities.
Because manifests for all LLW shipments would be presented in the same format, a uniform manifest also will enhance the ability of first-on-the-scene responders to properly cope with any potential transportation incidents involving radioactive waste shipments.
1 The staff has attempted to address the principal disadvantages of a uniform manifest, namely, that: (1) it may not totally reflect all requirements considered essential by the wide spectrum of State regulatory or Compact authorities and facility operators; and (2) it may take some time to get users ,
familiar with the new requirements and format. The staff believes these 1 disadvantages have been minimized in the development of the Uniform Manifest through interactions with disposal facility operators, Compact authorities, State regulatory agencies, Federal agencies, and others. The staff believes that; incause the Uniform Manifest and its supporting instructions (Attachment 2) indicate that additional information can be appended to the Uniform Manifest forms, the disadvantage cited in Item 1 is addressed.
However, the discussion in the final rule points out that requiring the transfer of unnecessary information dilutes a major purpose behind the development of a Uniform Manifest. To address the second point, an effort initiated through the Department of Energy's National LLW Management Program .
is underway to develop software to assist those that will have to complete the !
Uniform Manifest (see discussion under " Coordination" section). l Reportina and storaae of manifest information. The rule would require that manifest information from NRC-licensed disposal facilities be stored and ,
reportable on a computer-readable medium. The types of reports expected would !
require the disposal facility operator to be able to track the origin, transport, disposition, and characteristics of individual disposal containers of waste. For example, disposal facility licensees must perform, and NRC or Agreement State regulatory authorities must review, approve, and be able to independently verify, safety and environmental assessments for periodic license renewals and eventual facility closure. Regulators will need a detailed knowledge of the radionuclide inventories of disposed waste, as a l function of specific waste streams, to ensure continued safe operation of the I facility. Computer storage and electronic transmittal will better ensure both the accuracy and the utility of the data.
'I I
The Commissioners 6 1
)
Other manifest information needs. The Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste i Manifest has been developed to contain the necessary information needed to satisfy D0T shipping paper requirements, as well as to implement the intent of the LLRWPAA (e.g., to identify original generators of LLW). As discussed above, and in the " Coordination" section, NRC has worked closely with DOT to l ensure that DOT's shipping paper requirements are incorporated into the NRC manifest (NRC Form 540).
Similarly, the NRC manifest (NRC Form 542) has been developed to be consistent with current practice of providing the ability to track LLW back, through potential collectors and processors, to the original generator. Original generator information not only furthers regulatory understanding of LLW source terms, but also satisfies the need of States and Compacts to identify the generator of wastes being disposed of in the facilities they license. ;
-After considering the above, the staff is recommending to the Commission a final rule that sould specifically define the LLW manifest information '
necessary to provide more realistic LLW source terms for use in independent performance assessments to support licensing actions. This specific information should also be useful in supporting future regulatory and policy decisions. For the reasons discussed previously, the rule also requires this information be reported within a prescribed uniform manifest format. !
I C0 ORDINATION:
The NRC staff has coordinated this rulemaking with D0T since the initiation of the concept of developing a uniform manifest. Before issuing the proposed rule, DOT concurred with the shipping paper portion of the Uniform Manifest l (NRC Form 540) that was developed to accompany the proposed rule. The information to be reported on the NRC Form 540 is based on D0T's current shipping paper regulations, as well as amendment; to its regulations proposed by DOT to their requirements in November 1989, but not yet finalized. NRC has been provided information on possible changes that D0T is considering in preparing its final rule. The staff has developed the NRC forms and )
instructions based on this input. Because the NRC final rule is similar to !
the proposed rule, in which D0T has already concurred, the NRC does not intend to seek DOT's reconcurrence on the rule. Further, any changes D0T might make to its final rule are not expected to affect this rulemaking, even if it were to impact the manifest forms. Because the forms are only referred to in the rule, minor format changes could be accommodated without further rulemaking actions. The NRC will, however, seek DOT concurrence on the appropriate parts of the Uniform Manifest (NRC Form 540) after DOT finalizes its rulemaking, to ,
ensure that D0T shipping paper requirements are met. If necessary, changes to 1 the form would then be made. This should not impact licensees, because DOT is expected to finalize their rule before use of the Uniform Manifest becomes mandatory on March 1, 1998.
The staff is also coordinating with DOE's National Low-Level Waste Management Program. As noted earlier, under this program, a task has been initiated to develop computer software capeble of prompting the user to input applicable l
The Commissioners 7 manifest information and providing acceptable manifest documentation. The Uniform Manifest, as referenced in the proposed rule, has been esed as one of the baseline formats within this software. When the final rule and forms are completed, the software will be modified'accordingly. The intent is to make this program available at little or no charge. The staff has been encouraging this effort and intends to review the capabilities of the software.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
RESOURCES:
Resources needed to implement the rule are included in the FY 1995-1999 Internal Program / Budget Review document. Costs to print and mail the forms and instructions for the waste generators and collector / processors are expected to be minimal and will be absorbed within existing resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the Notice of Final Rulemaking for publication (Attachment 1).
- 2. Certify that this rule will not have a negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in order to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
- 3. Note:
- a. A final regulatory analysis will be available in the Public Document Room (Attachment 3);
- b. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act;
- c. This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB approval will be obtained prior to publication in the Federal Register;
- d. A public announcement will be issued (Attachment 4);
- e. The appropriate Congressional committees will ta informed (Attachment 5); and
The Commissioners 8'
- f. The effective date for implementation of this rule (March 1,1998) is approximately 3 years from the estimated publication date. 1 This will provide time for Agreement States to amend their regulations. Earlier implementation is allowed (e.g., if a new disposal facility became operational prior to the effective date). !
- g. Copies of the Federal Register notice of final rulemaking will be <
distributed to all Commission licensees. The notice will be.sent to other interested parties, on request. ,
/
D ames M.- ylor Executive Director for Operations Attachments: As stated (5)
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Wednesday, November 23, 1994.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted
. to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, November 16, 1994, with an information copy,to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should bc .
apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of November 28, 1994. Please refer to the. appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time. j DISTRIBUTION: t Commissioners j OGC .
, OPP '
SECY I
4 i
b k
F
[
ATTACHMENT 1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 1
l I
L
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 RIN 3150-AD33 Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is amending its regulations to improve low-level waste (LLW) manifest information and reporting. The amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained in manifests that are required to control transfers of LLW that is ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of forms that allows LLW to be tracked from its origin, and serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to meet NRC, Department of Transportation (DOT), and State and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require the disposal site operators to be capable of reporting the stored Uniform Manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on March 1, 1998. However, licensees may implement the regulation at an earlier date, if a LLW disposal facility or its regulatory authority, to which shipped-LLW is to be ultimately consigned, desires earlier implementation of these provisions.
ADDRESSEES: Copies of documents relating to the proposed rule that was published on April 21,1992 (57 FR 14500), or copies of the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest forms and the general instructions, or copies of this document may be examined and copied for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower-Level), Washington, DC 20555.
1 I
Single copies of the manifest forms and general instructions can be obtained from the contacts listed below.
]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC !
20555, telephone (301) 415-6756 or Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear j Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, l i
telephone (301) 415-6196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
Purpose of the Revision Low-Level Waste Shipment and Disposal Rulemaking History II. Implementation. i III. Summary of Public Comments and Changes from Proposed Rule. )
l Part 20
-Section 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests
-Appendix F to il 20.1001 through 20.2402 (Appendix G to il 20.1001 through 20.2402 in this final rule)
I. Manifest - Introduction I. Manifest - Definitions A. General Information B. Shipment Information C. Disposal Container and Waste Information D. Uncontainerized Waste Information E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container In'ormation III. Control and Tracking - A III. Control and Tracking - B Part 61
-Section 61.12 Specific technical information
-Section 61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers Uniform Manifest and Instructions
-General Comments 2
, -Form 540 ;
-Form 541- I
-Form 542 National Data Base Comments !
Regulatory Analysis Comments IV. Agreement State Compatibility. I l V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
j VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VII. Regulatory Analysis..
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification.
l IX. Backfit' Analysis. ;
j i I. Background l
Purpose of the Revision.
l The purpose of this amendment to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 is to modify the NRC's.LLW shipment manifest information and reporting requirements to address the regulatnry information needs for the transfer and disposal of LLW. The amen' d ed information defines the chemical, physical, and radiological 4
' properties of LLW that can be used to determine the expected performance of 4
_ disposal facilities during operations and following closure. Thus, a principal objective of these amendments is to ensure that the information, 1
initially reported by those _ generating the LLW, eventually received and recorded by _the LLW disposal facility operator, and made available to the NRC or an Agreement State regulatory agency, is sufficiently comprehensive and consistent for its intended use. To enhance regulatory oversight and assist regulatory agencies and others in their assessments of normal operations or potential problems, such as questions about the adequacy of a particular disposal container, the amendment requires that the manifest information be stored electronically at the disposal facility operated under an NRC license l
. and be capable of being conveyed by a computer-readable medium. The specific content and schedule for any reports containing the stored information will be j established as a condition of the license or, if necessary, in a future rulemaking action.
3 i
I l
)
The Commission recognizes that several entities have legitimate needs for LLW shipment information that should reasonably be included on a shipment manifest. In fact, Compacts,' unaffiliated States, and an increasing number of consignees, including disposal facility operators, have interests in waste shipment and disposal information that could be contained in a shipment manifest. To provide a degree of standardization in format and a baseline of manifest information, the amendment requires the us: of an NRC-developed Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. This manifest, to which additional information can be added, responds to a request from the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)* and the expressed views of several other parties having an interest in the information contained in the manifest.
The uniform manifest meets D0T shipping paper requirements, contains the information required by the NRC, and provides a baseline set of information to address Compact, unaffiliated State, and consignee needs.
Low-level Waste Shioment and Disposal .
LLW may be shipped to a LLW disposal facility directly from a waste generator (potentially after the waste has been sent offsite for processing and has been returned) or may be shipped from a waste collector or processor.
The collector is a licensee who typically handles prepackaged waste from hospitals, laboratories, or other licensees who generate only small volumes of waste. A shipment from a collector may have been temporarily stored at the collector's facility and, when eventually transported to a disposal facility, shipped with other containers of waste obtained from several generators.
- With the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and the low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980, many States have organized into rt;ional Compacts. These Compacts, together with unaffiliated States, are attempting to facilitate the development and operation of new disposal facilities.
- NRC staff interactions with the Compacts and unaffiliated States has occurred principally with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum and the Host State Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The TCC requested that the Commission consider the development of a uniform manifest in this rulemaking action, and on November 9,1990, transmitted to NRC an example manifest with supporting material.
4
26 Waste'may be. shipped from a waste processor, who has' received
-radioactive material or waste. from other licensees. (generators,. collectors, or
'other processors),. and has repackaged the waste after possibly changing _the
- waste's'~ chemical or physical characteristics. For example, the. waste
. processor.may have compacted or incinerated the waste or segregated contaminated waste. from non-contaminated material or waste. A' single container of waste shipped from a waste processor may contain wastes from a.
number of different generators..
Companies generating, collecting, processing, or disposing of the waste are' licensed either'by the NRC or by an Agreement State.' Any step in the
~
waste management chain (e.g., temporary storage by a collector, processing, or
- disposal).may have occurred in a State different from that in which the waste
- was generated. . Thus, from a. radiological safety standpoint, several regulatory entities may have an interest in particular waste shipments and disposals.
Each shipment of. LLW is currently accompanied by a multi-page manifest that describes the shipment contents. 'These manifests, which include specifically formatted versions developed by the disposal facility operators, are frequently large multi-copy detailed documents that contain information required by the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 20,' DOT regulations in 49 CFR Part 172, and State requirements imposed as conditions on disposal facility licensees. The manifests'also include information required by the l
. consignee who receives the LLW or radioactive material shipment.
Three disposal facilities are currently in operation. The Barnwell, l South Carolina, disposal facility is operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., i the Richland, Washington, facility is operated by US Ecology, Inc., (both of these facilities are only accepting waste from their respective Compacts), and l
I
- Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,-the Commission l 2 has the authority.to relinquish part of its regulatory authority to a State, contingent upon making a determination that the State's regulatory program is compatible with the Commission's. Twenty-nine-States, under formal agreements with the Commission, have assumed this regulatory responsibility.
- . Negotiations with other States are underway.
/TheCo; mission'sLLWmanifestandtracking'requirementsarecodifiedin
. -L 20.2006 and Appendix F to 10 CFR Part-20. ;
- 1 5
L e Ii j i
,. -a ,.-n.
li 7
t
-the Utah facility near Clive, Utah, is operated by Envirocare'of Utah, Inc.-
Upon receipt of a-shipment of LLW at these. facilities, operators perform quality control checks on the shipment and the information in the manifest. ;
Portions of the manifest information are transferred into their computer-based ;
recordkeeping systems. The existing disposal facility operators have
- ceveloped computer systems to store and process the voluminous manifest information because the operators receive thousands of shipment manifests each .
year.
Rulemakina History. ;
In 1989, the NRC initiated this rulemaking to improve the quality and consistency in reporting of information that was contained on manifest documents. In that same year, a draft of the proposed rule was provided to the Agreement States for comment. As a result of this early interhetion, the ,
Commission became aware that a significant improvement to the current manifesting system would be the development of a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. This was described in a letter to former Chairman Carr in May 1990 from the TCC and a corresponding letter from the LLW Forum.
The NRC agreed that incorporation of a uniform manifest would provide a number ,
of advantages and agreed to consider this concept. In November 1990, the TCC provided a draft uniform manifest for the NRC's consideration.
The NRC seriously considered the recommendations of the TCC in developing a draft uniform manifest. The NRC also consulted with the DOT on those parts of the proposed rule and uniform manifest that address DOT radioactive material transportation (shipping paper) requirements. Based on these interactions, a draft of the proposed rule and uniform manifest was developed and was sent to the Agreement States in March 1991. Subsequently, the proposed rule and uniform manifest forms were sent to DOT, and in July 1991, the NRC received DOT concurrence that the applicable parts of the uniform manifest met its requirements for shipping papers in 49 CFR Part 172.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500). The NRC received 40 comment letters on its proposed rule, and referenced forms and instructions. The issues raised by these commenters are discussed in Section III of this preamble. During the comment period, the 6
i F m_ __ . __ _. ._- ____ _ .
l i
l l
LLW Forum members also received input from parties in their respective Compacts. As a result, the LLW Forum suggested that, to produce a more effective rule, the NRC should sponsor a public meeting to further discuss j concerns raised by commenters, and thereby clarify the purpose of the rule.
In response to this request, the NRC noticed a public meeting in the Federal Register on April 27,1993 (58 FR 25578), and held the meeting on June 15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland. A transcript and detailed summary are available in the NRC Public Document Room.
The two most significant issues discussed at this meeting dealt with the format of the uniform manifest and how and when the manifest will be used.
The formatting issue was a source of concern because the NRC changed the "look and feel" of the manifest from the style of the manifests developed by the LLW disposal facility operators and used for shipments consigned to these facilities. Furthermore, the NRC's formatting approach would require some data to be recorded twice on the same set of manifest forms. It was noted by NRC that the proposed changes were made to meet DOT requirements. Although unable to satisfy individual commenters who prefer the existing manifest formats, the NRC staff has worked with DOT staff and has minimized any difference in the reporting burden for completing the uniform manifest as opposed to the burden imposed by existing manifests. As discussed in Section II of this preamble, before the compliance date specified in the rule, the NRC intends to facilitate trial uses of the manifest to ensure a common understanding of information reporting requirements.
l The " manifest use" issue deals with industry concerns that the uniform manifest will be used to track radioactive material in addition to radioactive waste. The NRC manifest is designed to be used for the transfer of LLW, but the NRC recognizes industry's concerns that Compacts or unaffiliated States may require the NRC's or some other manifest format to be used for all shipments to processors or decontamination facility licensees. Existing NRC regulations require the manifesting of shipments of LLW to collectors and processors before eventual disposal. Nothing in these amendments changes that requirement, nor adds new requirements for shipments of material. Compacts or unaffiliated States may ,~equire additional reporting and this reporting could be accomplished through use of the NRC manifest format.
7
- . - - . ..- -- .- - - - . - = -. - ..-.- .
e II. Implementation i Sections 20.2006, 61.12(n), and 61.80(f) and (1) of the amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 in this final rule require NRC licensees to use the i 4
Uniform Manifest in Appendix G beginning March 1, 1998. This late date is intended to allow existing LLW disposal facility licensees (all located in Agreement States), and their respective Agreement State regulators, to j l consider the length of time that the existing disposal facility will continue :
to operate under current rules before closure, and to make revisions to j existing Agreement State regulations. For example, shippers to a facility '
that will close before March 1, 1998 need not use the new manifest unless required to do so by a disposal facility operator or its regulatory authority.
A few of the amendments in this final rule have been incorporated into the existing 10 CFR Part 20 to be applicable at the stated future date in a manner that retains existing requirements in the interim. The majority of the new requirements imposed by this final rule have been included in a new Appendix G to il 20.1001 through 20.2402. ;
NRC Agreement States each have regulations compatible with the existing 10 CFR Part 20. Agreement States normally amend their regulations to preserve l compatibility within three years after NRC issues final rules. In the Commission's view, it is desirable to publish this rule before any new LLW disposal site is licensed and operating. Even if Agreement State regulations are not yet final, LLW facility operators will have knowledge available on NRC's future manifesting requirements.
Before the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest becomes mandatory, the NRC intends to initiate trial use of the manifest to reveal any practical problems in its use.
III. Summary of Public Comments and Changes from Proposed Rule This section presents the principal issues raised in public comments on the proposed rule, the Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest forms, and the instructions that support the manifest. This section also contains the NRC response to the comments and a summary of the principal changes that were 8
made to the proposed rule or to the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and its supporting instructions. This section has been arranged so l that it corresponds to the structure of the proposed rule. However, a number !
of comments addressed specific aspects of the manifest forms or the supporting l instructions. These comments are addressed following those that relate to I
specific provisions of the rule. The overall format involves a listing of the applicable rule section, any minor changes to that section, principal comments and issues, NRC's response, and the effect on the final rule section. ;
The NRC received 40 comment letters. Fourteen were from States or their representatives (i.e., LLW Forum and Compact Commissions). Eight were from ,
LLW generators or their representatives. Six were from utilities or their representative. Four were from service industries (processors and collectors) or their representative. Four were from Federal agencies. Two were from environmental organizations. And two were from LLW disposal facility operators.
Section 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests. ;
i i
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, the final rule has been clarified by specifically stating that the manifesting l requirements apply to any licensee who ships LLW to a licensed LLW 1and
, disposal facility, a waste collector, or a waste processor. i Comment: Four commenters believe that it is too early to promulgate a uniform manifest rule. These commenters pointed to the fact that this rulemaking would change 10 CFR Part 20 before the new 10 CFR Part 20 .
I regulations have been implemented and argued that the Compacts and States are unsure, at this time, as to what information they need. One commenter stated that the uniform manifest would not be accepted by State jurisdictions. Other commenters believe that, to facilitate development of Compact or State LLW tracking systems, the rulemaking should be finalized without delay.
Response: These comments on 10 CFR Part 20 have been overtaken by tiie fact that all licensees were required to implement the new standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR Part 20 by January 1, 1994. The NRC 9
sees no other reason to delay promulgation of this rule. From NRC's perspective, the schedule for this rule is, in large measure, driven by the need to gain access to the waste form, content, and disposal container information that is expected to be useful in assessing the performance of LLW disposal sites. Although a significant fraction of this information is currently collected by the current disposal facility operators, the i compatibility and completeness of the existing data was of concern. The NRC j concluded that these drawbacks could be accentuated if each future LLW )
disposal site collected, stored, and reported data in an uncoordinated manner.
Thus, the timing for implementation of the rule has considered the proposed !
schedules under which new LLW disposal sites are being developed. l Other parties also have critical interests in manifest information. The 00T imposes regulations applying to shipping papers for hazardous materials The Compacts and States, given the responsibility for developing LLW disposai i sites under provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), are interested in tracking LLW. Publication of the )
rule, at this time, provides these parties the information requirements needed to effectively develop their tracking systems and allows all parties involved in LLW shipments to become familiar with the presentation of shipping paper information that has been found acceptable by DOT.
Finally, because all the existing disposal sites are located in Agreement States, these States must be provided sufficient time to work closely with the NRC and their licensees, especially existing LLW disposal facility operators, to implement this rule. To facilitate a smooth transition, the rule allows approximately 3 years from publication for Agreement States to implement their regulations. The rule also allows implementation prior to March 1,1998 for any LLW disposal facilities that are operating prior to this date.
On the question of manifest acceptability by State jurisdictions, the NRC is not aware of any States that would not accept the manifest. The NRC notes that State and Compact groups have been in the forefront in suggesting the need for a uniform manifest and that the manifest has been approved by the 00T as meeting that agency's shipping paper requirements.
10
1 l
Final rule: 1 20.2006(b) has been divided into two paragraphs. The first, (b)(1), is the existing i 20.2006(b). The second, (b)(2), reflects the new i 20.2006(b), but with added phrases reflecting the implementation provisions discussed in Section II, affecting the change from Appendix F to Appendix G. A clarifying paragraph, i 20.2006(a)(2), has also been added to describe implementation provisions, and a consistent clarifying phrase has been added to il 20.2006(c) and (d).
Comment: Several commenters questioned whether implementation of the l rule would provide any significant public health and safety benefit. These l commenters stated that the rule identifies no current problems or concerns that could jeopardize the safe transportation or disposal of LLW. Two commenters supported the rule citing the need for source term and waste characteristic information. One commenter believes that the increased cost of documentation and recordkeeping is outweighed by the need to have reliable up-to-date information.
Response: The benefit of the rule is tied to (1) being able to develop specific data neaded for assessments to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, specifically pertaining to protection of the general population from the releases of radioactivity at LLW disposal facilities, and to the understanding of potential wastes requiring special consideration, (2) the improvement in quality and uniformity of data collected and reported that could affect the aforementioned performance estimates, and (3) efficiencies in data recovery and use when addressing health and safety issues. Benefits may also occur in transportation-related I emergency response situations from the use of a standard D0T shipping paper format and a reduction in the manifest paperwork needed to accompany the LLW shipments. Finally, by providing information that the States and Compacts believe necessary to carry out their responsibilities, a consistency in view of LLW is fostered that could minimize the potential creation of waste that cannot be disposed of (" orphan waste") and assist in efficient and safe LLW management nationwide.
Final rule: No change.
11
)
Comment: Three commenters questioned whether the rule explicitly or implicitly expands the authority of LLW Compacts to regulate the shipment of 4 radioactive materials that are not LLW.
Resoonse: The rule does not change the intent of the regulations as expressed in i 20.311 of the expired provisions of Part 20 or in Appendix F to Part 20. In both cases, the [ waste] generating licensees who transfer ,
waste to a licensed waste processor are subject to manifesting requirements. l In this context, the rule provides definitions for " waste generator," " waste collector," and " waste processor." The rule is not viewed as having any 1 impact on the Compact or State authorities defined in the LLRWPAA. In fact, the NRC believes that the manifesting required by the rule should provide most information sought by State or Compact LLW tracking systems. See comment and i response under Appendix F, I. Manifest - Introduction and Definitions sections, for related discussion.
Final rule: No change.
Aooendix F to il 20.1001 throuah 20.2401 IAppendix G to il 20.1001 throuah 20.2402 in this Final Rulel .
I. Manifest - Introduction. ;
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, I corrections have been made to the Title number referred to in citing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and the definition of " EPA identification number." The reference to Xerox copies has been deleted !
because the word " photocopy" is sufficient. In response to a point made by 1' some commenters, the first paragraph under "I. Manifest" has been amended to i be consistent with the remainder of the rule in stating that the rule applies I
only to shipments of LLW intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed LLW 1and disposal facility.
Comment: Five commenters and several attendees at the June 15, 1993,
- public meeting, questioned the need for licensees to be required to complete the uniform manifest for shipments to waste. processors, especially in those cases where the processor could be making significant changes to the volume, 12
I form, activity, or radionuclide concentration. These commenters also questioned whether shipments of LLW from processors or decontamination facilities back to the original " generators" for interim storage should be manifested using Form 541. One commenter questioned whether the intent of the rule was to require manifesting of " materials" (e.g., laundry from a nuclear facility). Another commenter stated that the rule is confusing with regard to when various forms must be used.
Response: The five commenters are correct in stating that the primary interest of NRC (i.e., for performance assessment purposes) is on the )
characteristics of LLW that is being shipped for disposal. However, the manifesting requirement for those shipping LLW to processors originated with the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. One of the reasons for this requirement was to develop a representative data base unskewed by large volumes of LLW that may pass through waste processors and collectors. Moreover, for waste being shipped to a processor for compaction, the information provided by the waste generator would be the basis for completing and certifying the manifest that the processor must complete when the LLW is forwarded for eventual disposal at a land disposal facility. In considering shipments to incinerators, the NRC j agrees that NRC's need for incoming manifest information is not relevant to the gathering of information useful to conduct performance assessments but is directed at waste tracking. The NRC believes, based on its interactions with the States and Compacts, that these parties are primarily interested in large volume or high activity LLW for which they are responsible under the LLRWPAA.
Thus, NRC believes the shipments to an " incinerator" processor should not generally be subject to the manifesting provisions of this rule and that any resultant contaminated ash should be considered residual waste assigned to the processor. If this interpretation is agreed to by the appropriate State or Compact authorities, manifesting of material sent to incinerators is not required. The case of shipments of laundry frc, a nuclear facility is more clear-cut. The incoming laundry shipment is not considered waste and would not be required by NRC to be manifested.
For shipments of LLW being shipped to and subsequently returned by a processor to the original " waste generator" or " generator," the NRC believes that, under these special circumstances, completion of the uniform manifest is not necessary to meet NRC needs and this exception has been included in the 13
rule. The potential need for NRC to track LLW in storage may result in a reexamination of this exemption. Licensees should be aware that, because the shipments in question are LLW, the States or Compacts may require completion of manifest documentatio). Note also, that if the processor ships processed LLW to a licensee other than the original generator, manifesting under this rule is required.
Final rule: A sentence has been added to the introductory paragraph of Appendix G which states that, " Licensees are not required by NRC to comply with the manifesting requirements of this Part when they ship: (a) LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage under their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal facility, (b) LLW that is being returned to the licensee who is the ' waste generator' or ' generator,' as defined in this Part, or (c) radioactively contaminated material to a ' waste processor' that becomes the processor's ' residual waste'."
Comment: Two commenters noted that NRC will allow the use of substitute l forms if they are equivalent in all respects (content, size, shading, color, etc.). They noted that the requirement for equivalent alor and shading will I create problems for computer generated forms, and suggested the following l definition, "... Licensees need not use originals of these NRC Forms as long as l any substitute forms are equivalent te the original documentation in respect of form, content and location of information."
Response: The NRC agrees that the requirement that any substitute forms '
use the same color and shading of the NRC Forms would likely preclude the use of licensee generated forms.
Final rule: The NRC is modifying the definition in a manner consistent with the commenter's proposal. The appropriate part of the definition will read, "... Licensees need not use originals of these NRC Forms as long as any substitute forms are equivalent to the original documentation in respect to content, clarity, size, and location of information."
I. Manifest - Definitions.
In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, definitions have been added for the terms: " consignee" and " computer-readable medium." The definitions for " shipper" and " decontamination facility" have 14
been expanded to provide the basis for deleting the " Note" in the originally proposed oefinition of " waste generator."
Comment: Two commenters stated that the definitions of " decontamination facility," " waste generator," and " waste processor" were muddled in that a ,
clear distinction between these terms may not be evident. One commenter suggested that, if waste is created from a service industry (e.g.,
decontamination facilities), the service organization should be considered the generator of the waste.
Response: The three definitions were considered necessary to allow the Compacts / States the greatest flexibility in carrying out their authorities to track low-level waste generated, processed, decontaminated or disposed of I within their Compact / State. This includes the possibility that, as the commenters suggested, wastes created from certain service organizations in the treatment of contaminated material could be attributed to the service organization. l The definition of " decontamination facility" is included in the rule to I ensure that these facilities complete the uniform manifest (at a minimum, Forms 540 and 541) if they were shipping waste to a licensed land disposal facility. The Compacts or States must decide whether the radioactivity resulting from the processes undertaken at these facilities must be assigned to originating generators. The rule includes a definition of " residual waste," that provides a basis for this waste to be assigned to the decontamination facility for waste tracking purposes. This approach may also apply to certain processors. The rule would allow the Compacts and States to l determine what constitutes " residual waste," and as a re:; ult, if the decontamination facility or processor can be considered a " waste generator" and, therefore, need not complete Form 542 of the manifest. This rule does not require shippers of radioactive materials to either decontamination facilities or waste processors to comply with the rule's manifesting requirements. The rule does apply to shippers of radioactive waste to waste l processors. In the context of the rule, decontamination facilities would not '
be expected to be consignees for shipments of LLW.
15 !
Final rule: A phrase has been added to the definition of
" decontamination facility," which states that, "... , and for purposes of this Part, is not considered to be a consignee for LLW shipments."
Comment: One commenter stated that the distinction between the terms
" generator" and " waste generator" was confusing and, in view of the definition of " residual waste," was not needed. Other commenters stated that the phrase,
... for which no further use is foreseen ...," used in the definition of
" waste generator," is inappropriate. Three commenters and attendees at the June 15, 1993, public meeting suggested that the rule focus on the entity to whom LLW or radioactive material is being shipped - suggesting one manifest for shipments to a LLW disposal site and a different manifest for shipments to material / waste processors. One commenter stated that the starting and ending points for the paper trail for material / waste shipments were unclear.
Response: All three terms, " generator," " waste generator," and
" residual waste" are needed. Under the approach followed in the rule, the definition of the term " generator" is included to ensure that information is collected on Forms 541 and 542 of the manifest that will allow Compacts and States to demonstrate that the wastes disposed of at their LLW sites is that j for which they are responsible under the LLRWPAA. In the rule, the term l
" waste generator" is used to define a category of licensees who must use the i uniform manifest. The term " generator" defines the licensee to whom specific LLW must be attributed in the context of the LLRWPAA. A " waste processor" l (including " decontamination facilities") must reasonably attempt to assign the l waste shipped from the processor's facility to the originating " generator."
The rule provides an exception to this accountability provision if the waste l being shipped by the processor can be categorized as " residual waste"; that is, waste originating as a result of processing or decontamination activities performed for others, but which cannot be easily categorized into distinct batches attributable to specific " generators." Conceptually, the definition '
of " residual waste" would be used for small volumes of waste containing minimal levels of radioactivity. The NRC has encouraged the Compacts and States to develop a common definition of what constitutes " residual waste."
The rule would not be affected if different Compacts or States impose a different definition. However, " waste processor" or " decontamination 16 '
l l
j
facility" licensees could be required to complete Form 542 of the uniform manifest.
The phrase "... for which no further use is foreseen ...," was included in the definition of " waste generator" to provide one basis upon which a licensee can decide if a shipment to a waste processor is considered a LLW shipment that must be manifested under the provisicns of this rule. The intent of the rule is to require manifesting if the licensee considers the entire shipment to be LLW.
The commenter's suggestion for a "two-manifest" approach, although theoretically feasible, was considered a less justifiable regulatory approach, because it would impose manifesting requirements for certain staterial shipments. The NRC did not consider it necessary to require manifesting of material shipments sent for decontamination or sorting, or coupled to energy recovery, because the waste processor would be manifesting the subsequent outgoing LLW shipment. In the outgoing shipment from the waste processor, the assignment of the radioactivity on the manifest, completed by the waste processor, would be to either a particular " generator" or if appropriate, to the waste processor, as " residual waste."
The starting and ending points for the paper trail may not be completely clear because different Compact / States may impose different requirements based on their authorities. The approach taken in the rule was to provide a manifesting system that could accommodate these differences.
Final rule: The phraseology of the " waste generator" definition has been changed to clarify that, under this definition, the shipping licensee, absent any regulation or guidance to the contrary, must decide if the shipment constitutes a LLW shipment.
[pmment: One commenter suggested that the definition of " waste type" be expanded to cover " chemical" description.
Response: The chemical description is reported separately for each waste type and therefore, the definition of " waste type" does not need to be expanded. The major purpose of defining " waste type" in the rule is to identify the detail needed when describing the contents of containers including two or more specific waste types as further discussed in the response to comments under " Disposal Container Information."
17
i Final rule: No change. j A. General Information.
Corrections have been made in Appendix G, paragraph A.2 to change l 2
" identifier" to " identifiers" and Appendix G, paragraph A.3 to properly refer-
Comment: Six commenters expressed views on whether the Uniform Manifest l and its supporting instructions should be incorporated in the rule. Some commenters stated that because completion of the manifest forms is required by l the rule, the forms should be incorporated in the rule. This action was ;
suggested to facilitate comments on the forms and to allow Agreement States- ;
appropriate opportunity for their involvement and sufficient time to make any l changes that NRC may make to the forms over time. One commenter stated that j the failure to include the manifest forms in the rule could be considt.,ed arbitrary. Three commenters argued that the Manifest and its supporting i instructions should not be a part of the regulation. With this approach, the NRC would retain the flexibility to make non-substantive changes to the Forms or instructions without a rulemaking action. !
Response: Although the uniform manifest forms are not physically a part of the rule, their availability was noticed and they were widely distributed. :
The advantage of separating the forms from the rule is that minor changes to the forms, such as additions to the container description, waste descriptor, or sorption, solidification, and stabilization media codes that appear at the bottom of Form 541, can be made without the need for a rulemaking action or
- . the replacement of the manifest forms then in use. Minor changes, or any changes in the format or instructions for the uniform manifest, would be treated as NRC currently treats regulatory guides. Regulatory guides are l
issued for public comment and these comments are analyzed before the guide is issued in final form. As one commenter presumed, the minor revision and changes to the manifest or instructions would be tracked (e.g., a form revision number). Any significant changes to the uniform manifest forms, such -
as a request for further basic information on the waste or disposal container, ,
would be accomplished through a rulemaking. ;
\
18 ;
I J
t The NRC recognizes the importance of input from those most immediately affected by the requirement to complete the uniform manifest. It was principally this reason that led to the NRC holding the public meeting on June 15, 1993. Thus, the NRC does not consider separation of the Forms and '
instructions from the rule arbitrary.
Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should require the generators to provide the " generator type" code called for in item 5 of Form 540.
Response: Because this information would be obtainable through the generator ID or user permit number, the need to complete the block in question was not sufficiently important for the NRC to require its completion. The .
States, Compacts, or the consignee could require this information to be completed.
Final rule: No change.
B. Shipment Information.
Comment: One commenter questioned the need to report small quantities of Tc-99 on manifests while another commenter was unclear on why certain nuclides were singled out in reporting source and special nuclear material.
One commenter stated that the reporting of 6 20.311 radionuclide LLD values and the delisting criteria, as described in the instructions for uniform I manifest completion, should be incorporated in the rule.
Response: The need to report Tc-99 represents an existing manifest requirement in i 20.2006 and Appendix F to il 20.1001 through 20.2402 and was addressed in the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking; thct is, s nuclide's long half-life, mobility, and influence on performance assessment esults. The singling out of specific nuclides for sot.rce and special nuclear material was done to emphasize that it was the weight of these nuclides that was being requested and not the weight of any compound or media with or within whicn these nuclides may be associated or contained. The instructions for the uniform manifest specify the minimal levels of activity that must he reported on the 19 l
manifest and, without a specific reason to include this information in the rule, this information continues to be addressed in the instructions.
Final rule: No change.
C. Disposal Container [and Waste] Information In addition to the changes discussed in this section of the preamble, the heading has been broadened to more precisely reflect the general types of information being requested and the listing of items has been reorganized and clarified to describe the variations in required information that are dependent on whether: (1) the waste is containerized or uncontainerized, and (2) the consignee for the waste is a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. Furthermore, a clarification has been made in Appendix G, paragraph I.C.4 to indicate that the gross weight of the waste and disposal container is required. The NRC requirement to report contamination levels on the surface of disposal containers has been deleted to correct a typographical error.
This item still appears on the manifest as a non-Federal informational need because it is required by one of the current disposal facility operators for operational safety reasons.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the level of reporting required in the current Appendix G, paragraph I.C.9 (previously Appendix F, paragraph I.C.8) did not go far enough and that Class A sorbed or solidified waste should be reported in a similar manner to Class B and C wastes. Other commenters stated that shippers of Class A waste were being unduly impacted.
One commenter stated that it was impractical and/or not meaningful to provide separate isotopic breakdowns for all mixtures of Class B and C wastes.
Another commenter believes the requirements for nuclide reporting of Class A versus B and C wastes was unclear.
Resoonse: The principal purpose of requiring wastes to be described by individual waste descriptors is related to the capability of performance assessment methodologies to distinguish between certain types of wastes in ,
terms of their public health significance. The commenter who indicated that the proposed rule was too broad in its requirement to distinguish between all Class B and C waste types is correct. The data likely to have the greatest significance are those associated with waste types from which radioactivity 20
releases could reasonably be limited. The ability to distinguish differing radioactivity release rates from Class A wastes could also be significant to J site performance assessments.
Final rule: Appendix G, paragraph I.C.9 (previously Appendix F, paragraph I.C.8) has been modified to delete the phrase at the end of the l proposed paragraph which stated, "if the media is claimed to meet stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b)"; and paragraph I.C.10 (second sentence) has been modified to read, "For discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters, sealed source / devices, and wastes in solidification / stabilization media), the identities and activities of j individual radionuclides associated with or contained on these waste types l within a disposal container shall be reported." l Comment: One commentet asked that the need to identify each drum !
i (disposal container) of waste be reconsidered because of the impact on small generators. Another commenter noted that the proposed disposal container for most new disposal sites is a concrete overpack and stated that, although each I container of each shipment must be indicated on the manifest, tracking of the waste by overpack is more relevant. One commenter believes that accountability necessitated a drum / container number.
Response: The need for disposal container information is not only to provide data that could be useful for performance assessment purposes but is required by DOT if the disposal container and transport package are identical.
Identification of each drum would provide a basis for associating a waste generator with specific waste in a shipment. The suggestion regarding tracking of waste by overpack at the disposal site is allowed under the provisions of this rule if the container description code indicates, through use of the symbol "-0P," that disposal in an approved structural overpack is l 1
required. I Final rule: No change.
D. Uncontainerized Waste Information.
Final rule: The introductory language of Appendix G, paragraph I.D. has been made consistent with the revised paragraph I.C, and paragraph I.D.1 has 21 l
I
l i
' been modified to require that information on the approximate volume, as well as the weight of the uncontainerized waste, be provided on the manifest. l l
E. Multi-Generator Disposal Container Information.
Final rule: The wording of Appendix G, paragraph I.E.2 has been changed to be consistent with the change made to Appendix G, paragraph I.C.10. The ]
" note" has been clarified to state that, "The origin of the LLW resulting from i a processor's activities may be attributable to one or more ' generators' (including ' waste generators') as defined in this Part."
l l
III. Control and Tracking - Appendix G, paragraph III.A.
Appendix G, paragraph III.A.2 has been modified to allow the label l indicating classification of the waste (including the potential for a
" greater-than-Class C classification") to be provided on the transport package j (instead of the container) for those shipments for which labeling of the disposal container presents a potential radiation hazard.
Comment: Two commenters stated that Form 541 of the manifest may contain information important to emergency response teams responding to a transportation accident involving a LLW shipment and may be required by State agencies to accompany shipments. One commenter indicated that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requires information that is ,
found on bof.h Forms 540 and 541.
EgipmuLq: The D0T has the Federal responsibility to determine what informatien must accompany a shipment to meet potential emergency response needs. The NRC has obtained D0T concurrence that the information provided on
]
Form 540 meets their requirements for shipping papers. Howeven the rule does ;
not preclude Form 541 from accompanying the shipment. Thus, if cathoritative State requirements exist for information contained on Form 541, this !
information could accompany the shipment as Form 541 or a separate additional item of paperwork.
Final rule: No change.
i Comment: One commenter stated that 60 days between a consignee's receipt of an advance manifest and a requirement to inform the NRC and the l 22 i l
l
l 3
i L shipper that the consignee has not received the' shipment seemed like a long j time. Another commenter questioned what, exactly, needed to be completed i within the one week window provided in the acknowledgement of shipment j receipt.
[
- Response
- Advance notification can take place weeks before a shipment !
leaves the consignor's facility. As a result, 60 days is not considered.too j I
long a period.- This period has not been changed from the current regulation.
i l
The rule states that the consignee must send the acknowledgement of receipt (a i: signed copy of Form 540) within one week of shipment receipt. Paragraph E of l b the existing rule, which has not been changed, addresses actions to be taken [
! if-acknowledgement of receipt is not received. l' 4 Final rule: No change.
Comment: One commenter asked who would be responsible for verifying and j j assuring the currentness of generators' QA programs. !
~
Response: As indicated in the " Certification" section, the person i signing the shipment manifest is certifying that the transported materials are i :
properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and labeled. To the extent that a processor must rely on the information supplied by the waste generator, the processor.must assure that the information received is sufficient,
-accurate, and current. Any QA program mandated by this rule, as adopted by l~ Agreement States, would be subject to either NRC or Agreement State inspection and enforcement. On this subject, this rule has not instituted any substantive change.
Final rule: No change. l I
Comment: One ccmmenter stated that the rule, in the current Appendix F,
- paragraphs III.A.5, III.B.3, and III.C.6, requires that a manifest both precede and be delivered to the consignee at the time the LLW is transferred.
This commenter also suggested that the licensing authority be informed of a shipper's failure to receive acknowledgement of receipt of shipment at the ),
time the shipper begins the required investigation or when the shipper has !
reason to believe a problem exists.
~
' Response: The NRC does not see an NRC need to transmit both manifests.
However, States or Compacts could impose this requirement. Similarly, because ;
23 1
. - . . - . . . - - , - - . - - = , - ,-
failure to receive acknowledgement is highly likely to be an administrative problem, the NRC sees no reason to change the existing regulation that requires reporting within two weeks of completion of the shipper's investigation. ;
Final rule: No change.
III. Control and Tracking - Appendix G, paragraph III.B.
Comment: Two commenters questioned whether the chain of custody of wastes handled by waste collectors can be determined under the requirements of this rule if more than one entity was involved with the waste before its handling by the collector. Another commenter state.1 that the identification of the original generator of LLW sent through processors or collectors must be j
' ensured.
Response: Under the final rule, all waste collectors and processors must complete NRC Manifest Forms 540, 541 and 542. The information on these j forms (including previous manifest numbers of shipments in which radioactive material was received) would allow any waste the collector or processor handles to be tracked back through one or more manifests to the originating
" generator" or " waste generator," as defined in the final rule.
Final rule: No change.
10 CFR Part 6L Section 61.12 Soecific technical information (as contained in s 61.80).
Comment: Nine commenters discussed the concept of requiring that the storage of data be kept on electronic recordkeeping systems and reporting of data be accomplished on a machine (computer) readable medium. This requirement only applies to LLW disposal facilities. Eight of these commenters supported the requirements in the proposed rule. One commenter agreed with the NRC view that Agreement States should determine whether or not they will require their licensees to report stored information on a computer-readable medium. One commenter stated that there will be a need for quality assurance programs for both hardware and software of both the disposal facility operator and the generator of the waste. This commenter asked who 74 l
would be responsible for verifying the generator's quality assurance programs.
Because the disposal facility operators have different hardware and software, this commenter was concerned that information transfers may be so garbled as j to be unusable.
Response: This rule does not change the existing requirement in 10 CFR Part 20 for a quality assurance program by any licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility. The appropriate licensing authority is, therefore, responsible for verifying that an acceptable program )
is in place. The disposal site operators currently verify incoming shipments as part of their quality assurance program. Th.e NRC does not envision any change to these existing procedures. Any reporting of the information electronically stored at the LLW disposal facility would comply with the American Standard Code for Information Interchange requirements.
Final rule: No change. l Section 61.80 Maintenance of records. reoorts. and transfers.
In addition to the change discussed in this section, the proposed rule made an administrative correction to 9 61.80(i)(1) regarding to whom the l annual report should be submitted. This correction has been revised in the j final rule to reflect the most recent NRC organizational cha1ges. References to " Appendix F" have been changed to " Appendix G."
Comment: One commenter questioned the need to record and track discarded material (pallets, bracing, etc.), as the volume of these materials is insignificant and does not impact the performance of the facility. The commenter also believes this will be a burdensome chore. l Response: The NRC believes the commenter is correct and will make this )
requirement only applicable to contaminated material that is disposed of. !
Final rule: The requirement will read, "... the volume of any pallets, bracing, or other shipping or onsite generated materials that are contaminated, and... ." .
l 25
1 Uniform Manifest Forms and Instructions. i General Comments. t Over two thirds of the commenters specifically-stated their support for ,
the development of a Uniform Radioactive Waste Manifest. None opposed the concept, but a few saw no problem with the manifests currently being used.
. Many commenters went on to identify specific areas which they believe
! could improve upon the NRC's proposal. The NRC has incorporated many of these suggestions into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and the
! supporting instructions. One of the inost significant comments on the forms 4
dealt with the format in which the inaterial is presented. As discussed in the
! Rulemaking History Section of this preamble, the NRC has attempted to meet the i requirements of various Federal, State, and operator needs.
! Several commenters noted that the proposed forms require some duplication of reporting between what is required for the DOT and the NRC. By far the most significant element of duplication dealt with reporting radionuclides and their activity on both NRC Forms 540 and 541. This resulted from the NRC staff's understanding of DOT's views of the regulatory acceptability of manifests currently in use, and was confirmed in a DOT letter
- to the NRC dated January 6, 1994. The D0T requires all their information to
' be together and not commingled with information requirements of the NRC, States, or the operating facility. Given this requirement to separate the !
information, the NRC believed that, in complying with the DOT requirements, a
.significant amount of physical paperwork accompanying the shipment could also i' be reduced by the use of electronic or other transfer of non-DOT information.
Only DOT-required information must physically accompany the shipment.
Therefore, the concept of three forms, each with a specific purpose, was !
developed.
NRC Form 540 is used to meet DOT shipping paper requirements for
! transportation and NRC waste tracking requirements. NRC Form 541 is used for waste and container information needed for assessing and monitoring disposal of radioactive waste. NRC Form 542 is used to collect waste generator information for LLW shipped from a waste collector or processor that can be used by the Compacts to establish the " generator" of LLW in the context of the LLRWPAA.
26
^
4 - -- - -. . . ,
l l l The NRC has worked with DOT in an attempt to minimize the burden of duplicative reporting. The DOT has made an interpretation of its regulations that the shipping paper need only include a listing of the significant nuclides in a transportation package and document the total activity information on a " package" basis. The proposed rule reqeired activity ;
information by radionuclide. The NRC believes that this interpretation will significantly reduce duplicative reporting initially required for each nuclide and its respective activity.
Within the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Low-Level Waste ,
Management Program, a software package is under development that will prompt the user to provide the information needed to complete the uniform manifest ;
and will then be capable of producing the completed manifest forms. It is i intended that this software will be provided to requesters, and, if this activity is successful, the reporting burden will be further minimized.
Comment: Six commenters noted that the NRC Forms use a combination of English and metric (International System of Units (SI)) units. These commenters wanted the NRC to standardize the use of reporting units to reduce the inherent confusion. Of the commenters stating a preference, English units is the preferred choice.
Response: The NRC agrees that the use of dual units causes confusion.
The proposed forms were designed to combine proposed requirements of DOT with !
standard reporting currently in use. Based on the prc imed final DOT !
requirements and NRC's policy statement on the use of units (57 FR 46202; October 7, 1992), the forms and instructions have been revised to foster the I use of metric units (except one column on Form 540 to comply 4th a unique DOT requirement). The NRC has presumed that final DOT regulations will require I
the use of metric units for shipping papers (NRC Form 540). To be consistent with NRC goals, the NRC Forms 541 and 542 indicate a preference for reporting in metric units, but, if the consignor and consignee, and others having authority over reporting requirements agree, English units may be used. i Reporting in dual units would also be acceptable. The rulemaking also modifies section 20.2101 (which requires records required by 10 CFR Part 20 to use the curie, rad, and rem units) to allow use of SI units for the manifest ,
forms.
27 1
. . . . .- . - .. - . = . - - - . - .
1 Comment: Nine commenters responded to NRC's request for comments on the potential to broaden the current purpose of the manifest number to provide ;
information other than that required for tracking. These commenters were abaut equally split on the advisability of broadening the use of the manifest number. The supporters generally believe that a unique number may reduce some reporting requirements and would add a degree of control. One commenter noted that, while supporting the concept of a unique manifest number, its implementation could, however, be cumbersome, confusing and difficult. Those l commenters not supporting broadening the manifest number's purpose, generally f
did not see a clear benefit to the change, j Response: While the NRC believes a unique manifest number could provide !
some benefits, the difficulty in implementing the concept at this time does not appear to warrant the resources that would be necessary. Also, at this time, the NRC does not have a clear concept of what a unique manifest number j would include. Therefore, for this rulemaking, the NRC will not change the :
manifest number's purpose. After the Uniform Manifest is in use, the NRC will ,
evaluate all aspects of the forms to identify potential improvements. The !
usefulness of the manifest number will be reviewed at that time to determine if changes are warranted.
Form 540. !
Comment: One commenter stated that it appeared that Form 540 is intended to replace the Bill of Lading. i Response: Form 540 is not intended to replace the Bill of Lading.
However, the form does provide a format for reporting information to satisfy DOT's shippng paper requirements.
Box l- Emergency Telephone Number and Organization, j Comment: Several commenters questioned what organization is to be identified with the emergency telephone number. Information in this box was stated as being insufficient in light of other information accompanying shipments.
Response: The organization to be identified may be the shipper but ,
could also be an organization, such as Chemtel. The telephone number is all that is required on the shipping paper by DOT. Other energency response 28
information required by 00T (49 CFR Part 172.602), but not as a shipping paper requirement, would still have to accompny the shipment.
Boxes 2 and 4- Exclusive Use and Ragulated Waste Checkoff Boxes.
Comment: Several commenters questieped why it is necessary to check these boxes indicating whether the shipment is " Exclusive Use" or includes EPA or State-designated hazardous waste. One commenter also asked whether a negative declaraticn would satisfy EPA that no material is present.
Resoonse: Bcx 2 is provided to comply with the proposed DOT descriptive requirements for 9 172.203 of Title 49. The current Chem-Nuclear manifest contains this information item. Box 4 provides a crosscheck to ensure that an EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is attached to the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, if required. It is not necessarily intended to provide a basis to satisfy EPA.
Box 5- Shipper - Name and Facility, Identifiers.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that unique generator ID numbers should be developed to allow optimal tracking and possibly reduce the information required on the manifest. One commenter supported the addition of
" Fuel Cycle Industry" to the " Generator Type" codes but suggested that the "Other" Code be deleted.
Response: The development of an ID system has merit. The NRC has concludad, however, that the development of such a system would be a significant undertaking and would have a serious impact on the rulemaking schedule. The NRC may consider development of an ID system after implementation of the rule if it appears necessary or worthwhile. Although the listed codes should cover the universe of generators, the "Other" code is being retained. A review of the use of this code may lead to appropriate expansions or clarifications of the coding system.
Box 6- Carrier Name and Address.
Comment: One commenter suggested that space for more than one carrier was needed to be consistent with the requirements on the uniform hazardous waste manifest.
Efuipp_q11t: The NRC believes that the required tracking can be accomplished through identification of the original carrier.
Box 7- Listing of the number of manifest form pages.
29
i I
Comment: Several commenters expressed views on the flexibility implied 1 by this box that indicates the possibility of additional information being l appended to the manifest by disposal facility operators, States, or Compacts. ]
Four commenters believed that the rule should specifically prevent the l possibility of unfettered additional uniform manifest requirements. Four other commenters supported this flexibility. However, most of these commenters recognized that wide ranging additional reporting requirements would defeat the purpose of the Uniform Manifest. On a different point on this box, two commenters stated that the page numbering system was absurd.
Response: The NRC believes that the information being collected on the 1 uniform manifest may not always be completely sufficient to meet a variety of legitimate needs. Because the manifest data requirements have been selected to satisfy the great majority of needs, the NRC believes the need for additional information should not present an overwhelming burden. If :
1 additional information is required on the manifest, it must be appended to the l uniform manifest forms. This information, along with Forms 541 and 542, if required, may be transmitted electronically, by mail, or by some other mutually accepted method. The NRC agrees with those commenters that stated that transfer of unnecessary information would dilute a major purpose behind ,
the development of a Uniform Manifest, j The NRC believes there may be some confusion on the page numbering system. All that is being asked for is the total number of pages comprising the manifest. The NRC believes this is a standard pagination scheme for ensuring completeness of a documentation package.
Box 8- Manifest Number.
Comment: One commenter suggested that further guidance for uniquely l identifying manifests is needed because LLW can move between several entities before being shipped to a disposal site. Two commenters questioned how tracking would be accomplished if the chain-of-custody involved more than one entity.
Response: As currently envisioned, all collectors or processors must complete Form 542 and, in so doing, identify a manifest number associated with the incoming shipment. Thus, LLW received at a LLW disposal site will be traceable back to the original generator, and no further guidance is needed.
Box 10- Certification.
30
Comment: One commenter suggested further guidance on whose signature should appear in this block. One commenter stated that site-specific needs may dictate different wording. Another commenter stated that, in certain cases, certification to 10 CFR Part 61 requirements is being requested for shipments not directed to a disposal facility. One commenter suggested that the certification statement should include an appropriate caveat for collectors who do not alter the form of LLW. One commenter generally addressed the responsibility issue.
Resoonse: The NRC envisions that the person certifying the shipment will not change from existing practice. If it is necessary to change the wording of the statement, an additional certification sheet may be necessary.
The words "if applicable," have been added before the reference to 10 CFR Part
- 61. The NRC believes the wording in the rule, Appendix G, Section II, provides the caveat the commenter suggests.
Column 11- U.S. Department of Transportation Description.
Comment: One commenter stated that the instructions were confusing in defining whether shipment or package information was being requested. Another commenter believes it was not clear how a shipper would describe a shipment of multiple disposal containers contained within a single transportation package.
Responsg: All information on Form 540 is on an individual package basis in compliance with D0T shipping paper regulations. Thus, Form 540 would include total package information while the information called for on Form 541 is on a " disposal container" basis.
Columns 12 and 14- DOT Label and Physical / Chemical Form.
Comment: One commenter suggested that codes be used in documenting this information.
Response: The NRC seriously considered this possibility, but decided that, given the typical " single word entries" required, the flexibility provided without the use of codes outweighed the minimal savings in reporting burden that would be achieved.
Column 13- Transport Index.
Comment: One commenter postulated an accident event involving a Low Specific Activity (LSA) shipment for which the information on Form 540 would not be useful because the Transport Index (TI) is not currently required to be 31
contained on the shipping paper documentation. For this reason, the commenter suggested that NRC eliminate the requirement to use Form 540.
Response: The information requirements on hRC Form 540 are required by DOT for transportation of hazardous materials The principal information on this form is for use by the first-on-the-scene responder to a transportation I accident. Identification of the proper shipping name and U.N. ID number '
provides valuable information. These identifiers correlate with proper !
emergency actions. The TI is information which would be more useful in 1 controlling normal occupational exposures. l Column 15 [now divided into Columns 15 and 16]- Individual Radionuclides [
and Activity (now Total Package Activity). I Comment: One commenter questioned what is meant by, "... list all I radionuclides that are present in the transport packaging," and suggested that guidance be provided on the specific SI units to be used. One commenter stated that requirements for listing of a radionuclide should be included in the rule. Two commenters stated that insufficient space is provided for both l a listing of the nuclide and activity. Six commenters suggested that only a vertical listing, with one nuclide per line, should be considered. Another commenter suggested that the column be split into nuclide and activity ;
columns. ,
Resoonse: Reporting of radionuclides in the transport packaging is a DOT shipping paper requirement in which the instructions reference the appropriate DOT regulations for more information. The NRC is not providing i detailed interpretive instructions of D0T regulations. The NRC has explained what is meant regarding the reporting units needed on NRC Form 541 (for NRC use). The NRC believes that the radionuclides reported on Form 541 should also be appropriate for DOT purposes. A DOT telephone number is provided if additional information or interpretation is needed. On the spacing issue, the NRC has completed several manifests from actual shipments and these examples indicate that more than enough space is provided for at least a double columnar listing of nuclides and respective activities on NRC Form 541, although the choice on the formatting in this column is left to the : Spar and consignee. Because the DOT has agreed that only the total package activity needs to be reported, the spacing issue would now only involve Form 541. On the multiple columnar presentation, the NRC would note that current i 32
l 1
Transportation Shipment Package Records, that have been used when conveying l radioactive material to processors, portray nuclides and their respective i activities in a triple columnar field.
Column 16 (Now column 17]- LSA/SCO Class.
Comment: One commenter suggested codes for documenting this information, while two commenters questioned the regulatory basis.
Response: The information in this column is based on a requirement proposed by DOT in their 'IAEA Compatibility" rulemaking. Coding is not allowed by D0T for reporting this information. The NRC has presumed that this classification system will be incorporated into D0T's final rule.
Column 17 (Now column 18]- Total Weight or Volume.
Comment: One commenter questioned the multiple number of times that this type of information was requested on the three manifest forms.
Response: Although requests for volume and weight information do occur on each of the manifest forms, the volumes or weights requested are not necessarily identical. For example, the transportation package volume may not be the same as the disposal container volume, if multiple disposal containers are contained within a shielded overpack. The total volumes requested on Form 542 would represent the sum of all generator volumes which may be contained in a number of different disposal containers. This Form 542 summary contains information very similar to that required on the Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation Sheets used by a current disposal site operator.
This information is used for waste tracking purposes to ensure that sites are receiving wastes for which their State or Compact is responsible for disposal.
Column 18 (Now column 19]- Identification Number of Package.
Comment: One commenter suggested that this instruction should be worded as a requirement.
Response: Although the listing of the disposal container number on Form 541 is a requirement, this does not generally carryover to the transport packaging when the packaging and the disposal container are not identical.
00T does not require a package number to be provided on shipping papers.
Form 541.
Box 1- Manifest Totals.
33 l
In addition to the change discussed in this section of the preamble, the headings for the shipment volume and weight totals have been changed to reflect that total net m1ues are being requested for any low-level radioactive waste shipment to which manifesting applies.
Comment: Five commenters brought up the issue of reporting of radionuclides (specifically Tc-99 and I-129) that are reported based on lower limits of detection (LLD). Concerns were expressed that if the totals, as presented in this box, represent the sum of the LLDs, or LLD's and "real" values in all disposal containers, a very significant overestimation of these nuclides in a disposal facility could result. One commenter suggested that this block require entry of net waste volume and weight.
Response: The NRC believes these comments have merit. Because it would be important to distinguish between "real" and LLD values, the instructions have been modified to indicate that the sums of the "real" and LLD values should be separately reported in this box, with the summed LLD value in ,
parenthesis. Although the NRC recognizes that this reporting scheme does not j solve the problem, this reporting approach will " flag" the conservative nature l of the appropriate fraction of the inventories of these nuclides. The commenter is correct in presuming that net waste volumes and weights are being requested. Appropriate clarifications have been made to the manifest forms and instructions.
Columns 5 through 10- Disposal Container Description. I Comment: One commenter stated that repetitive listing of a generator ID number, if more than one container is attributed to a generator, is unnecessary. Another commenter pointed out that the container described may l not always be the " disposal" container and that, in these cases (e.g.,
shipments [of LLW) to waste processors), this column may not need to be completed. One commenter suggested that Column 8 should pertain to net waste weight. One commenter asked how a shipper should respond if more than one container description code applies. Another commenter asked if it was intended to use the numeric codes or the actual verbiage, l Response: The instructions have been clarified to avoid unnecessary l repetition of generator ID numbers. The " exemption" referred to by the l commenter was included in the instructions. This " exemption" is now the !
subject of a " Note" preceding the instructions for Column 5. The possibility I 34 i
I i
-f
~
Lthat'some of the container information may be required by the consignee also appears italfefzed'in the introductory paragraph in the instructions for ;
Form 541. Instructions that are not'" tied" to information being required to comply with Federal regulations also now appear,in italfes.
Column 8 refers to total' container and waste weight (See discussion pertaining to Column 12).
]
The intent is to report code numbers, if applicable. If more than one l
. container description code applies, multiple codes can be reported. l
~
Column g- Surface' Radiation' Level. !
- Coment: Two commenters suggested that this column could be better situated on Form 540 adjacent to the Transport Index. ,
Besconse: Combining this information with the information required by !
00T 'on shipping papers would not, based on NRC staff interactions with DOT staff, be accepted by DOT. The information in this column is also required by one of the current disposal facility operators. ]
l Column 10- Surface Contamination. l Comment: Four commenters questioned the need for this information, especially in light of DOT standards.
Response: The information being requested in this column is directed at .!
contamination levels on the surfaces of disposal containers, not
- transportation packagings. This information is currently requested by one of the disposal facility operators on their manifest in order to minimize contamination and control potential operational exposures. Through typographical error, this informational need was included as an NRC ,
requirement in the proposed Appendix F, paragraph I.C.10. As indicated in the response to comments on the rule, this requirement has been deleted from the rule but remains as a non-Federal information item on the manifest.
Column 12- Approximate Waste Volume (s) in Container.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that if the waste volume information is only intended to meet disposal site acceptance criteria, this column could be deleted because the certification statement could be used to accomplish the same purpose. One commenter questioned whether the information on the manifest allowed an accurate estimate of the mass of the waste and whether the NRC recognized that the volume of the inner container may be substantially different from the actual waste volume. One commenter suggested that 35
adjustments be considered so that the weight of the waste would be documented.
One commenter suggested that this column be completed if the container fill volume was less than 90%. One commenter asked whether, if perlite was used to fill void volume, this volume should be included in the total.
Resoonse: For discrete waste items (e.g., activated metals), the volume of these items is of interest for waste classification purposes. The instructions have been expanded to make this clear and, for homogeneous type wastes, the instructions indicate that ">85%" can be entered if this fill volume is exceeded. The NRC believes that the weight of the waste can be estimated by either knowing the volume and density of the waste or subtracting container weight from the weight of the waste and container. If fill material is used, this volume may be included in the reported volume, but may not be considered for waste classification purposes. An alternative approach would be to report waste volume, but note that a " fill" has been used (e.g., to comply with disposal site acceptance criteria).
Column 14- Weight % Chelating Agent.
Comment: One commenter suggested a code for "None present" and "0" be provided in this column. Another commenter asked what methods would be used to identify chelating agents.
Response: The commenter's suggestion was not taken because only an "NP" or "0" would need to be entered, and space for providing the preprinted codes is limited. NRC's intent in identifying chelating agents is described in general terms in the " Final Waste Classification and Waste Form Technical Position," dated May 11, 1983.
Column 15- Radiological Description.
Comment: Two commenters questioned the desirability of reporting individual nuclide activities as a percentage of total container activity.
One commenter erroneously thought that this column limited the recording of nuclides to three entries. Another commenter suggested that the NRC consider establishing reporting thresholds for H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129, and stated that explicit instructions are needed on the reporting of source and special nuclear material, " daughter radionuclides," and the impact of nuclides with less than 5 year half-life on waste classification. One commenter pointed out that the passage of " Reportable Quantity" requirements should be considered in establishing the reporting thresholds defined in the instructions. A number 36
i of commenters questioned the effectiveness of allowing multiple-columnar reporting of radionuclides with their respective activities.
Resocnse: Percentage reporting is not being mandated, but allowed, i This method of reporting is allowed by a current disposal facility operator. >
The instructions have also been appended to clarify how the reporting of more than three significant radionuclides in a container should be achieved.
Although the concent of establishing threshold reporting quantities for ;
the four indicated nuclides has merit, the analysis needed to support a specific threshold has not been defined. Thus, consistent with the existing regulation, no threshold for the reporting of these four nuclides is included in the instructions.
On the reporting of source material, the instructions have been expanded l 4
to clarify that the " mass" being asked for applies only to the elemental mass of uranium and thorium (including uranium and thorium contained in
" unimportant quantities," as defined in 10 CFR 40.13), and not the weight of the waste containing these nuclides. The instructions now also specifically state that the activities of the nuclides specifically referred to in the
" Manifest Total" Box (i.e., H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129) must always be manifested. The instructions also state that daughter products must be either i individually reported or, if within a factor of 2 of being in equilibrium with its (their) parent, be reported as the parent with its activity listed, but l with the symbol "D" or "NAT" indicating daughter products in equilibrium (i.e., Cs-137D or ThNAT). "Significant quantities" of nuclides with half-lives less than 5 years must be included in determining the waste classification of a disposal container (Note that this will only apply in !
determining whether the Class should be Class A or B). Finally, the instructions have been expanded to indicate that any radionuclide whose activity represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations must be j included on the manifest.
In response to comments on multicolumnar reporting, the NRC has reconfigured the item 15 column to indicate the possibility of using two subcolumns. The first subcolumn may include the radionuclide and its activity in metric units. The second subcolumn may be (1) used to include the activity in English units, if required by the State or operating facility, (2) left blank if not needed, or (3) used to report a second radionuclide and its 37 l i
1 activity. The line which splits column 15 is provided to minimize imputing and checking errors, if the third option is chosen.
Column 16- Waste Classification. I Comment: One commenter suggested that boxes be provided to check a waste class. Two commenters stated that the " Class" designations do not establish whether Class B and C waste has been stabilized.
flung.nig: The instructions have been broadened to indicate that Class B l and C waste should be classified as BU or BS, or CU or CS; the U or S f indicating whether the waste is in stable or unstable form. Because the combination of possibilities has been increased to six, the information to be l recorded would only consist of two letters, and space on the form is limited,
" checkoff" boxes have not been added to the form. ;
Container, Waste, and Media Codes. I Comment: One commenter stated that the waste descriptor codes should be consistent with existing NRC classifications of LLW. Another commenter pointed out that the codes do not match directly with those of US Ecology.
One commenter suggested that " EPA [or State] hazardous" should not be a physical descriptor for waste and questioned why " concrete" was specifically identified as an encapsulation media. One commenter suggested that the descriptor, " wooden box" be dropped and " woven polypropylene bulk bag" be added to reflect actual practices. This commenter also believed that the waste descriptors were excessive for the purposes being addressed. One commenter suggested that Zonolite grade 4 be deleted and " Vinyl Chloride" replace " Vinyl Toluene." One commenter suggested that " State hazardous" be added along with " EPA hazardous."
Response: The NRC believes the codes are somewhat more detailed than the waste streams characterized in the Environmental Impact Statement that supported the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. Although the codes are not identical to those used by US Ecology, the NRC staff believes that all the US Ecology codes can be related to the codes on Form 541, and the "other" code can also be used. If a rationale for a specific code, that is not included exists, it can be added to the list. The " EPA [or State] hazardous" descriptor is provided as a " tie-in" to EPA's or a State's Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
The specific identification of concrete as an encapsulation media has been deleted and the commenter's suggestion on container descriptions has been 38
- accepted. The NRC believes that feedback from the performance assessment
~
process may indeed lead to a consolidation of waste descriptor codes, with time. The suggestions that Zonolite grade 4 be deleted and " Vinyl Chloride" replace " Vinyl Toluene" nave been accepted. The phrase " EPA hazardous" has been modified to read " EPA or State Hazardous."
FORM 542.
1 Column 5- Generator Name, Permit Number, and Telephone Number.
1 Comment: One comenter suggested that the " generator type" code should I also be included. Two commenters questioned why " permit number" is called
^
1 for, given that the generator ID number is provided in Column 4.
Response: Because the generator ID number should allow the determination of generator type, the inclusion of this information was not >
[ considered necessary. Permit number was included because, for certain generators, the generator ID number assigned by the disposal facility operator is not identical to the permit number assigned by the appropriate regulatory l l authority. Optimization of these identifiers could lead to elimination of this reporting need.
Column 9- Waste Code.
Comment: One comenter suggested that boxes be provided to check whether the waste represents processed or collected waste.
Response: Given the single letter entry needed, and the fact that an existing manifest does not preprint these letters, the NRC did not see a need to provide individual "C" or "F" boxes to be checked.
Column 10- Originating Compact Region or State.
Coment: One comenter suggested that codes be used for the Compacts or States. Another commenter stated that if the Generator ID number included the two-digit State abbreviation, there would be no need to report this information in Column 10.
Response: The NRC's intent was that codes be used. The instructions have been expanded to state this preference. Because current generator ID numbers do not uniformly include the State abbreviation, it was included in t Column 10. If generator ID numbers are systematized, as the comenter
___.._7 t
4 4
p !
-suggests,'and as. membership;in Compacts stabilizes, this. column could be- -
' deleted. ,
t 4
T National- Data Base Comments. :
i Comment: In the proposed rule, the NRC discussed possible uses of and I needs for a' national computer LLW data' base. The NRC expressed interest in ]
L public views on the benefits in developing such a system, and if developed,. i who would.be an appropriate operator. Eighteen commenters' spanned a spectrum }
. of. responses, from support for' a national data base with NRC as the operator, j Lto the belief that a national data base is unnecessary. Comments also spanned. j Lthe topic of _ data availability,' from making sure the information is publicly j (i
'- - accessible to the need to ensure that sensitive, data is protected. One j 4
icommenter noted that'because disposal options have been significantly reduced, !
-much LLW may end up in extended storage and a national data base as envisioned j (data reported by the LLW disposal facilities) would not yield the quantity of data originally expected. Two commenters noted that LLW data bases already esist and that the'NRC should use these existing systems and work with the DOE to~make any necessary modifications to meet the informational needs of both
~NRC and state regulators.
Response: The NRC believes that because there will only be a few LLW facility operators in the near future, it is premature to establish a new national LLW data base. The NRC agrees with those commenters that stated that Lthe existing systems can be the basis for a broad and uniform national system.
As a result, the NRC believes that a decision on a data base operator can be .
deferred.
i Reaulatory Analysis Comments.
l Comment: One commenter stated that the economic impact analysis is
. unclear in the " Regulatory Flexibility Certification" section. The co'menter 3
- stated that according to the discussion, the proposed rule would have a l negative.$480,000 to a positive $100,000 impact on the regulated community. !
If one back calculates to the 34,000 cubic feet generated by hospitals, the j 40
'l i
t
.I.
' t t
. . , - - .n r ,, ,
1 L
range would be negative $13,600 to a positive $2,400. These figures deserve to be substantiated and justified.
Response: The costs and cost savings associated with the uniform manifest are mainly associated with additional entry costs from the uniform manifest having more fields than the currently used shipment manifest forms and from the development of computer software to generate the forms. The data entry costs are related to the amount of additional data entered per shipment, the number of shipments, and the degree of automation of data entry. It appear:. ihat data entry costs were underestimated and the final regulatory analysis contains updated estimates. Whether there is a cost or cost savings related to development of manifest generation software depends on the number of different manifest forms there would be in the absence of a uniform i
manifest. If each regional disposal facility would require its own manifest forms, a savings in softwarc development costs would result from the use of a uniform manifest. If the current US Ecology and Chem-Nuclear Systems forms would still be used for all regional disposal facilities, additional software i generation costs would result from use of the uniform manifest. Because costs are not related to waste volume, the impact of the proposed rule on hospitals that generate LLW is not directly related to the volume of LLW that these hospitals generate.
Comment: Two commeaters questioned the incremental time and cost to I generate the new uniform manifest versus current manifests in use. One commenter stated that the requirements of Form 540 could increase the time to generate a manifest to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> or more for a large shipment rather than the 0.65 hours7.523148e-4 days <br />0.0181 hours <br />1.074735e-4 weeks <br />2.47325e-5 months <br /> shown in the Federal Register notice (57 FR 14500; April 21, 1992).
One commenter stated that the response time for collection of information is substantially underestimated and that the increased complexity of the forms is expected to significantly increase clerical costs well beyond the estimate of
$5,000 to $15,000.
Response: The estimate of the amount of time it takes to enter data on the uniform manifest was based on the number of fields, the nature of the field (i.e., whether it contains fixed point, floating point, or alphanumeric data) and whether the data is entered manually on the forms, on a computer, or from a waste management database. An experienced data entry clerk was consulted. From this and other comments to the notice of proposed rolemaking, 41
including the comments made at the public meeting held on June 15, 1993 and subsequent NRC experience, it appears that the effort required to complete the manifest forms was underestimated. In the final regulatory analysis, the estimated time to complete a manifest by a generator (NRC Forms 540 and 541) i has been changed from 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to 2.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The estimated time to complete the manifest for a collector / processor (NRC Forms 540, 541, and 542) has been ;
changed from 3.1 to 9.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The significant change for the collector / processor.comes from information in a January 1994, report prepared for the NRC (NUREG/CR-6147) that resulted in more than twice the estimated size (number of containers) in collector / processor shipments. The end result, however, is not as drastic since the total number of shipments is accordingly reduced.
Final rule: The Regulatory Analysis has been ' updated to reflect more ,
accurate estimates of effort. The resulting changes have not changed the conclusion to implement the final rulemaking.
IV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations I- The Commission is requiring that the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste {
Manifest be used by all shippers of low-level radioactive waste; that is, by I all waste generators, waste collectors, and waste processors licensed by either the Commission or Agree 7ent States. The Commission and Agreement State
~
licensees required to use the Uniform Manifest, therefore, would also be required to record the minimal information requirements as called for on the applicable Uniform Manifest forms. ,
In the development of the three sets of forms comprising the Uniform f Manifest, the NRC staff has coordinated its efforts with staff at DOT and with l Agreement and non-Agreement States. Most State representatives have indicated l
support for a base set of information needs and a uniform manifest. The Commission believes the information called for on the Uniform Manifest not only satisfies Commission requirements and DOT shipping paper requirements, but also the majority of requirements of Agreement State regulatory authorities (and land disposal facility operators).
The Commission recognizes that a particular Agreement State may require additional information for their unique regulatory purposes and that disposal 42 l
l
t I
site operators may require further information to satisfy operational and Y.
administrative considerations. Therefore, this regulation does not prohibit !
Agreement States or disposal site operators from broadening manifest usage or {
from imposing additional manifest requirements which may be transmitted as [
additional pages to the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. Serious consideration should be given to the need for specific additional information vis-a-vis the advantages in maintaining a " uniform" manifesting system.
Caution must be taken, however, to ensure that any additional requirements for !
information are reported in a format which does not conflict with D0T l I
regulations for shipring papers (i.e., 49 CFR Part 172). Also, the NRC Forms, although indicating a preference for ti.e use of metric units, does not preclude reporting in English or metric and English units. I Accordingly, the Commission designates 10 CFR Part 20.2006, Transfer for Disposal and Manifests (excluding Appendix F) - as Division 1. This t designation maintains uniformity in manifest format and content while at the same time allowing flexibility for additional information being supplied in the manifest by adding supplemental pages. 10 CFR Part 20.2101, which !
discusses units to use, is designated Division 2, since any combination of English and SI units can be used.
The Commission designates 10 CFR Part 61.12, Specific Technical Information, including the new paragraph (n) that deals with a description of ,
an electronic record keeping system, as Division 2 because Agreement States
, can satisfy the principles using alternate language.
10 CFR Part 61.80, Maintenance of Records, Reports and Transfers, j remains designated Division 3, except for 6 61.80(1)(1) which is designated ;
Division 2 because it requires that the disposal facility licensee maintain an electronic record keeping systems. This designation will help ensure that i manifest information will be available in an electronic format for both NRC ,
. and Agreement State licensed sites. The new requirement to report such stored information on a computer-readable medium, however, should be the prerogative of each Agreement State, and this new requirement in 6 61.80(1)(2), is ,
designated Division 3.
43
't
V. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The Commission has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(ii) and (iii).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information cMlection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0014, -0135, -0164, -0165, and -0166.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.04 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per response under 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The time to complete standard shipping manifests required by this rulemaking, NRC Forms 540, 541, and 542, depends upon the size and complexity of the shipment and whether the shipment is from a generator or a collector / processor. A shipment from a generator is estimated to require 2.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> (63 minutes to complete Form 540 and 103 minutes for Form 541 -- no Form 542 is needed). A shipment from a collector \ processor is estimated to require 9.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (161 minutes to complete Form 540, 363 minutes for Form 541, and 26 minutes for Form 542). The representative collector \ processor's manifest takes longer to complete primarily because it is assumed that their shipments have more than twice as many containers as from a generator's shipment. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE08-10202, (3150-0014, -0135, -0164, -0165, and -0166), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
44
VII. Regulatory Analysis l The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final !
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives l considered by the Commission. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from M. Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Mail Stop T-9 F33. t
. VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),
the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. A significant number of hospitals and academic institutions are LLW waste 9enerators, and most of these are non-profit organizations. During 1986-1990, about 4.6% of the 7.8 million cubic feet of disposed of LLW was generated by hospitals and academic institutions. Thus, a substantial number of small entities could be affected ;
by the rule.
With an expected disposal fee of approximately $150/ cubic foot, annual disposal costs for these small entities will be in the range of $13 million.
The estimated upper limit costs to implement this rule for the small entities is approximately $65,000. Similarly, the estwated upper limit of annual operational cost for these small entities is approximately $2,000. These costs are insignificant relative to the annual disposal costs (which do not include costs such as packaging and transportation). Because the percentage increases in disposal costs that may be caused by the rule is substantially less than 1%, the rule would not have a significant economic impact on the ,
small entities affected by the rule.
IX. Backfit Analysis The Commission has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not involve any 45
8 provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). The additional information to be placed on NRC manifest forms will not require nuclear power licensees to change existing procedures used in operation of their facilities. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 10 CFR Part 20 -
Part 20 - Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed nr.terial, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
10 CFR Part 61 Part 61 - Criminal penalties, Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, ,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61.
PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
- 1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
- 2. Section 20.1009 is revised to read as follows: ,
i 20.1009 Information collection requirements: OM8 approval.
l 46 4
l l
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB has approved the information collection )
requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0014. 1 (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in 99 20.1101, 20.1202, 20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1391, 20.1302, f 20.1501, 20.1601, 20.1603, 20.1703, 20.1901, 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1905, !
20.1906, 20.2002, 20.2004, 20.2006, 20.2102, 20.2103, 20.2104, 20.2105, 20.2106, 20.2107, 20.2108, 20.2109, 20.2110, 20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203, 20.2204, 20.2206, and Appendices F and G to 10 CFR Part 20.
(c) This part contains information collection requirements in addition to those approved under the control number specified in paragraph (a) of this section. These information collection requirements and the control numbers under which they are approved are as follows:
(1). In 9 20.2104, NRC Form 4 is approved under control number 3150-0005.
(2). In 9 9 20.2106 and 20.2206, NRC Form 5 is approved under control j number 3150-0006.
(3). In 9 20.2006 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, NRC Form 540 and 540A is approved under control number 3150-0164.
(4). In 9 20.2006 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, NRC Form 541 and 541A is approved under control number 3150-0165.
(5). In 9 20.2006 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, NRC Form 542 and 542A is approved under control number 3150-0166.
- 3. Section 20.2006 is revised to read as follows:
5 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests.
(a)(1) The requirements of this section and Appendices F and G to 10 CFR Part 20 are designed to (i) Control transfers of low-level radioactive waste by any waste generator, waste collector, or waste processor licensee, as defined in this part, who ships low-level waste either directly, or indirectly through a waste 47
collector or waste processor, to a licensed low-level waste land disposal facility (as defined in Part 61 of this chapter);
(ii) Establist.a manifest tracking system; and (iii) Supplement existing requirements concerning transfers and recordkeeping for those wastes.
(2) Beginning March 1,1998, all affected licensees must use Appendix G. Prior to March 1,1998, a LLW disposal facility operator or its regulatory authority may require the shipper to use Appendix F or Appendix G.
Licensees using Appendix F shall comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Licensees using Appendix G shall comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(b)(1) Each shipment of radioactive waste intended for disposal at a licensed land disposal facility must be accompanied by a shipment manifest in accordance with section I of Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 20.
(2) Any licensee shipping radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility must document the information required on NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and transfer this recorded manifest information to the intended consignee in accordance with Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20.
(c) Each shipment manifest must include a certification by the waste generator as specified in section II of Appendix F or Appendix G to 10 CFR I Part 20, as appropriate. See paragraph (a)(2) of this section to determine ;
the appropriate appendix.
(d) Each person involved in the transfer for disposal and disposal of waste, including the waste generator, waste collector, waste processor, and disposal facility operator, shall comply with the requirements specified in section III of Appendix F or Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20, as appropriate. I See paragraph (a)(2) of this section to determine the appropriate appendix.
- 4. Section 20.2101 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
1 20.2101 General Provisions.
(b) Not withstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 48 I
i
section, when recording information on shipment manifests, as required in t 20.2006(b), information may be recorded in the International System of Units (SI) or in SI and units as specified in paragraph (a) of this 'ection.
- 5. A new Appendix G is added to 10 CFR Part 20 to read as follows:
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20 - Requirements for Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal at Licensed. Land Disposal Facilities and Manifests I. Manifest A waste generator, collector, or processor who transports, or offers for
' transportation, low-level radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed low-level radioactive waste land disposal facility must prepare a Manifest (0MB Control Numbers 3150-0164, -0165, and -0166) reflecting information requested on applicable NRC Forms 540 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper)) and 541 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description)) and, if necessary, on an applicable NRC Form 542 [ Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation)]. NRC Forms 540 and 540A must be completed and must physically accompany the pertinent low-level waste shipment. Upon agreement between shipper and consignee, NRC Forms 541 and 541A and 542 and 542A may be completed, transmitted, and stored in
-electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records on the respective forms. Licensees are not required by NRC to comply with the manifesting requirements of this part when they ship:
(a) LLW for processing and expect its return (i.e., for storage under their license) prior to disposal at a licensed land disposal facility; (b) LLW that is being returned to the licensee who is the " waste qenerator" or " generator," as defined in this part; or (c) radioactively contaminated material to a " waste processor" that b!comes the processor's " residual waste."
For guidance in completing these forms, refer to the instructions that accompany the forms. Copies of manifests required by this appendix may be 49
legible carbon copies, photocopies, or computer printouts that reproduce the data in the format of the uniform manifest. ,
NRC Forms 540, 540A, 541, 541A, 542 and 542A, and the accompanying-instructions, in hard copy, may be obtained from the Information and Records Managenent Branch, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-7232.
This appendix includes information requirements of the Department of Transportation, as codified in 19 CFR Part 172. Information on hazardous, medical, or other waste, required to meet Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as codified in 40 CFR Parts 259, 261 or elsewhere, is not addressed in this section, and must be provided on the required EPA forms.
However, the required EPA forms must accompany the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest required by this chapter.
As used in this appendix, the following definitions apply:
Chelatina aaent has the same meaning as that given in i 61.2 of this chapter. I Chemical description means a description of the principal chemical characteristics of a low-level radioactive waste.
Computer-readable medium means that the regulatory agency's computer can transfer the information from the medium into its memory.
Consionee means the designated receiver of the shipment of low-level radioactive waste.
Decontamination facility means a facility operating under a Commission or Agreement State license whose principal purpose is decontamination of equipment or materials to accomplish recycle, reuse, or other waste management objectives, and, for purposes of this Part, is not considered to be a consignee for LLW shipments.
Disposal container means a container principally used to confine low-level radioactive waste during disposal operations at a land disposal facility (also see "high integrity container"). Note that for some shipments, the disposal container may be the tr csoort package.
EPA identification number means tne number received by a transporter following application to the Administrator of EPA as required by 40 CFR Part 263.
50
l Generator means a licensee operating under a Commission or Agreement State license who (1) is a waste generator as defined in this Part, or (2) is the licensee to whom waste can be attributed within the context of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (e.g., waste generated as a result of decontamination or recycle activities).
Hiah intearity container (HIC) means a container commonly designed to meet the structural stability requirements of 5 61.56 of this chapter, and to meet Department of Transportation requirements for a Type A package.
Land disposal facility has the same meaning as that given in 161.2 of this chapter.
NRC Forms 540. 540A. 541. 541 A. 542. and 542A are official NRC Forms referenced in this appendix. Licensees need not use originals of these NRC Forms as long as any substitute forms are equivalent to the original documentation in respect to content, clarity, size, and location of information. Upon agreement between the shipper and consignee, NRC Forms 541 (and 541A) and NRC forms 542 (and 542A) may be completed, transmitted, and stored in electronic media. The electronic media must have the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records in the format of the uniform manifest.
Packaae means the assembly of components necessary to ensure compliance with the packaging requirements of D0T regulations, together with its radioactive contents, as presented for transport.
Physical descriotion means the items called for on NRC Form 541 to describe a low-level radioactive waste.
Residual waste means low-level radioactive waste resulting from processing or decontamination activities that cannot be easily separated into distinct batches attributable to specific waste generators. This waste is attributable to the processor or decontamination facility, as applicable.
Shioper means the licensed entity (i.e., the waste generator, waste collector, or waste processor) who offers low-level radioactive waste for transportation, typically consigning this type of waste to a licensed waste ,
collector, waste processor, or land disposal facility operator.
Shionina cacer means NRC Form 540 and, if required, NRC Form 540A which includes the information required by DOT in 49 CFR Part 172.
51
Source material has the same meaning as that given in i 40.4 of this chapter.
Special nuclear material has the same meaning as that given in 170.4 of this chapter.
Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest or uniform manifest means the combination of NRC Forms 540, 541, and, if necessary, 542, and their respective continuation sheets as needed, or equivalent.
Waste collector means an entity, operating under a Commission or Agreement State license, whose principal purpose is to collect and consolidate waste generated by others, and to transfer this waste, without processing or repackaging the collected waste, to another licensed waste collector, lice,nsed waste processor, or licensed land disposal facility.
Waste description means the physical, chemical and radiological description of a low-level radioactive waste as called for on NRC Form 541.
Waste aenerator means an entity, operating under a Commission or Agreement State license, who (1) possesses any material or component that t tains radioactivity or is radioactively contaminated for which the licensee foresees no further use, and (2) transfers this material or component to a licensed land disposal facility or to e licensed waste collector or processor for handling or treatment prior to disposal. A licensee performing processing or decontamination services may be a " waste generator" if the transfer of low-level radioactive waste from its facility is defined as " residual waste."
Waste processor means an entity, operating under a Commission or Agreement State license, whose principal purpose is to process, repackage, or otherwise treat low-level radioactive material or waste generated by others prior to eventual transfer of waste to a licensed low-level radioactive waste land disposal facility.
Waste type means a waste within a disposal container having a unique physical description (i.e., a specific waste descriptor code or description; or a waste sorbed on or solidified in a specifically defined media).
52
Information Requirements
~
A. General Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste, shall provide the following information on the uniform manifest:
- 1. . The name, facility address, and telephone number of the licensee i shipping the waste;
- 2. An' explicit declaration indicating whether the shipper is acting as a' waste generator, collector, processor, or a combination of these identifiers for purposes of the manifested shipment; and
- 3. The name, address, and telephone number, or the name and EPA identification number for the carrier transporting the waste.
B. Shioment Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following information regarding the waste shipment on the uniform manifest:
- 1. The date of the waste shipment;
- 2. The total number of packages / disposal containers; j
- 3. The total disposal volume and disposal weight in the shipment;
- 4. The total radionuclide activity in the shipment;
- 5. The activity of each of the radionuclides H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and l I-129 contained in the shipment; and
- 6. The total masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the total mass of uranium and thorium in source material. r C. Discosal Container and Waste Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following information on the uniform manifest regarding the waste and each disposal container of waste in the shipment:
- 1. An alphabetic or numeric identification that uniquely identifies each disposal container in the shipment; ,
- 2. A physical description of the disposal container, including the manufacturer and model of any high integrity container; i
- 3. The volume displaced by the disposal container;
- 4. The gross weight of the disposal container, including the waste;
- 5. For waste consigned to a disposal facility, the maximum radiation level .at the surfac af each disposal container; 53 f
- 6. A physical and chemical description of the waste;
- 7. The total weight percentage of chelating agent for any waste containing more than 0.1% chelating agent by weight, plus the identity of the principal chelating agent; :
- 8. The approximate volume of waste within a container;
- 9. .The sorbing or solidification media, if any, and the identity of the solidification media vendor and brand name;
- 10. The identities and activities of individual radionuclides contained in each container, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in source material.
For discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters, sealed source / devices, and wastes in solidification / stabilization media), the identities and activities of
- individual radionuclides associated with or contained on these waste types within a disposal container shall be reported; I
- 11. The total radioactivity within each container; and
- 12. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the classification of the waste pursuant to f 61.55 of this chapter. Waste not meeting the .
structural stability requirements of 5 61.56(b) of this chapter must be identified; D. Uncontainerized Waste Information.
The shipper of the radioactive waste shall provide the following information on the uniform manifest regarding a waste shipment delivered without a disposal container:
- 1. The approximate volume and weight of the waste;
- 2. A physical and chemical description of the waste;
- 3. The total weiaNt percentage of chelating agent if the chelating ]
agent exceeds 0.1% by v yht, plus the identity of the principal chelating !
~
agent;
- 4. For waste consigned to a disposal facility, the classification of the waste pursuant to S 61.55 of this chapter. Waste not meeting the i structural stability requirements of 5 61.56(b) of this chapter must be identified; 54
- 5. The identities and activities of individual radionuclides contained in the waste, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in source material; and
- 6. For wastes consigned to a disposal facility, the maximum radiation levels at the surface of the waste.
E. Multi-Generator Discosal Container Information.
This section applies to disposal containers enclosing mixtures of waste originating from different generators. (Note: The origin of the LLW resulting from a processor's activities may be attributable to one or more " generators" (including " waste generators") as defined in this part). It also applies to
.T.ixtures of wastes shipped in an uncontainerized form, for which portions of the mixture within the shipment originate from different generators.
- 1. For homogeneous mixtures of waste, such as incinerator ash, provide the waste description applicable to the mixture and the volume of the waste attributed to each generator.
- 2. For heterogeneous mixtures of waste, such as the combined products from a large compactor, identify each generator contributing waste to the disposal container, and, for discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical filters, sealed source / devices, and wastes in solidification / stabilization media), the identities and activities of individual radionuclides contained on these waste types within the disposal container. For each generator, provide the following:
(a) The volume of waste within the disposal container; (b) A physical and chemical description of the waste, including the solidification agent, if any; (c) The total weight percentage of chelating agents for any disposal container containing more than 0.1% chelating agent by weight, plus the identity of the principal chelating agent; (d) The sorbing or solidification media, if any, and the identity of the solidification media vendor and brand name if the media is claimed to meet stability requirements in 10 CFR 61.56(b); and (e) Radionuclide identities and activities contained in the waste, the masses of U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear material, and the masses of uranium and thorium in source material if contained in the waste.
55
l II. Certification.
j An' authorized representative of the waste generator, processor, or j collector shall certify by signing and dating the shipment manifest that the j transported materials are properly classified, described, packaged, marked, !
- and labeled and are in proper condition for transportation according to the l 4
applicable regulations of the Department of. Transportation and the Commission.
'A collector in signing the certification is certifying that nothing has been done to the collected waste which would invalidate the waste generator.'s ;
certification. :
III. Control and Trackina.
A. Any licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility or a licensed waste collector shall comply with the requirements in '
paragraphs A.1 through 9 of this section. Any licensee who transfers waste to j a licensed waste processor for waste treatment or repackaging shall comply j with the~ requirements of paragraphs A.4 through 9 of this section. A licensee shall:
- 1. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according to )
6 61.55 and meets the waste characteristics requirements in i 61.56 of this !
chapter; l
- 2. Label each disposal container (or transport package if potential ]
- radiation hazards preclude labeling of the individual disposal container) of waste to identify whether it is Class A waste, Class B waste, Class C waste, ;
or greater then Class C waste, in accordance with 5 61.55 of this chapter; l
- 3. Conduct a quality assurance program to assure compliance with Il 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter (the program must include management ,
evaluation of audits),
4 .' Prepare the NRC Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest as l required by this appendix; l
- 5. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-Level l Radioactive Waste Manifest to.the intended consignee so that et.her l (i) receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is {
56 l
.i h
l i
delivered to the consignee with the waste at the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also acceptable;
- 6. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph A.5 of this section;
- 7. Receive acknowltdgement of the receipt of the shipment in the form of a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
- 8. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-Level ;
Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter; and
- 9. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of receipt has'not been received within the times set forth in this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this appendix.
B. Any waste collector licensee who handles only prepackaged waste shall:
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from the shipper within one week of receipt by returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
- 2. Prepare a new manifest to reflect consolidated shipments that meet the requirements of this appendix. The waste collector shall ensure that, for >
each container of waste in the shipment, the manifest identifies the generator i of that container of waste;
- 3. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that either (1) .
receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is delivered to the consignee with the waste at the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (i) and (ii) is also acceptable;
- 4. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with the shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph B.3 of this section;
- 5. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the form of a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
- 6. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as ,
the record of transfer of licensed material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, <
40, and 70 of this chapter; ,
57 i
4 l
- 7. For any shipments or any part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of' receipt has not been received within the times set forth in 2
this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this :
appendix; and l
- 8. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest Commission j Regional Office listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment, or part i of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper that the shipment has been cancelled.
C. Any licensed waste processor who treats or repackages waste shall:
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste from the shipper within one week of receipt by returning a signed copy of NRC Form 540;
- 2. Prepare a new manifest that meets the requirements of this appendix.
Preparation of the new manifest reflects that the processor is responsible for ;
meeting these requirements. For each container of waste in the shipment, the manifest shall identify the waste generators, the preprocessed waste volume, and the other information as required in paragraph I.E. of this appendix; ;
- 3. Prepare all wastes so that the waste is classified according to 5 61.55 of this chapter and meets the waste characteristics requirements in l 5 61.56 of this chapter;
- 4. Label each package of waste to identify whether it is Class A waste, l Class B waste, or Class C waste, in accordance with il 61.55 ar.d 61.57 of l this chapter; !
- 5. Conduct a quality assurance program to assure compliance with j il 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter (the program shall include management j l'
evaluation of audits);
- 6. Forward a copy or electronically transfer the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest to the intended consignee so that either (i) receipt of the manifest precedes the LLW shipment or (ii) the manifest is delivered to the consignee with the waste at the time the waste is transferred to the consignee. Using both (1) and (ii) is also acceptable; l
- 7. Include NRC Form 540 (and NRC Form 540A, if required) with the I shipment regardless of the option chosen in paragraph C.6 of this section;
- 8. Receive acknowledgement of the receipt of the shipment in the form of a signed copy of NRC Form 540, i
t 1
58 i
i l
l
- 9. Retain a copy of or electronically store the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and documentation of acknowledgement of receipt as 1 the record of transfer of licensed material as required by 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter;
- 10. For any shipment or any part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of receipt has not been received within the times set forth in this appendix, conduct an investigation in accordance with paragraph E of this appendix; and
- 11. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest Comnission Regional Office listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper that the shipment has been cancelled.
D. The land disposal facility operator shall:
- 1. Acknowledge receipt of the waste within one week of receipt by returning, as a minimum, a signed copy of NRC Form 540 to the shipper. The shipper to be notified is the licensee who last possessed the waste and transferred the waste to the operator. If any discrepancy exists between materials listed on the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and materials received, copies or electronic transfer of the affected forms must be returned indicating the discrepancy;
- 2. Maintain copies of all completed manifests and electronically store the information required by 10 CFR 61.80(1) until the Commission terminates the license; and
- 3. Notify the shipper and the Administrator of the nearest Commission Regional Office listed in Appendix D of this part when any shipment, or part of a shipment, has not arrived within 60 days after receipt of an advance manifest, unless notified by the shipper that the shipment has been cancelled.
PART 61 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE
- 6. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
59
..______._m 5842, 5846); secs. 10 and 14, Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a and 5851) and Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
i
- 7. Section 61.12 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows: j i
6 61.12 Specific technical information. ':
- * * *
- l (n)' A description of the facility electronic recordkeeping system as ;
required in i 61.80.. ;
{
- 8. .Section 61.80 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and (1)(1), and adding paragraph (1) to read as follows: l i
i i 5 61.80 Maintenance'of records, reports, and transfers. !
l (f) Following receipt and acceptance of a shipment of radioactive waste, j the licensee shall record the date that the shipment is received at the !
I disposal' facility, the date of disposal of the waste, a traceable shipment {
manifest number, a description of any' engineered barrier or structural l
, overpack provided for disposal of the waste, the location of disposal at the i disposal site, the containment integrity of the waste disposal containers as l received, any discrepancies between materials listed on the manifest and those i received, the volume of any pallets, bracing, or other shipping or onsite f generated materials that are contaminated, and are disposed of as contaminated {
or suspect materials, and any evidence of leaking or damaged disposal .
containers or radiation or contamination levels in excess of limits specified l
in Department of Transportation and Commission regulations. The licensee }
shall briefly describe any repackaging operations of any of the disposal f containers included in the shipment, plus any other information required by l'
the Commission as a license condition. The licensee shall retain these records until'the Commission transfers or terminates the license that authorizes the activities described in this section.
4 I
60 i
i
(i)(1) Each licensee authorized to dispose of waste materials received from other persons, pursuant to this part, shall submit annual reports to the appropriate Comission regional office shown in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 20, with copies to the Director, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC, 20555. Reports must be submitted by the end of the first calendar quarter of each year for the preceding year.
-(1) In addition to the other. requirements of this section, the licensee shall store, or have stored, manifest and other information pertaining to receipt and disposal of radioactive waste in an electronic recordkeeping system.
(1) The manifest information that must be electronically stored is --
(i) That required in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix G, with the exception of shipper.and carrier telephone numbers and shipper and consignee ,
certifications; and ,
(ii) That information required in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) As specified in facility license conditions, the licensee shall i report the stored information, or subsets of this information, on a computer- i readable medium. !
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of , 1994. l l
For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. l l
John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary of the Comission.
61
ATTACHMENT 2 i
NRC UNIFORM LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST AND INSTRUCTIONS i
i l
1 l
l l
l l
- a. z- _ 2 - m ,ws-,, - --A- zt u- -- 4 x.-
-' k4O(S f YS*%ng@*,' $' M 4 #
8'IO Y "f #E'T
O*'O Mb N- .h / n'N jbp
- l (( g 11
,- u 4* I 3 j 8
ggl gg s;
r ll ,
, ,i g,,
{ 3:
- 1l8 e
g gj l. a:
l,y p_.*; (( [i1 jl .fj.j gl m
. l y
%,; w '
s ll ,
4 1 ,
.p
'o
!, j .
,l {li. e- .
+
,I.-'
8 _
l i l- !Ii .;
8 .
!. 1 i sin!
s str 1 g
i
)
n
.i I.
..ll I
Il ass l 1 1: 111 i fi '
!! !"#l . I !!!! l
,i i 2
4
. g . .
i l n 11 ; =
ll l i ll i,j j lj ll e
. 11 jl l.
, e .
li i i n ,
nl l
h si ,
. l 1
~' - -
l1 1 I I l ;
~
hll ll !
1 li! 11 9 I i
19,s i
ii-s~l i
al !X .
l.tnias-o ea j j gi _
g.
l 1
h b" 4easst m *,
- Weedse See e Deep gr 21 - Ash 30 CemeninHeestegeMade 33 Caus9ecableTrash ,
2 assess Die *e GooCyanser 21 M M h % unge gww $0rptlett SONtSfledleft i Pwees o,.m er Poe ,, e,,e,. % w. 21 one 32 en.d med % uset e asnes e;o,como 38 CE 33 CerennenseedEgeymeie 41 BusegiceiMusanaltomageenmielsecoeeg 91 Speem Dit te BefeTSort Se Oiemet 30 ft Peteest es C#ier MW 94 W Emmer Sirene I NeemiDeumePee 12 t>==*=y= c Deserte h M. Cenoiew te Cowr M O "4"**** l'888 38 09"88lhB8's W og 43 Aceisesed thewies M Ceaumse SS M N Dn M M90 M PoemenE S easedTene ertuer 13 pegh- -
20 Feuertandie 35 GeneseseerLeheese SS Omer Deenste en asse 11, 82. Fteur Oyf WB Ftees 71 Chemme30M1 79 A,ssees ame tier esacesmennuest h test 91 er p.
e W Ture e Leier 19 Cow M' sieen9. II 88*8'8"88 F" SS SeenedSeeseecesse e addibenet page Supaithe $F. Fluse R 72 h6582t3 77 AgumentB , sedesmal 9134eenan adetonal page F Pasyeevowie Tme ertener e edenenes page 23 EPA e She M 37 PoudorPteeng 91 94 Ot OS Seed A Sest 73 h WM <h ' page Si 1Ma,8Odestdo 100 Nameflagsmed .
e F- Tent e t aus, g.
nc ean. .e ".
', , ; meif
- h]: , [:a . $ $
I4 [].[h j JIhhjah;]f f j j' i f [1 j f f fijd[j tj ;) e
+ 7 .t . L , I , ,
,b :' ; I -
es 4-
. -s w
-+
' I e g} <
+
=
y
) , e
,C S( t s *
'. E G
A
'eN Ag_mh
'w a
==
,l y
w a
P t
- 'y I'e F
O n r
m e=
e m
e s e I !
e :-
k, N M a. m== u e r .h .w w
=
4 m E P . n e ~
G R w A C e, ' -
p
&?
\
- w P tL s-m s
.h a 1 A . w oo C
G aD ,N N
'a 0
8 O
L E
u n
e~w
! + i*
,f
$ D ,!
D.
S I
M R R
A u..
- s. .)
M E .
O N ,.N C I A
Y T b. w r N h R %
O O Id 4 T C A N { ,
L I -
U E .I' e
G P 1 f -
y E Y $ f R T R E .,t ,g .$ e A
T.,e T .$'
S .
E L
C A
W
. ,y
,a d
w w
U H l
. .), e N. C e +
S. A s c
e s
U E }
R m e f
9 O msC F S E n .[ r e
N D e ' w O L a -
I T A a h[ -
P C N I
a m ( w R e m -
C O a S
E n w D o E
T S _
A '
W e t r q _
E p O
k N I "a_
T e T A m m
U e C
gE3 t
N I s e
A T N r s
q O O M i k w I TC P N.
D S(N M i A
R EO FT C
E S
nN I
D -xe n d LI P a a
E N R cs . h V AC S r .
.to e.vN j E MED e v
- . d_,
F
- t ,- LE- E 1
2 WTT SS ia n
i y
OAWA a
a
' mM* . _
LWD M N A
SI R R a
.a -
r O E N e-r s a F I A cp a -
I a4 eh'e=
T N N rM p A U O C
u r sN O
a C
v N
OI U"av - -
T s N Yr ,
P I -
R m C
S E -
D R M*,_,
S A
E N &
I W". -
A -
T N
O
= g>
8 C - -
L A = +
S F _
O m P
S
_ + O t
g"n.=. .
e p:.=
)
A M 1
4 M M;."; .
E d
4 6
M e ;
R ;,
O-P MIT,,,,
l D'
C
, W _
C % -
~R" N s m .
. . 5
- T* ,iL '
=
.2 T
4 c ..
- s. . --
12." ?) s- m, Es?menTED WJIGOE98 PEft IDESPONgG 10 COMPLY wme De$ DIPORREATICUS CCELECTION PEQUFSF te0URS THIS IMPORM 4AANFEST S REQUPED SV MEC YO edEET REPcRTN3 REatatEasENTS OF FEDERAL A8dD STATE AGENCES DDR DE SArt APPROWEO BY OM9: tsO. 3130E86 TitasesromfavecM AssD amposAL or LowrEvEL waM Fon*AftD ComEMT5 REGARDNQ N E5NATE TO D4E Nm 4ND 8tECOROB angeAGEndENT GRAseCH (T4 E3g g 3 gaJREAft ItEguLATORY m WAmeeg10pt DC 6 EXPWEESr asut)DfYY me M'5c eaaT**on't e'c*w'*W NM'ee w w waw ae met wAwaqsww M m u.s.uuctEAn nEautarOnv commiSS' " '~ E""""
g rOnm 3 waste cettectonenocesson
"""" **'*Ea -
UNIFORM LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST CENTEAYtDN edutaBER MAMFEST INDEX AND nEGIONAL C000 PACT TA8ULATION ,
-~
Uut af artynal
- PROCESSED WASTE
- genershFS (ll any) PAGE 1 OF PAGE(S) tweere"CottECTEO WASTE generators
- *
- F e e is it. Agpgtrrrees w.ru sCTED 10TA GENERATom W454 N NUhABERCE L9CER gg oft lGesaw GEseERATost GEwmaven eM g0R t4ATBlhaQ W14[N WASTE tapt taATEfttAQ Cond'ACT A SoustCE EENTriCAftDM PGladtf 58VeeEst gF AretsCASLQ pacggyy p P* C S$EO & Spee C ACNTT R WJLUME ANDTE1840NE NUteER WOLLR8E REcewfD Ape 30 ATE gEgage IAATEMAL seuueER ADDRESS CF AECElPT C=M 3 Cft STATE DI De 40 $ste p=3) i 6
9 4
4
.4
.t t &,
TOTALS OF ALL PAGES (NRC FORMS 542 AND 542A)
- e.
- s WIM M M U)
. - =- _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ -_ _ _ - _
4 u n a M ia
<. M iakf . _ . -
~
4' g S
g >
A N
R "
O " i M
i e-a E' r N
T S
N E
S S 8 E E C
O 8" g R E 4 I P S .
1 a A '
I1 -
. e N 1
= )r O
I C
S R s
t M Em' U
O SAs M Ae 3g O t C i Y -
R ic O E T
T A AL f
s J t f
G' C E g R
R A EcnD E O* M L C* C C*r E C L U Ee T
L O
Ss N. arce S WePC E &
NNM IA R s II E UfR' D d
T S
I'Dw EI L
I 8
A .
I C E NO) IW F
I N AT I IMNF A U 8 s N M 9TN D E
E O S S
T C( EE CS ME s R3 S N OAA 8 L
A O RW'M P
WTA E I
R P
P r
E L U
V BA I
T T .
D O R
.
- A C L OvS Tf S R AN A I.E t 2RD L O I GAtD OFA E G C V ER E
L- N D A
WX O
L p DE d
e -
T M S R EF I k O N E L
F AM I
GR A E
.Cs N Etu dp u I
U mPs tNAe E FE
- 0 O 1R A
tEP H
ehEE L DquE T Ge TO E P fnA t
E P
S RU OTR T
A AE n, A R1C M n 2
4 ETF E DNO A
6 OE M
t f
W ~
O f
Cis fv t -
Nm * -
i:
i GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE NRC UNIFORM LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST The Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest consists of the
-following forms:
(1) NRC Form 540 and 540A': Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper) and continuation page; (2) NRC Form 541 and 541A: Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description) and continuation page; and (3) NRC Form 542 and 542A: Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Manifest Index & Regional Compact Tabulation) and continuation page.
The entities who must comply with manifesting regulations are defined in
' Appendix G, Section I, to 10 CFR Part 20. Typically, all shipments of low-level radioactive waste for which the consignee is a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility are subject to NRC manifesting requirements.
With exceptions, as defined in the regulations, shipments of low-level radioactive waste (as determined by the consignor within the definitions in the regulation) to waste processors or waste collector' prior to ultimate disposal of the radioactivity at a licensed disposal facility, are also subject to these manifesting requirements. Note that State or Compact manifesting requirements l may encompass shipments beyond those defined by the NRC.
NRC Form 540 shall be completed by specified shippers of low-level radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility.
NRC Form 541 shall be completed by specified shippers of low-level
- Forms 540 and 540A and their respective instructions are based on Department of Transportation regulations, including changes issued on
( FR ).(UPDATE)
I i
radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility, unless agreement has been reached between appropriate parties to transmit the required information electronically.
NRC Form 542 should be completed by processors and collectors of low-level radioactive waste, who are shipping low-level radioactive waste attributed to others for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility, unless l agreement has been reached between appropriate parties to transmit the required j information electronically. l l'
Note: The NRC encourages all users of the Uniform Manifest forms to report information in metric units, and all the forms have been developed for the use of metric units. NRC Form 540 must use metric units as required by D0T regulations, with the exception of Item 18 (Total Weight or Volume) in which DOT allows the shipper to specify appropriate units. In Item 16 (Total Package Activity in SI Units), DOT allows reporting of English units following International System of Units-(SI) units. NRC Forms 541 and 542 are designed for metric reporting and NRC encourages users to use the specified units.
However, if the consignor, consignee, and others having authority over reporting requirements agree, English units or metric and English units may be used. In this case, the shipper would need to appropriately modify the forms to insure no misleading information is reported.
Note: Information in these instructions that is typed in itaffes is not required by Federal law or regulation. Radioactive shipments that are not manifested under NRC regulations must continue to comply with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.
LISTED IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE THE ITEMS OF INFORMATION THAT ARE FEDERALLY REQUIRED OR OTHERWISE NEEDED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE UNIFORM LOW-LEVEL l RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST. AN EXPLANATION OR REFERENCE FOR EACH ITEM IS )
INCLUDED TO ASSIST YOU IN PROPERLY COMPLETING THE FORM. PLEASE CALL THE 1
DESIGNATED CONSIGNEE, THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (301-415-6756),
2 j
OR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (202-366-4488) IF YOU SHOULD NEED CLARIFICATION OF ANY OF.THE ITEMS.
t f
k i
l l
i l
l
)
l I
3 ,
1
.-.. __ - . - - . . ~
NRC Form 540: UNIFORM LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST (Shinoina Paner)
NRC Form 540 must be completed for shipments of low-level radioactive ,
i waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility. The majority of the information on NRC Form 540 is needed to meet DOT shipping j paper requirements for radioactive material shipments. The following provide general instructions. Details regarding DOT requirements can be found in 49 CFR Part 172.
b
- 1. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER - The shipper shall provide an emergency
, response telephone number or numbers for use in the event of an emergency.
If a single number applies to every entry on the shipping papers, enter this number in the space provided. If multiple numbers are required, each individual number must be entered in Item 11, immediately following the applicable description of the radioactive material. Enter the name of the organization responsible for providing the emergency response information.
Note that additional emergency response information must be available and presented in accordance with 49 CFR Part 172.602. ;
- 2. IS THIS AI. ? EXCLUSIVE USE" SHIPMENT? - The shipper shall answer by checking "yes" or "no." See 49 CFR Part 172.203. If "yes," then specific instructions for maintenance of exclusive use shipment controls must be provided by the shipper to the carrier and must be included with the shipping paper as required at 49 CFR Part 173.403.
- 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF PACKAGES IDENTIFIED ON THIS MANIFFST - Indicate the total number of packages listed on this manifest.
- 4. DDES EPA REGULATED WASTE REQUIRING A MANIFEST ACCOMPANY THIS SHIPMENT? -
If the answer to this question is "Yes", then the shipper shall complete the Uplicable EPA manifest and attach it to the NRC Form 540. The shi,,per should also identify the EPA manifest number in the space provided (if acceptable to the consignee, the manifest number appearing in item 8 4
1 i
I i
of NRC Forn 540 nay be identic ! to the EPA manifest number).
- 5. SHIPPER - Indicate the company or facility name, facility address, contact '
^
. person, and telephone number. If appilcable, indicate the permit or other sinflar number assigned to the shipper by the appropriate host State in l which the designated licensed ;'isposal facility is located. Indicate ;
whether the shipper is a waste generator, collector or processor, as 3 defined ~in th'e regulation, by checking the appropriate box. If you are a f generator, enter one of the following letter codes (Government - G, Fuel l Cycle Industry - FC, Nuclear Power - NP, University (Academic) - A, l Nedical - N, Industrial - 1, Other - 0) in the " GENERATOR TYPE" space.
l The space for a shipper identification number is provided for the shipper to record a number, if any, assigned to the shipper by the consignee or the designated disposal facility operator. A space provided under the heading, " SHIPMENT NUMBER," is provided for any use deemed appropriate by the shipper.
- 6. CARRIER - Indicate either the carrier's name, address, contact person, telephone number, or the carrier's name and EPA.icentification number.
Also include the shipping date. Upon receipt of the shipment, an authorized carrier representative will acknowledge shipment receipt by signing and dating in the space provided.
- 7. Enter the total number of pages for faQ set of NRC Forms (i.e., Forms 540 and 540A, Forms 541 and 541A, and forms 542 and 542A). In addition, identify the number of pages of additional information (e.g., host State),
that requires a separate page or pages, that is a part of this manifest.
If an EPA manifest accompanies the NRC Forns, do not include its pages in Iten 7.
If NRC Forn 542 or additional pages are not part of this manifest, enter "None" in the appropriate blank.
If only NRC Form 540 (and 540A, if necessary) is intended to physically accompany the shipment (e.g., the shipper is electror,ically, or otherwise, 5
providing NRC Forms 541 and 542, and any additional information separately to the consignee), then this must be indicated by placing a parentheses around the number of pages entered for NRC Forms 541, 542, and additional informatlon.
- 8. MANIFEST NUMBE8 - A traceable manifest number of at least four number / letter characters must be entered by the shipper. This number may be dictated by the consignee of the low-level radioactive waste (e.g., the waste processor, waste collector, or licensed disposal site operator) prior to the shipment.
- 9. Q15193ff - Indicate the company or facility name, address, contact persan, and telephone number. Upon receipt of the shipment, an authorized person at the facility will acknowledge shipment receipt by signing and dating in the space provided.
- 10. CEP.TIf!*ATIDH - The certifiction on the manifest must be signed and dated by the person responsible for the packaging and labeling operations. The person must also be authorized to sign on the behalf of the shipping company or facility.
- 11. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESCRIPTION (Includino oroner shionina name. hazard class. UN ID Number and any additional information) - The requirement for providing this information is contained within DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 172.202. For purposes of transportation in commerce, DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 172.101 provide a listing of hazardous materials. If this information is required, the shipper shall use the exact descriptors, in the order specified, contained within the DOT regulations. Additional description requirements (e.g., indication of Reportable Quantity and NRC Certificate of Compliance, if applicable) are specified at 49 CFR Part 172.203.
- 12. DOT LABEL "RADI0 ACTIVE" - See DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 172.203 and 49 CFR Part 172.403. Indicate the type of radioactive label which appears on the package (White - I, Yellow II, or Yellow III). The shipper does 6
not need to repeat the word, "RADI0 ACTIVE." If no label is required by DOT, place "NA" in this column.
- 13. TRANSPORT INDEX - See DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 173.403. This is a dimensionless number, which, for nonfissile material packages, is equivalent to the radiation dose rate in millirem per hour at one meter from the surface of the package. The Transport Index is placed on the label of a package, designating the degree of control necessary during transportation. If reporting of the Transport Index is not required, place "NA" in this column.
- 14. PHYSICAL AND CHEMI %L FORM - See DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 172.203.
Describe the physical form of the contents of the package as " Solid",
" Liquid", or " Gas". - List the most prevalent chemical form, i.e.,
cellulose, Na, cement, metallic oxides, etc. Additional generic information on material description may be included, as needed, to satisfy requirements of shipment consignee. Further information on the physical and chemical description of the waste is required on NRC Form 541.
- 15. INDIVIDUAL RADIONUCLIDES - See DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 172.203 and official abbreviations in 49 CFR Part 173.435. List all radionuclides that are present in the transport package. The element symbol may be immediately followed by the nuclide's mass number i.e., a dash is not needed. A semicolon and space should separate the listing of multiple nuclides.
- 16. TOTAL PACKAGE ACTIVITY IN SI UNITS - Report the total activity in the transport package in SI units (e.g., megabecquerels). If desired, this activity may also be reported in units of millicuries, in parentheses, below the listing in SI units.
- 17. .LSA/SCO CLASS - See DOT Regulations at 49 CFR Part 172.203. For a shipment of. low specific activity material or surface contaminated objects, provide the appropriate group notation.
7
I
Using the most appropriate units, identify the total weight or total volume (net or gross as appropriate) of the material identified in Item 11.
- 19. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF PAC:1.iE - For each package, a package ,
identification number, unique among the individual package identification numbers within the shipment, should be provided. Both numbers and letters may be used. :
DO NOT WRITE IN THE AREA LABELED "FOR CONSIGNEE USE ONLY". THIS AREA HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY TO ALLOW EACH DISPOSAL FACILITY TO RECORD DISCREPANCIES, BURIAL INFORNATION, ETC. (The information in this space is to be determined by the individual consignees.)
Use NRC Form 540A if additional space is needed to describe this shipment.
Indicate the page number, total Form 540 and 540A pages, and the manifest number reported in Item 8. !
i l
)
l 8
1
l i
i NRC Form 541: UNIFORM LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST !
(Container and Waste Descrintion) f
- This form must be completed by shippers of low-level radioactive waste as l
[ defined on page 1, unless the information is being transmitted electronically, j i as noted on pages 1 and 2 of these instructions, i; i In the cases where waste shipments are to a consignee other than the ;
) disposal facility operator and/or are uncontainerized, not all the information !
is required by NRC regulations. For shipments of containerized waste to a ,
consignee other than the disposal facility operator, the information requested l under the heading, " DISPOSAL CONTAINER DESCRIPTION", Items 5 through 10, and ;
" Waste Clae.sification", Item 16, is not required by NRC regulations. (Note l
^
that container information, however, may be required by the consignee). !
For all shipments of uncontainerized waste, Items 5, 6, and 10 are not l
! applicable; the volume of the waste would be reported in Item 7, the weight of
!. the waste in Item 8, and surface radiation levels in Item 9. For those
< uncontainerized wastes shipped to a consignee other than the disposal facility operator, the information requested in Items 9 and 16 is also not required by NRC regulations.
- 1. MANIFEST TOTALS - Indicate the total number of low-level waste disposal containers described on this manifest (the total number of low-level waste
containers may be listed, if the consignee is not a licensed low-level waste disposal facility), the total net waste volume (cubic meters), and the total net weight (kilograms). 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix G requires separate manifest totals for tritium (H-3), C-14, Tc-99, I-129, U-233, U-235, Pu-239, and uranium and thorium in source material. For the first I- four nuclides, enter the totals in megabecquerels (MBq) in the appropriate boxes. If the radionuclides are not present, place "NP" in the 4
appropriate space. If the radionuclides exist, but are in quantities less
! than the lower limit of detection (LLD) in all containers within a 2
shipment, the quantities of the nuclides must be recorded as the sum of the LLD values (with the summed value included in parentheses). If both
]-
detectable and quantities based on LLD values of radionuclides exist in ;
containers making up a shipment, the sum of the detectable and "LLD-based" 4
i 9 j
l v
l
l 1
l
~
'l r values shall be reported separately, the latter in parentheses. The total l activity for all nuclides onLthe manifest (excluding LLD values) must be. l indicated in'the "ALL NUCLIDES" column.- l i
i Also indicate the total manifested quantity'of uranium and thorium in '
l source material '(kilograms) and special nuclear material (grams), f including uranium and thorium in unimportant quantities defined in j 10 CFR Part 40.13. Note: The' mass being requested is not the weight of. l the waste containing these nuclides. Ensure that the totals in grams for ,
l U-233, U-235 and Plutonium equal the grand total of the weight of these :
nuclides in Special Nuclear Material. Indicate the total number of - :
I disposal containers containing each type of SNM. i
'2. MANIFEST NUMBER - Transfer the manifest number from NRC Form 540, Item 8.
l
- 3. Page 1 of page(s) - Include the total number of Form 541 and 541A l pages, t
- 4. -SHIPPER NAME AND 10 NUNBER - Same as reported in Item 5 of NRC Form 540. l NOTE: SEE LEAD IN DISCUSSION ON FORM 541 REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF f ITEMS 5 THROUGH 10.
l
! 5. CONTAINER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER / GENERATOR ID NUMBERfS) - Provide a j disposal container identification number unique among the individual j container identification numbers within the shipment (both numbers and letters may be used). Also indicate ID number (s) of the generator (s) i I
L contributing waste to the disposal container. If more than one disposal i container is assigned to a single generator, the generator ID number need not be repeated. Note that the definition of " generator" identified in this item includes (a) " waste generators" as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix G and (b) those licensees to which waste can be reasonably attributed, in the context of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy i Amendments Act of 1985, as a result of processing, decontamination, or transfers of radioactive materials. .
1 10 N
_r __ --_ . _ _ . _m - .-_: .__ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _- - . _
1 The spacing between the vertical listings of generator ID numbers in this :
column (if more than one generator contributes waste to a single disposal container) shall allow for the recording, on an individual generator basis, of all information required under the heading, " Waste Description for Each Waste Type In Container." Note that information on discrete waste types (i.e., activated material, contaminated equipment, mechanical ,
filter, or sealed source / device wastes or individual disposal container
~
wastes contained in different solidification / stabilization media) is a
requested. No more than one generator should be Ifsted per outlined row.
Individual consignees (e.g., disposal facility operators) may require more extensive breakdowns of radiological descriptions (e.g., for Class AS or i AU waste). }
- 6. CONTAINER DESCRIPTION - Using the codes found in Note 1 at the bottom of NRC Form 541, describe the disposal container. When Code 13 (High
. Integrity Container) is used, also identify the manufacturer and\or the ;
l model number. NRC and/or host State Certificate of Compliance Number (s) should be identified, as appropriate. If Code 19, "Other" is used, describe the container in Item 6. If the explanation is not entored in l Item 6 (the preferred method), enter, "see additional page", and provide the description on that page. The additional page must be included in the
" additional information" total pages called for in Item 7 of NRC Form 540. l If the container and waste require disposal in an approved structural overpack, the letters "-0P" must be entered following the appropriate code number. ,
I
- 7. YQLW E (CUBIC METERS) - As a minimur., indicate the volume of the outside dimensions of each container to the nearest hundredth of a cubic meter.
Consignees (e.g., disposal facility operators) may require a greater sensitivity of measurement. f or volumes of less than 1 cubic meter, I always include a zero in front of the decimal. For bulk unpackaged waste or unpackaged components or equipment, enter the estimated volume of the waste.
11
J I
)
- 8. WASTE AND CONTAINER WEIGHT (KILOGRAM 3) - List the combined weight, in i kilograms, of the container plus the contents. For uncontainerized waste, j provide the weight of the' waste. Consignees may require specific
-sensitivities of measurenent. j i
- 9. SURFACE RADIATION LEVEEv/hr or mSv/hr) - Indicate the radiation level l on contact with the disposai container or uncontainerized waste. If. this 4 level does not represent the highest radiation level on the disposal l container provide additional' descriptive information. Select appropriate ;
units for the entire page. Do not use "BKG" for background levels unless f 6 the background level is indicated in this column. l
> l
' 10, SURFACE CONTAMINATION (MBo/100 ca"): ALPHA. BETA-GAMMA - Record the !
i results of contamination surveys performed on the disposal container. Do ;
- not use "BKG" for background levels unless the background level is l indicated in this column. Estinated values are acceptable if potential l occupatlonal exposures linit survey data collectfon. .
- 11. WASTE DESCRIPT0R - Using the codes found in Note 2 at the bottom of NRC-
- Form 541, indicate the codes which most specifically describe the type of l
- waste in the container. For discrete waste types (i.e., activated ;
. r fo s c a d d ff e fic t ns i za on ;{
the spacing between these vertical listings of waste descriptors or medias j i
(if more than one waste type or media is included in a single disposal ,
1 container) shall allow for the provision of radiological descriptions on :
an individual waste descriptor and individual solidification / stabilization ;
media basis. Individual consignees (e.g., disposal facility operators) j nay require more extensive breakdowns of radiological descriptions. If j Code 59, "Other", is used, a written explanation is required. The preferred option is to include the explanation in Item 11, but if i
. additional' space is required, enter "see additional page" in Item 11. The :
additional page must be included in the " additional information" total l pages called for in Item 7 of NRC Form 540. ;
i 12 !
1 E ,.
If the waste descriptor (e.g., activated material) is intended to provide the basis for defining the waste as a waste form meeting the structural stability requirements, defined in applicable NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 61.56(b) or disposal site requirements, a letter, "-S", must be entered in Item 13.
- 12. APPROXIMATE WASTE VOLUME (S) IN CONTAINER - Indicate the approximate volume in cubic meters of containerized waste, as applicable, by generator, waste descriptor (if activated material, contaminated equipment, mechanical filter, or sealed source / device waste or waste contained in differant solidification / stabilization media). ">85%" may be entered if (1) the disposal container " fill volume" exceeds 85%; (2) the disposal container does not contain the aforementioned discrete wastes, together or mixed with other waste types and does not contain more than one solidification / stabilization media; and (3) the external volume reported in Item 7 is approximately equal to the internal disposal container volume. ,
1
- 13. SORBENT. SOLIDIFICATION. STABILIZATION MEDIA - All shipments must use the j codes found in Note 3 at the bottom of NRC Form 541. Indicate the codes which identify the material used to solidify or absorb waste material. l The spacing between the vertical listings of media descriptors (if more l than one media descriptor is included in a single disposal container) ;
shall allow for the provision of radiological descriptions on an individual " media-descriptor" basis. Individual consignees may require ;
more extensive breakdowns of radiological descriptions. Similarly, i individual disposal facilities may require solidification of certain l wastes (e.g., oil) in specified media and may require identification of \
media vendor or brand name. If Code 89 or 99, "Other", is used, a written explanation is required. The preferred option is to include the i explanation in Item 13, but if additional space is required, enter "see additional page", in Item 13. The additional page must be included in the
" additional information" total pages called for in Item 7 of NRC Form 540.
If the solidification process is intended to stabilize the waste in 13
t l
accordance with applicable NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 61.56(b) and ,
disposal site requirements, a letter, "-5, v.ust be antered following the :
appropriata code number. Note that all Class B and C wastes must meet l stability _ requirements. For all wastes claimed to meet the aforementioned stability requirements, the vendor and brand name of the stabilization media must be identified in this column.
- 14. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION - List the most prevalent chemical forms of the waste. Information in Item 14 should expand upon the chemical form description in Item 14 of NRC Form 540. If animal carcasses were coded in ,
Item 11, the chemical form should include the word " LIME," if applicable, in addition to any other significant chemicals. Also indicate the name of the chelating agents which are present in amounts greater than 0.1% by 1 weight of waste. Specify the percent in the column under the heading
" Weight % Chelating Agent if greater than 0.1%." If chelating agents are :
I not present indicate "NP." If chelating agents represent less than 0.1%
by weight, indicate "0" in the space provided. If wastes were generated j from large decontamination processes (e.g., LOMI, Can-Decon, Citrox, etc.) j indicate the process in this column. If an additional sheet describing l the content of these wastes is needed, note this in Item 7 of NRC l Form 540.
- 15. RADIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION - This information may be presented in either of I two ways. First, list all significant radionuclides followed by their respective activities in Mbequerels that are present in the waste in each container and for each waste generator (e.g., if waste from more than one generator is contained in a single container). Daughter products shall be either individually reported or, if within a factor of 2 of being in equilibrium with its (their) parent, shall be reported as the parent with its activity listed, but with the symbol "D" or "NAT" indicating daughter j products in equilibrium (e.g., Cs-137D or ThNAT). For waste included j within a single container, the significant radionuclides and their l respective activities shall be separately reported for discrete waste types (i.e., activated materials, contaminated equipment, mechanical '
filters, and sealed source / devices and wastes in 14 l
l l;
l
- solidification / stabilization media). Other wastes may be described by a l combination of waste descriptor codes and, as a result, the radionuclides ;
p and activities may be reported a: a combined total. After listing of the individua1' radionuclides as described above, enter the word " Total" on a j new line and enter the total activity contained in the container. j i
QB, alternatively, for containers containing a single waste type, enter l
!. the total Mbequerels in the container (for each waste generator,-if waste l from more than one generator is included in a single container) and enter !
the percent of each radionuclide. Always include the "%" sign when using l this option. l l
Individual consignees may require more extensive breakdowns of I
4 radiological descriptions or may not allow the alternative nethod of
} reporting described above.
Note: Uranium and thorium activity in source material and U-233, U-235, and plutonium in special nuclear _ material must be reported in
- megabecquerels, and must be respectively followed in parentheses, either
! adjacent or below, by a-listing of the quantity of these isotopes in kilograms or grams, as appropriate. Such reporting must include the l' appropriate "kg" or "g" abbreviation.
1 3
A radionuclide shall be determined to be "significant" if it is contained i in the waste in concentrations greater than 0.01 times the concentration
- of that nuclide listed in Table 1 of 10 CFR Part 61.55 or 0.01 times the
, smallest concentration of that nuclide listed in Table 2 of 10 CFR Part
} ' 61.55. A radionuclide other than one listed in the tables is considered significant if it is contained in the waste in concentrations greater than 0.26 megabecquerels/cm'. Furthermore, any radionuclide whose activity represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations or is 0.01 or more of.the total activity within the disposal container should be listed even
- if the above concentration criteria are not met. Listing only the most abundant radionuclides or the category " mixed fission products" is not
~
15 e- - , - -
.a m - , , - - , w ---r ,, , , w ,- -
.- -. - . . . ~ . - . . - . .-. _. -- --
f l
s acceptable. Use official abbreviations only. l l
To save space, two nuclides and their respectiva activities may be entered j on each ifne in this bisected column. Additionni nuclides and their l l respective activities may be entered on subsequent ifnes that may be }
}
included in each "outilned" row; that is, the Ifnes separating rows are not intended to limit the vertical reporting of nuclides and activities, ;
- but are provided to aid the transcription and readability of the provided informatfon. i t
1
- 16. WASTE CLASSIFICATION - Using the following codes, indicate waste classification and the structural stability of the waste in accordance with applicable NRC requirements or requirements in the radioactive material license applicable at the disposal facility to which the waste !
is/will be consigned. Waste generators shipping to processors need not complete this item.
AS - Class A Stable AU - Class A Unstable B - Class B ,
C - Class C l BU or CU (unstable class B or C) may be used to classify waste :
requiring appropriate handling or processing at a disposal facility i to achieve required stability. If Greater-than-Class C wastes are j shipped, use "GTCC" (see 10 CFR Part 61.7(b)(5)).
- e i
P Use NRC Form 541A if additional space is needed to describe this shipment, j Indicate the page number, total number of Form 541 and 541A pages, and the i manifest number from NRC Form 540, Item 8. )
I l
l 4
16
. _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ . . _ - . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ._ _ . _
h NRC Forn 542:' UNIFORN' LOW-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE WASTE MANIFEST l i
(Manifest Index and Realonal Cononct Tabulation) l 1. WASTE COLLECTOR / PROCESSOR Complete the collector or processor's nane,10 }
number, and~the shipping date. Space has also been provided for any use l deemed appropriate by the shipper. l
~ 2. MANIFEST NUMBER - Transfer the manifest number from NRC Forn 540, Iten 8. ;
f ;
- 3. Page 1 of Page(s) - Include the total number of Forn 542 and 542A pages.
i
} '4. GENERATOR IDENTIFICATION NUMBER - Each row should include one of the }
} generator ID numbers from NRC Forn 541, Iten 5. All generator numbers )
^
associated with generators to whon low-level radioactive waste is being attributed, should appear in this column.
i S. GENERATOR NAME. PERNIT NUMBER (IF APPLICABLE) AND TELEPHONE NUMBER - In l the space provided, specify the information requested on the generator to whon waste is being attributed. List one and only one generator, and accompanying information, in each block. If permit number is reported in Iten 4, it need not be repeated here. Provide the generator information requested in Itens 6 through 11 in the same row.
l
- 6. GENERATOR FACILITY ADDRESS - List the complete address of the generator's i facility that has contributed low-level waste to the shipment. List one
- and only one generator address in block consistent with the generatcc information provided in Iten 5.
4 l
i
'7, PREPROCESSED WASTE FOR NATERIAL) VOLUME - Indicate the approximate volume in cubic noters (not including the container) of the preprocessed waste or material. This is the volume of waste or naterial received from the
< consignor's facility. This information may be that indicated on the consignor's NRC Forn 541, Iten 12, or the shipping paper un, .
l facilitate the transfer of radioactive material. l 1
l 17 i
)
i
i i -
i
'8. MANIFEST NUMBER (S) UNDER WHICH WASTE (CR NATERIAL) RECEIVED AND DATE l
- 0F RECEIPT - List the previous manifest number (s) appilcable to the low-level waste that has been attributed to the generator listed 'in Iten 5, l
> 'and date(s) nf waste or material receipt by the shipper identified in Iten 5 of NRC Forn 540.
- 9. WASTE CODE: PROCESSED OR COLLECTED - Indicate the proper waste code, "P" !
or "C", using the definitions of waste processor and waste collector contained in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix G. Do not nix processed and h
collected waste on the same line, Ifst separately.
b '10. ORIGINATING COMPACT REGION OR STATE - Identify the originating compact region, or unaffiliated state, in the space provided. The information to
}. te provided in this column is for the original generator of the waste, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix G, Section I. For each generator .
Ifsted in Iten 5, provide the information in the same row. State abbreviations may be used. Compact abbreviations may be used when it i cannot be confused with a State abbreviation (do not use 2 letter Compact abbreviatfons).
- 11. AS PROCESSEDICOLLECTED TOTAL - For each original generator in Iten 5, Ifst
.the total Source Material (in kilograms) Special Nuclear Material (in grans), activity (in Mbequerels) contained in the waste, and the volume l [in cubic neters) attributed to that generator. Special Nuclear Material and Source Material are defined in 10 CFR Parts 70.4 and 40.4,
. respectively.
I Total of all (NRC Forn 542 and 542A) Pages - In the space provided, i
- Indicate the totals for Items 11 A through 11 0 that are reported on all pages of the NRC Forn 542 and 542A. Do not include subtotals.
Use NRC Fore 542A if additional space is needed to describe this shipment.
1 Indicate the page number, total number of Forn 542 and 542A pages, and the manifest number from NRC Forn 540, Iten 8.
18
,_.i -- -_ . . .-
t l
ATTACHMENT 3 1
REGULATORY ANALYSIS l
i l
i l
l l
i i
(
l I
t ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY ;
9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439 !
i t
REGULATORY ANALYSIS LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING !
By i l
Philip H. Kier i
Decision and Information Sciences Division t
and i
Natalia K. Meshkov ;
Energy Systems Division October 1994 work sponsored by ;
b U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
i 8 '"
73 g.
i CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................... iii ,
1 STATEMENT O F TH E PRO BLEM - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Background ........................................... 1 1.2 NRC Responsibilities and information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1 Technical Studies for Disposal Facility Licensing ............4 1.2.2 Monitoring Adequacy of LLW Disposal Regulations ..........5 1.2.3 Development of New Regulations ...................... 6 1.2.4 Inspection of Licensees ............................. 7 '
1.2.5 Emergency Access Determinations ..................... 7 -
1.2.6 Other Technical Studies and Analyses ...................8 1.3 Problems with Current Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.1 Issues with Existing Shipment Manifests .................8 1.3.2 lasues with Disposal Facility Recordkeeping ..............10 1.3.3 Access to information .............................. 10 1.4 Waste Tracking Objectives of the Amendments Act .............11
- 2. OBJECTIVES .............................................. 12
- 3. ALTERNATIVES ............................................ 12 3.1 Alternative 1: No Change ................................ 12 3.2 Alternative 2: Amend Parts 20 and 61 ...................... 13 3.2.1 Shipment Manifest Information ....................... 13 3.2.2 Use of a Uniform Manifest .......................... 16 3.2.3 Requirements for Recordkeeping for Disposal Facilities . . . . . . 17 and Reporting
- 4. CONSEQUENCES ........................................... 17 4.1 Facility Design ........................................ 17 ,
4.2 Accountability for LLW .................................. 19 4.3 Im proved Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.4 Industry implementation Costs ............................ 20 4.4.1 Uniform Manifest ................................ 21 4.4.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping System . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.4.3 Reporting on a Computer-Readable Medium .............. 25 i
CONTENTS (cont.)
4.5 Industry Opera tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 i 4.5.1 Shipment Manifest Preparation ....................... 25 4.5.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.5.3 Reporting of Manifest Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 34 4.6 NRC Costs ........................................... 35 4.6.1 Implementation ................................... 35 4.6.2 Operations ...................................... 36 4.7 Regulat ory Ef ficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.8 Summary of Costs to Industry and the NRC ...................36
- 5. DECISION RATIONALE ....................................... 40
- 6. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................... 40
- 7. EFFECT ON SMALL ENTITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
- 8. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ANALYSIS ........................ 42 8.1 Justification .......................................... 43 8.2 Description of the information Collection ..................... 45 -
l 8.3 Estimate of the Burden .................................. 46 l 8.4 Cost to the Federal Government ........................... 53
- 9. REFERENCES .............................................. 56 i APPENDIX ...................................................... 59 l
TABLES l
4-1 Projected Effects of Amendments on Facility Design and Accountability for LLW 20 4-2 Net Additional Fields on the Uniform Manifest Compared with ........... 29 US Ecology Manifest !
4-3 LLW Shipments for Disposal, 1987-1991 ......................... 30 4-4 Summary of estimated Costs to Industry and the NRC ................39 8-1 Data Fields on the Uniform Manifest and Their Entry Times .............55 8-2 Summary of Information Collection Costs ......................... 56 A-1 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests- Form 540 . . . . . 59 A-2 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests- Form 541 .....62 ;
A-3 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests- Form 542 . . . . . 64 I ii l
ABSTRACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations in 10 CFR !
Parts 20 and 61 to: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained in !
manifests that are required to control transfer of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) that is ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms that allows LLW to be tracked from its origin, that serves as a national Uniform Low Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, and that meets NRC, U.S. Department of Transportation, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal facility operators to electronically store container specific information in the Uniform Manifest documents; and (4) require the disposal facility operator to report the stored Uniform Manifest information on a computer-readable medium, in broad terms, these amendments are intended to assure the availability of information needed for the regulation and safe operation of LLW disposal j 2
facilities; and to assure that the chain of custody of LLW, from generation through collection or processing to disposal, can be tracked. They would also enhance NRC's ability to achieve the objectives of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
A regulatory analysis of the costs and benefits of the amendments has been completed. We estimate that the annual operations costs for industry and the NRC would range from $61,000 to $127,000, and that, depending on the number of manifest forms that the Uniform Manifest supplants, the costs to industry for implementation would range from about $634,000 to a savings of about $1,200,000. (To put these costs in perspective, annual fees at LLW disposal facilities are expected to be approximately $220 million.) Any costs ;
described above may be offset by relatively large benefits that cannot be quantified. For I example, the enhanced availability of information could speed up the licensing process for new disposal facilities, so that long term storage costs or charges for disposal of LLW generated in non-sited compact regions or unaffiliated States could be minimized. The enhanced availability of information could also reduce costs associated with data uncertainties. By improving accountability for LLW, the amendments will reduce the likelihood of disposal of LLW in other than licensed disposal facilities and will thereby reduce risk to the public health and safety.
j
. . - - - .~
i i
REGULATORY ANALYSIS LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING i
- 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM i
1.1 Background
Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is disposed of at land disposal facilities licensed by ;
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or by Agreement States,i.e., States that have ;
entered into an agreement with the NRC under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as >
amended (42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.), and have the authority to regulate the disposal of LLW >
under such agreements.
LLW may be shipped to a disposal facility in several wsys, it may be shipped directly from a waste generator or it may be shipped from r waste collector or processor. A waste collector is a licensee who typically handles prepac kaged waste from hospitals, laboratories, )
or other licensees who generate only small volumes of waste. Waste collectors also ,
frequently prepare shipment manifests for their customers. Waste processors receive waste from other licensees (generators, collectors, or other processors) and either repackage the i waste or change its chemical or physical characteristics. For example, a waste processor may l compact or incinerate the waste, or segregate contaminated waste from non-contaminated 4 waste. A single container of waste shipped from a waste processor or a waste collector may contain wastes from several generators. Data for the years 1986-1990 indicate that about 15% of LLW shipments to disposal facilities were handled by collectors or processors.
(However, a representative of a waste processor indicated that in 1990 approximately 50%
of the waste by volume delivered to disposal facility was from processors and collectors).
Each shipment of LLW is accompanied by a set of documents, collectively referred to as shipment manifests. These are large, detailed documents that contain the information required by NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 (Section 20.1006 and Appendix F), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR Part 172, and State requirements (imposed as conditions in disposal facility licenses).
I l
i
The NRC has compiled characteristics of LLW disposed of during 1987 through 1989 in NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990). In this period, disposal facilities received an average of 4548 shipments annually, and the average number of containers per shipment was 27. The average annual volume of waste was 1.64 x 10e cubic feet with an average annual activity of 4.65 x 10' cunes. The generators contributing waste were classified as utilities, private industry, hospitals, colleges and universities, and governments. The utilities class includes commercial nuclear power reactors. The private industry class includes research and development companies, manufacturers, mining, fuel fabrication facilities, and radiopharmaceutical manufacturers. The colleges and universities class includes university hospitals and university medical and nonmedical research facilities. The governmental class includes state and federal agencies. State agencies generally do not handle radioactive materials; however, some may be tasked with the cleanup and remediation of radioactively contaminated sites. The largest contributors were utilities (54% of the waste by volume and 84% by activity) and private industry (35% by volume and 15% by activity).
Over the last five years, three LLW disposal facilities have operated: the Barnwell, S.C.
facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (CNSI), and the Richland, Wash. and Beatty Nov. facilities operated by U.S. Ecology (USE). All these facilities are in Agreement States. I l
in the period 1987-1989, Bamwell received 61% of the waste by volume (82.7% by I l
activity); Richland received 28% of the waste by volume (12.8% by activity); and Beatty ;
1 received 11% of the weste by volume (4.5% by activity). Currently, the Beatty facility has l l
closed and a facility operated by Envirocare for the disposal of certain low-activity LLW has opened in Clive, Utah. The Barnwell facility is planned to close in favor of a facility in North Carolina that will serve the Southeast Compact, while the Richland facility serves only generators approved by its Compact.
Each disposal facility operator has indcoendently developed a shipment manifest form and an onsite computer recordkeeping system. LLW exists in a variety of chemical and physical forms and can contain about 200 different radionuclides in concentrations that can range from a few microcuries to several hundred curies per cubic foot. To characterize LLW, therefore, requires much data, and to analyze the inventory of LLW at a disposal facility resulting from thousands of shipments, the operators of the existing disposal facilities have 2
1 l
4 developed computer recordkeeping systems. Wastes are described and stored differently on j these computer recordkeeping systems. A major difference is that on the USE system, ;
l information is stored on a container basis, while manifest information is not stored on a !
container basis on the CNSI system, but is summarized across the entire shipment. Neither j disposal facility operator stores all the manifest information. For example, neither stores the j quantities of chelating agents within the wastes. ,
I l
Several more disposal facilities are expected to be developed. Pursuant to the Low- l
~
4 Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-573) snd the Low-Level l
- Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-240), referred to as the ' l
" Amendments Act," States have organized into regional Compacts to site and operate new l
- . disposal facilities. The Amendments Act established a series of milestones, penalties, and [
! 'ncentives i that were intended to ensure that the Compacts will be able to manage waste l generated within their member States. While new disposal capacity is being developed, the two remaining sited States (Washington and South Carolina) were allowed to impose surcharges on waste from outside their compact regions and had allocated disposal capacity .
to waste from nuclear utilities. After December 31, t 992, the compact regions were to be ;
) responsible for managing their own wastes and were allowed to prohibit disposal of waste I
generated from outside their compact region.
It is uncertain how many disposal facilities will be sited pursuant to the Amendments
! Act. Compacts have been formed, and each intends to site a disposal facility. In addition, several States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia are unaffiliated. Some unaffiliated States plan to site new disposal facilities; others plan or hope to contract for disposal capacity with Compacts. If these plans were all carried to completion, there could be more than ten disposal facilities. Problems associated with use of different shipment manifests and collection of inconsistent and incomplete information at disposal facilities could be expected to intensify as the number of disposal facilities increases.
1.2 NRC Responsibilities and Information Needs f As will be discussed below, NRC needs information contained in shipment manifests I to fully discharge its responsibilities in protecting public health and safety. NRC's licensing 3
I
~
r , . - - ,
9
- responsibilities include activities such as: licensing of new disposal facilities; issuing license renewals; monitoring facilities' waste disposal activities; and approving eventual closure and license termination. NRC also conducts other waste management activities independent of {
licensing. - These other activities include: monitoring the adequacy of NRC's regulations;
< developing new regulations; inspecting to determine compliance with NRC's requirements for !
j waste characterization and classification, and for safe transportation and disposal of the waste; and ensuring accountability and control of radioactive materials. NRC also conducts j various technical studies, and responds to information requests from the Congress and other government agencies, States, Compacts, and the public. j
) '
To conduct these activities NRC needs accurate and timely information about LLW and ,
, its management. NRC has identified needed improvements in procedures for reporting .
! information on LLW shipments. The information in existing shipment manifests is inconsistent among disposal facility operators and does not contain information in sufficient detail and. !
f uniformity to provide an adequate basis for evaluating the source term for use in performance
]
?
assessment and in support of regulatory actions. Moreover, unless that information can be l i
l
- conveniently retrieved (i.e., through a computer-readable medium), its practical use in l performing these activities could be significantly impacted. The final rule addresses these issues.
The remainder of this section describes NRC's responsibilities in greater detail. Need for better information is discussed in Section 1.3.
1.2.1 Technical Studies for LLW Disposal Facility Licensing l Section 9.2 of the Amendments Act encourages NRC, or an Agreement State, to act on an application for a license for a waste disposal facility in a timely manner. More 9
specifically, NRC should "to the extent practicable, complete all activities associated with the review and processing of any application for such a license (except for public hearings) no later than 15 months after the date of receipt of such application."
As part of the licensing process, the applicants and the regulatory agencies need to assess the performance of the disposal facility for its offectiveness in protecting 'public health i i
4
and safety. Similar assessments would be performed for disposal facilitylicense renewals and closure (10 CFR 61.27). Licensing assessments and decisions are subject to considerable public scrutiny and may be controversial.
Performance assessments are based on models which estimate the long- and short-term likelihood of human exposure to radionuclides and other hazards in LLW via various exposure pathways, such as ingestion, inhalation, and direct radiation. For performance assessments to be credible, reliable data must be readily available on physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of LLW, and on the confinement capabilities of the various waste forms and waste containers. At some disposal facilities, maximum inventories of specific radionuclides may be established (10 CFR 61.7(b)), and cumulative totals of disposed of radionuclides may have to be maintained. The knowledge of the identity of the waste generator can also provide useful information on waste characteristics. Waste generation processes can be inferred from the identity of the generator, and from knowledge of the process, absent direct information, the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste can be surmised.
The less that is known about the waste, the more the approach to assessments involves the inclusion of conservative, rather than realistic assumptions. In addition, easily accessible data make timely and independent performance assessments possible. There is a monetary incentive to have efficient licensing of new facilities because there are substantial costs for storing or disposing of the waste outside of the compact region or unaffiliated state in which waste is generated.
At present, the quality of data on LLW and its accessibility to NRC or other regulatory bodies is not always sufficient to allow realistic performance assessments through which compliance with licensing requirements can be demonstrated, nor is the data believed to be sufficient to ensure compliance with the Amendments Act's statutory schedule for reviewing license applications.
1.2.2 Monitoring Adequacy of LLW Disposal Regulations An important NRC responsibility is monitoring the adequacy of the existing regulatory 5
structure for LLW disposal. The LLW disposal regulations were established in 1982 in the form of a new 10 CFR Part 61 (" Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste") and in amendments to 10 CFR Part 20. A major concept in the Part 61 regulations is the establishment of performance objectives that are achieved through various requirements on waste form and disposal facility siting, design, operation, and closure. In 10 CFR 61.55, waste in classified in terms of concentrations of a limited number of key radionuclides, such as cesium-137. From data available in 1982, NRC staff concluded that limits on the concentrations of these key radionuclides, together with possible limitations on site inventories pursuant to 10 CFR 61.7, were needed to ensure public health and safety. That
~
is, the requirements in 10 CFR Part 61 were developed from an understanding of the radiological, physical,'and chemical characteristics of LLW as understood in 1982.
Since 1982, however, an NRC staff review of disposal records indicates that the physical, chemical and radiological characteristics of LLW are changing. Tnere has been a trend to reduce waste volumes, leading to increased radionuclide concentrations. Licensees have increasingly becoma involved in decontamination processes. As a result, amounts of chelating agents, which can increase the movement of radioactivity from disposed-of waste, appear to be increasing. Technologs/ changes lead to changing radionuclide distributions in the waste. If these trends are verified and continue, or if it develops that certain important radionuclides are present in larger quantities than previously believed, it may be necessary to l amend the Part 61 regulations in light of the new information.
NRC's ability to monitor and verify such trends is hampered by the lack of an j accessible data base containing LLW manifest information. As described in Section 1.3, only limited amount of information is available, most of it has to be handled manually, and it must be purchased by NRC from the disposal facility operators. Thus far, the disposal facility operators have been cooperative in providing current information to NRC, but reliance on this cooperation should not be required.
1.2.3 Development of New Regulations NRC needs information to perform studies that must precede development of regulations, guidance and associated documents. To determine costs and radiological 6 i
impacts, it is necessary to analyze shipment manifest information to determine what fraction of a particular waste stream exceeds specific radionuclide concentrations. It may also be necessary to know other information such as radionuclide distributions and current packaging trends. Manual sorting of manifest information could require substantial staff effort. Without access to a LLW computerized data base, which would be facilitated by a requirement to report in a computer-readable medium, compilation of a defensible radiological source term, for example, would be difficult.
t 1.2.4 Inspection of Licensees NRC is responsible for inspecting licensees to assure compliance with Part 61 requirements for waste classification and characterization, DOT requirements for identifying and labeling radioactive materials for shipment, and DOT and 10 CFR Part 20 requirements ,
for describing wastes in the shipment manifests. Currently, as part of the inspection process, j NRC reviews licensee records by hand at the licensee's facility. This is a laborious, time- !
consuming process. The availability of shipment manifestinformation in a computer-readable medium would greatly expedite this task. Using a calculational package, NRC staff could quickly review the licensee's shipment records and calculations. Greater inspection efficiency, in turn, would mean that more aspects of a licensee's waste management program could be j checked in a given period of time than is currently possible.
1.2.5 Emergency Access Determinations Section 6 of the Amendments Act makes the NRC responsible for determining whether to grant emergency access to a non-federal LLW disposal facility in a compact region or in an unaffiliated state "if necessary to eliminate an immediate and serious risk to the public health and safety or the common defense and security." Such a determination must be made within l 45 days of receipt of a request. NRC must decide whether emergency access is necessary and whether there are other attematives that would mitigate the risk.
On February 3,1989, NRC published rules in the Federal Reaister, at 54 FR 5409, for I
a new 10 CFR Part 62 with criteria and procedures for granting emergency access. Section 62.26 contains criteria for excluding a disposal facility from consideration. These criteria require NRC staff to judge the significance of the waste specified in the emergency access i
7
i I
i I
request with respect to the waste already disposed of at the facility. Among the considerations are the disposal facility's capacity and license criteria, which could contain radionuclide inventory limits. Equitable emergency access determinations should be based on license conditions and knowledge of the amount, types of packaging, and physical and ;
chemical characteristics of the waste inventory at the waste disposal facilities. To make such {
equitable determinations within the statutory 45-day limit would be very difficult without !
I access to a comprehensive LLW data base. ;
i
+
1.2.6 Other Technical Studies and Analyses f NRC has other needs for a comprehensive, easily accessible LLW data base. Up-to- ;
date data on total volumes of disposed wastes, the total activities of disposed radionuclides, j volumes and activities contributed by specific generators or by geographic regions, and other !
information would be readily accessible. Establishment of trends and projections in waste l generation and disposal would be much easier. This type of information can assist NRC, ;
unaffiliated States, and compact regions in their waste management plans and decisions. !
NRC has responded to requests for this type of information from states, Congress, or general public, in one instance, North Carolina requested information on the volumes and activities of waste generated in the Southeast Compact; in another, Congress requested information on wastes containing activated metals. l t
Other technical studies might address the appropriateness of a particular disposal f
method for a specific waste stream. Such studies would be greatly assisted by a i computerized data base containing detailed information about the physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of the waste stream.
1 1.3 Problems with Current information Management in this section, the regulatory needs for manifest information are considered with regard to the information contained on current LLW shipment manife sts and stored at disposal facilities on existing recordkeeping systems.
I 1.3.1 issues with Existing Shipment Manifests l To assure safe disposal of LLW, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms and I
8 ;
1
t rates by w L:h radioactivity can be released from LLW to the environment. This knowledge in turn requires a detailed understanding of the physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of LLW. Part 20 regulations prescribe, in general terms, the minimum ;
information that must be included in LLW shipment manifests.
Disposal facility operators must comply with performance standards of 10 CFR Part
- 61. The standards include implementing quality control measures to confirm the content of shipments, pursuant to 10 CFR 61.12(j); performing safety and environmental assessments for license renewal or for closure of the disposal facility; tracking disposed inventories of specific radionuclides; and complying with existing reporting requirements. Confirmatory assessments would be conducted as needed.
Data requirements in existing 10 CFR Part 20 regulations and information on existing manifests are not sufficiently detailed to provide realistic (i.e, not overly conservative) and consistent assessments of the performance a.11 operation of LLW disposal facilities and to demonstrate that the performance objectives are met (as requiced by 10 CFR 61, Subpart C).
In existing manifests, waste characteristics are of ten described in vague terms, such as " dry solid" (description for 38% by volume and 11% by activity of the wac^a in 1987, and 13%
by volume and 4% by activity of waste in 1988). The container descriptions in existing manifests are often too general (such as " strong tight containers") to make inclusion of container degradation in performance assessments meaningful. Yet, container degradation is part of a performance assessment code developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory (Sullivan and Chen,1989), which NRC believes could be used in licensing some disposal facilities. Current NRC regulations do not require tracking of the waste generator identity through brokers and processors. Such tracking is important for several reasons, among them are accountability during waste transfers, usefulness in defining waste characteristics when conducting performance assessments, and responsibilities under the Amendments Act. ;
An additional problem is that different manifest formats describe waste differently making comparisons difficult (see Table 19 of NUREG-1418 to compare the waste descriptions used by Chem-Nuclear Systems and US Ecology). This problem is likely to be i compounded if additional manifest formats are developed. l 1
J
i i
1.3.2. lssues with Disposal Facility Recordkeeping At present, NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 require that operators of waste disposal j facilities maintain copies of all complete manifests or equivalent documentation but do not i require use of comparable recordkeeping systems. The disposal facility operators have l Independently developed computerized systems that store manifest information. However, '!
]
these recordkeeping systems are not readily compatible, e.g. USE stores the information by ;
container, while CNSI summarizes it over the whole shipment. The same manifest !
information, suf ficient to address regulatory needs, should be recorded in each disposal facility recordkeeping system. j i
1.3.3 Access to information i The information on shipment manifests is not easily accessible to NRC. Title 10 CFR l 61.80 contains a general requirement for a licensee to provide annual summaries on selected i LLW characteristics and other reports as may be required. However, there are no specific requirements in current Federal regulations that would define how NRC or Agreement States ;
- can access such information.
l Recently, information on radionuclide inventories at disposal facilities was purchased ;
annually by NRC. NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990), which contains data on characteristics waste f disposalin 1987-89, was compiled from microfiche copies of shipment manifests purchased l
from the disposal facility operators and from computer printouts of the LLW data sorted in j different ways. NRC has also purchased limited data summaries generated by the operators' l l computer systems, and has had,in the past, limited access to one facility operator's computer l l
. system. Compilation of such data in the future would be greatly facilitated by reporting m a !
! computer-readable medium.
i The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been operating a LLW data base called the !
Manifest Information Management System (MIMS), which can be accessed using personal computers equipped with modems. However, the system's information is limited; it is ;
i provided on a shipment-summary rather than on a containar specific basis, and it does not j i
identify generators by,name. Also, DOE's mandate to support MIMS is not directly tied to i regulatory needs. l e
S l
i n
, = w ---r e . - - - -m- -- . - - . .-r.- ~,m ~a -
o e
I i
1.4 Waste Tracking Objectives of the Amendments Act Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 20 requires that licensed waste processors treating or repackaging wastes prepare a new shipment manifest that describes the waste in preparing i f
the new shipment manifest, the processor does not need to identify the original generator of waste. Provisions in the Amendments Act, however, require the identity of the waste generator to be known so that the state in which waste was generated be known when the waste reaches the disposal facility. LLW generated in a state outside the compact region in j which the disposal facility is located may not be disposable at the Compact's disposal facility ,
or may be subject to a surcharge. {
d Compacts or Host States need to know the state in which waste originates to know whether a surcharge could be charged, and, if so, how large a surcharge; or whether access to a disposal facility should be denied. Because of this provision in the Amendments Act, j shipment manifests are currently used to provide information that allows the disposal facility operator to trace waste in shipments from processor back to the generator. By providing a ;
uniform manifest that contains this information, NRC will continue to provide the means to achieve the objectives of the Amendments Act.
i Tracking the identity of the waste generator, and meeting the provisions of the ;
Amendments Act, become more complicated when the waste characteristics or packaging are I changed by a waste processor. To reduce disposal costs, generators increasingly ship LLW to offsite processing facilities, which are frequently located in another Stote. The processed I waste, often significantly reduced in volume, may then be shipped to a disposal facility. Each !
container of waste shipped from the processor may contain waste from several different generators.
The importance of tracking the identity of the waste generator through waste processors and brokers to insure accountability and control of radioactive materials is discussed in Section 4.2. Knowledge of generator identity may also enhance performance assessments as discussed in Section 1.2.1. Finally, consistency with the Amendments Act is a third reason for preserving the identity of the waste generator.
11
1
- 2. OBJECTIVES i
.The amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 in the final rule have the objectives of j addressing the issues identified in Section 1 of this report. These amendments will: (1) l improve the quality and uniformity of information contained in manifests that are required to !
control transfer of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) that is ultimately intended for disposal
. at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of forms that allow LLW to be tracked from its i 4 origin, that serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, and that is f
< responsive to requests from Compacts and States: (3) require the use of one of these forms l 1
as a mandatory shipping paper for LLW transport; (4) require LLW disposal facility operators j to electronically store specific information in the Uniform Manifest documents for each !
, disposal container in a containerized shipment; and (5) require the disposal facility operator >
to report the stored Uniform Manifest information on a computer-readable medium. f j
These amendments in the final rule willimprove NRC and Agreement State programs
- for regulation of LLW disposal and allow NRC regulations to achieve the objectives of the Low- l
- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. !
i
~
- 3. ALTERNATIVES There appear to be only two alternatives that need be considered in this regulatory 4
analysis. One alternative is to make no changes in the regulations. The other alternative is to amend the regulations as outlined in Section 2, above.
3.1 ' Alternative 1: No Change This alternative would continue the status quo by not amending the regulations. The
. following problems would continue. NRC would continue to get manifest information that may not be sufficiently complete to realistically determine whether disposal facility operators are meeting the technical requirements of Part 61. NRC and State disposal facility regulatory agencies may not have complete source term information needed to conduct performance assessments of disposal sites for license renewals or to conduct needed evaluations, if c problems should arise. The NRC would not have available sufficiently detailed information on
]
waste characteristics and inventories to identify significant trends that may result from l volume reduction techniques or new chemical processing that may have implications requiring !
i i
12 .
l
amendments to existing regulations. Responses to incidents during transportation of LLW may not be as efficient without a uniform manifest because local responders may have to be familiar with a multiplicity of forms to efficiently extract usefulinformation. Failure to proceed with the rulemaking could impact: NRC's ability to efficiently inspect licensees for compliance with NRC and DOT regulations pertaining to LLW; NRC's ability to foster accountability and control of radioactive materials; NRC's capacity to meet the Amendments Act's statutory deadline to review a LLW license application in 15 months; NRC's ability to react promptly and offectively in event of a suspected release from an NRC-licensed disposal facility: NRC's ability to provide technical assistance to States in the event of detection of releases from a State-regulated faci'ity;
. and NRC's ability to respond to requests for information from the Congress, States, compact regions, and the public. Inaction would be expected to result in higher expenditures of staff time and agency funds to carry out NRC's statutory mission.
3.2 Alternative 2: Amend Parts 20 and 61 This alternative has four functional elements: (1) upgrade the quality and uniformity of information contained in LLW shipm'ent manifests; (2) require the use of a uniform LLW shipment manifest; (3) require electronic storage of shipment manifest information in recordkeeping systems fdr LLW disposal facilities; and (4) require disposal facility operators 1
to be capable of reporting manifest information on a computer-readable medium.
3.2.1 Shipment Manifest Information The first functional element would be met by amending 10 CFR 20.2006 to call for the use of a new Appendix G to Part 20 to supplant Appendix F to Part 20 when the requirement for using the Uniform Manifest is implemented in accordance with a schedule contained in Section 20.2006. Appendix G, and Appendix F, address ultimate transfer of radioactive waste to a land disposal facility and establish a manifest tracking system. Section 20.2006 outlines general requirements and refers to the appendices for details.
S.ection 20.2006 The revision to this section contains the schedule for replacing use of Appendix F with use of Appendix G.
Accendix G - Section i Section I addresses the information that shipment manifests l I
13 I
must contain. Currently in Appendix F, Section I is tersely written and generally is not specific on the level of detail _ required. Generally, it does not distinguish between information that must be provided for each container and information that is aggregated to, or applicable to, the entire shipment. Conversely, Section I of Appendix G discusses requirements according to the level of detail needed. It also clarifies that the use of the Uniform Manifest is not required for certain shipments (when waste will be stored at the generators facility after processing rather than being sent by the processor for disposal, and when radioactivity is being sent to a waste processor and that radioactivity becomes the. processor's residual waste, such as the radioactivity that is removed at a decontamination facility).
l l
Section i of Appendix G is divided into 5 subsections. Subsection A covers general
]
information; subsection B covers information needed on a per-shipment basis; subsection C i covers information that must be provided for each container of waste; subsection D covers ,
1 information on waste delivered to a disposal facility in an uncontainerized form, e.g., large '
I contaminated components from a nuclear power plant; and subsection E applies to waste
{
containers enclosing LLW originating from more than one generator (and in the rare case, i uncontainerized waste from more than one generator),
- 1. Subsection A. GeneralInformation. In Appendix F, the manifest must contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person generating the waste and the name, '
address, and telephone number or name and EPA identification number of the person transporting the waste to the land disposal facility. In Appendix G, these requirements are I clarified and expanded to reflect the public health and safety information currently required on existing manifests by both Federal and State regulatory authorities. One clarification is to change the waste generator " address" to " facility address." A number of waste generators, e.g., nuclear utilities, operate more than one facility, and this clarification ensures that waste ,
i could be tracked back to a specific facility. The final rule also corrects an oversight in which information on the person transporting the waste is required only for shipments "to the land disposal facility." This carrier information is required for all shipments -- to collectors and processors, as well as to disposal facilities. I
- 2. Subsection R. Shipment information. A number of items (e.g., date of shipment, 14
. 1
'l l
~l 3
l total volume of shipment, total radioactivity in the shipment) are required on a shipment basis. j All these items are required by existing NRC or DOT regulations and are supplied on existing f
(
shipment manifests. These items continue to be required. ,
i
- 3. Subsection C. Package / Waste Disposal Container information. The revisions in ,
Appendix G clarify the information that must be provided'for each container under current !
regulations, and require five items of information not currently required by 10 CFR Part 20 but ;
that are included in existing manifests and four new items of information. The 5 items not j currently required are: (1) container identification that corresponds to a specific container of l
. waste in the shipment; (2) structural stability indicator for Class A waste pursuant to Sections -!
I 61.55 and 61.56; (3) weight of the waste plus container; (4) masses of source and special nuclear material; and (5) maximum radiation level at the surface of each disposal container surface. The 4 new items are: (1) a physical description of the waste container, including information which would identify a high-integrity container, if utilized; (2) an improved physical and chemical description of the waste; (3) solidification agent identification; and (4) ,
the total weight p'ercentage of all chelating agents in the waste,if contained in concentrations I exceeding 0.1 percent by weight, plus the identity of the most prevalent of these agents. j i
- 4. Subsection D. Uncontainerized Waste Information. In a great majority of l shipments, waste is delivered to disposal facilitiesin containers. However, that is not always !
the case. Contaminated soil or large components are not delivered in containers. To avoid ,
confusion as to what information is needed for such uncontainerized waste, Subsection D is ;
added in Appendix G. This information is similar to that required by subsection C, but does ,
not include information on containers, or information not relevant for uncontainerized waste. i l
- 5. Subsection E. Multi-Generator Container information. For each container with !
waste from more than one generatur, the information required by subsection E will be provided. The type of information required depends on whether there is a homogeneous ,
1 mixture of waste (e.g., incinerator ash), or heterogeneous waste (e.g., a container filled with j compacted containers or " hockey pucks"). For homogeneous waste, only the fractions ;
attributed to each waste generator are needed. For heterogeneous waste, requirements would
)
include information needed to identify the radioactive material so that its chain of custody 15 I
l l
u _ . . , _
, could be readily tracked, and information needed to evaluate any potential release of- j radioactive materials.
1 l
Annandix G - Section 11 Section ll concerns certification of the contents of manifests.
! This section is changed from that in Appendix F to clarify that not only generators, but also collectors and processors must certify that the material is properly classified, described, !
packaged, marked, and labeled to meet DOT and NRC regulations. Since a collector will not have first hand knowledge of the waste material, a collector would be certifying that nothing ,
i has been done to the waste that would negate a generator or processor certification. l
. Anoendix G - Section 111 Section lli contains specifi.c requirements for the control and
, tracking of LLW by generators, collectors, processors and land disposal facilities. These i requirements include packaging, labeling, quality control, shipping and verification, and record 'l, retention. Subsections A through D deals respectively with generators, waste collectors who 2
handle only prepacked waste, processors who treat or repackage waste, and land disposal .
- facility operators. The amendments to Section lil not only require use of uniform manifest f forms, but allow the licensees to develop systems that could reduce the amount of manifest )
e .
L information physically accompanying an LLW shipment, and clarify existing regulations to I
ensure that all waste is properly tracked. ;
l
- 3.2.2 Use of a Uniform Manifest j
- The amendments to Sections I and til of Appendix F contained in Appendix G require the use of an NRC uniform low-level radioactive waste manifest (Uniform Manifest). The i Uniform Manifest consist of three forms (NRC Form 540, NRC Form 541, and NRC Form 542) and their respective continuation forms (NRC Form 540A, NRC Form 541 A, and NRC Form 542A). The principal purpose of NRC Form 540 (and Form 540A)is to satisfy DOT shipping
' i paper requirements (4g CFR Part 172). The principal purpose of NRC Form 541 (and Form 541 A) is to obtain the information necessary for disposal operations and to assess and monitor the disposed of radioactive waste. The principal purpose of NRC Form 542 (and 542A)is to provide information on waste generators for waste shipped through collectors and -
processors for waste tracking purposes.
16
- i. !
3.2.3 Requirements for Recordkeeping for Disposal Facilities and Reporting j I
i - The third and fourth functional elements described in Section 3.2 are met by amending
. 10 CFR 61.12 and 61.80.
f Section 61.1.2 This section discusses specific technical information necessary to f
demonstrate-that performance objectives and applicable technical requirements for land j disposal facilities are met. The amendment adds a new paragraph (n) requiring a description of the facility's electronic recordkeeping system.
Section 61.80 This section addresses maintenance of records, reports, and transfer f of radioactive materials at land disposal facilities. The amendments in paragraph (f) and new i l paragraph (1) require that licensees store information pertaining to receipt and disposal of LLW [
l in an electronic recordkeeping system and be capable of reporting the stored information, or j subsets of the information, on a computer readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes). ;
i 4 ;
- 4. CONSEQUENCES -
I This regulatory analysis follows the guidance found in NUREG/BR-OO58 (NRC,1984),
" Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" (" Guidelines") ,
and NUREG/CR 3568 f.Heaberlin,1983), "A Handbook for Value impact Assessment" ]
' (" Handbook"). For the most part, this section is organized in terms of attributes described in the Handbook; however, it is more logical to discuss certain potential cost sav'ings in terms of the design of LLW disposal facilities and a facility's accountability for LLW. These topics '
. span several of the Handbook's attributes.
One of the conventions of regulatory analyses is that costs and benefits are defined in terms of changes from the status quo. Altemative 1, which would not change the relevant regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61, would continue the status quo. The application of this convention means that there are neither costs nor benefits associated with Alternative 1. )
However, the problems discussed in Section 3.1 would persist if the status quo is continued.
1 The remainder of this section therefore' addresses Alternative 2.
I l '
i 4.1 Fac81ty Design i
17
- - i=*-m e- - - . - - e w , g e
l l
Better quality information with greater accessibility is likely, in the long run, to reduce uncertainties in the data and the models used in the engineering design of a waste disposal facility. When uncertainties exist there is a tendency by designers and regulators to err on the conservative side, which often results in selecting more costly treatment and disposal alternatives than those which would be required if more precise data were available. In view of the public perception of radiation risks ano the public's awareness of environmentalissues, data and model uncertainties could lead to questions regarding possible releases of radioactive materials into the environment and the increased risk of adverse health effects to the public.
The costs incurred by regulatory agencies in responding to these questions could be significant and could include substantial costs resulting from delays in a disposal facility's operational date.
To assess the costs that could be mitigated from reducing the degree of overengineering in designing a disposal facility, consider the costs of alternative disposal methods for commercial LLW, as estimated in a paper presented at a DOE LLW management forum (Foutes and Queenan,1987). In this analysis, four disposal cost components were included: packaging, transportation, processing, and disposal. Waste volumes over a 20-year generation period, from 1985 to 2004, were projected to be approximately 2.9 million m8 , of j which about 25% would be below regulatory concern (BRC). Ten combinations of treatment l and disposal options were considered. The range of costs of these ten options varied by about a factor of five. For example, solidifying waste and burying it in an earth-mounted .
I concrete bunker would cost more than three times the current disposal practice, l More costly disposal methods would also be associated with higher occupational risks, both radiological and non-radiological. Because more workers would be needed over longer time periods, the likelihood of non-radiological industrial accidents would be greater. In addition, there would be more handling of wastes, leading to higher occupational radiological l exposure.
Improved and more accessible information about waste would likely encourage disposal facility designs best suited to the waste and would potentially prevent unnecessary costs and risks resulting from data uncertainties. Better quality data would enable more accurate 18
. - _ ~_. . _- _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
?
l projections of the kinds and qu9ntities of waste, providing better assessment of the adequacy l of ' existing LLW disposal facilities and requirements for new facilities. Table 4-1 shows the relationship between the facility design and the attributes affected by this rulemaking. j 4
1 4.2 Accountability for LLW l
' An important NRC concern is tracking waste from generation to disposal to keep .
4 i
- accurate account and control of the radioactive materials. This is important for maintenance l of public health and safety, potential improved responses to accidents that might lead to !
occupational and public exposure, and offsite and onsite property losses. From its generation j to its disposal, LLW may change' hands many times. Prior to 1990, about 25% of LLW ;
shipments to disposal facilities were from collectors and processors. A representative of a I
- waste broker estimated that in 1990 approximately 50% of the waste by volume was handled
- by collectors and processors. Under the existing manifest and recordkeeping regulations, ;
i tracking the chain of custody of LLW is difficult when the LLW is processed by waste ;
processors. The final rule improves accountability for LLW as it passes through different hands from generation to disposal. I i
To illustrate the need for better accountability, an incident will be described, it involves unauthorized possession and use of unsealed americium-241 by the John C. Haynes i
Co. of Newark, Ohio (NRC,1985). During the 1970s, the licensee was authorized to use curie (Ci) quantities of americium 241 for inducing color changes in diamonds by irradiation.
f !
In 1974, the licensee claimed that he stopped irradiating diamonds, and that he disposed of all but 85 mci of the radioactive materials at a commercial burial site. Later, however, NRC I
determined that these claims were false; 23 Ci of americium-241 were eventually confiscated from licensee's premises. In 1985, the licensee facility was decontaminated at a total cost of $385,000. The funding was made available through the EPA's Superfund Trust, because the licensee was financially unable to pay for the decontamination. To insure that nearby residents were not exposed to radioactive material, NRC surveyed offsite areas. No offsite contamination was detected. However, NRC estimated that, had there been a fire or an intrusion at the facility, public health risk would have greatly exceeded permissible limits.
Under the final rule, the likelihood of this type of accident could decrease as NRC's 19 ,
~
. inspection program for waste generators would be improved. Better recordkeeping would [
enable NRC to quickly check a licensee's statements about the quantities of disposed f
4 radioactive materials by checking the disposal facility's records. This discourages illegal possession of such materials. It improves NRC's inspection program for LLW management by generators. The relationship between accountability and various attributes under the final rule is displayed in Table 4-1. !
- TABLE 4-1. Projected Effects of Amendments on Facility Design and Accountability for LLW I 1
l Attribute Facility Design Accountability
. for LLW i 1
Public Health + +
Occupational exposure + +
I
+
Offsite property 1 E Onsite property + j i
! Explanation: The plus sign (+) signifies beneficial effect, i.e. reduction in uncertainties j
- regarding public or occupational exposure or property losses; blank space signifies no effect. ;
4.3 Improved Krh.. eed t;e i
A more nearly complete, accurate, and acesssible data base on LLW results from the final rule and enables better quality and more cost-effective research for LLW management.
It enables more timely and reliable performance assessments by LLW disposal facility licensees and independent verification by regulatory bodies. It could facilitate the development of new treatment and disposal methods by providing better information on waste streams. It wi!l assist NRC in establishing research priorities.
(
4.4 Industry implementation Costs Three classes of licensees are affected by the final rule: (1) waste generators: (2) waste brokers, i.e., collectors and processors; and (3) disposal facility operators. All three l classes are affected by the shipment manifest requirements. Only disposal facility operators are affected by the disposal facility recordkeeping requirement and the requirement to be capable of submitting reports on a computer-readable medium. The implementation costs to 20
industry are almost entirely for retraining data entry clerks, and for development or modification of software (for generation of the Uniform Manifest, for the disposal facility recordkeeping requir "sent, and for the reporting requirement).
The final rule applies directly to licensees in States that are not Agreement States.
Licensees in Agreement States are subject to regulations issued by regulatory agencies in those States, which must be generally consistent with the final rule. Consequently, in this regulatory analysis. it is assumed that the final rule applies to all licensees within the classes defined above.
4.4.1 Uniform Manifest .
There are both costs and savings associated with industry implementati on of the Uniform Manifest. The costs are from development of software and from retraining data entry clerks on preparing the new Uniform Manifest forms. .On the other hand, having only one set of shipment manifest forms instead of several results in savings in both software preparation '
and in personnel training for processor and collector licensees, and organizations that develop and license shipment manifest software. There will also be savings for licensees who ship waste out of state or -compact for processing or collection, if the processor or collector requires use of manifest forms different from the licensee's host disposal facility. These costs I and savings are estimated below.
Costs to Develoo Shioment Manifest Software Shipment manifests are multi-page documents that contain large amounts of data. Because of these large amounts of data, there are several firms that offer the service of completing shipment manifests and that license software for completing shipment manifests as part of more general waste management software. These firms will be referred to as " manifest contractors". Their software license agreements usually contain maintenance fees that the licensee pays regardless of whether there is a change in the software. Therefore, waste generators and waste brokers that use the services of manifest contractors would not have any software development costs associated with use of the uniform manifest. Only generators and brokers who use their own manifest software and manifest contractors would have to update software in response to a uniform manifest. Forty-two of the approximately 70 nuclear utilities use tho manifest 21
preparation software of a single manifest contractor. It is inferred from this, that a large majority of nuclear utilities use the manifest preparation software of manifest contractors rather than their own. It is expected that most -waste brokers would use the manifest preparation software of manifest contractors.
Two individuals who were recently associated with development of LLW management and shipment manifest software estimated that it would require approximately 4 months of effort of a computer programmer with some assistance from an engineer to develop, debug, and quality assure manifest software to NRC standards, if starting from scratch. They estimated that this effort would be cut in half, to two months, if existing software were to ,
be modified. In estimating the cost of personal effort, it is assumed in accordance with Abstract 2.2.2 of NUREG/CR-4726 (NRC,1986), " Generic Cost Estimates," that fringe -
benefits are 70% of base salary. It is estimated, based on Argonne National Laboratory's pay schedule, that a profession computer programmer's salary ranges between $15.00 and
$30.00 per hour. Assuming that there are 160 salary-hours in a month, the cost of i developing manifest software from scratch ranges between $16,300 and $32,600. If existing software were modified, the cost range is reduced to $8,100 to $16,300.
i lt is estimated that 6 nuclear utilities and 6 other generators use their own manifest software. A representative of a waste processor indicated that there are 23 waste brokers (8 processors and 15 collectors). Assuming that 5 waste brokers use their own manifest software and that there are 3 manifest contractors, then the total number of manifest l
software packages that would have to be modified to generate the uniform manifest would be 20, and the total cost would be approximately $163,000 to $326,000. I I
l Costs to Retrain Data Entry Clerks in addition to the costs of developing software, there would be costs in retraining data entry clerks for preparing the uniform manifest formats when they would be implemented (there would not be corresponding annual costs because
, new hires would have to be trained on some manifest forms, anyway). All waste brokers and manifest contractors would have data entry clerks. Also waste generators that use their own manifest software, use manif est contractor software, or complete manifests manually would have data entry clerks. Based on the number of generators sending LLW for disposal during 22
4 I
i 1986-1990 as reported in NUREG/CR-6147 (Dehmel, et al,1994b), there are approximately +
! 3,500 generators that would have to retrain data entry clerks. It is assumed that the average
- number of data entry clerks needing retraining is two per generator and that retraining requires ;
- two hours, so that approximately 14,000 student-hours of training would be necessary.
l
[ NUREG/CR-4627 in Abstract 2.2.3 estimates the cost of training nuclear power plant l personnel. Assuming that these costs apply and that the retraining is "on the-job", then the {
< cost of retraining in 1986 dollars would range between $7 to $9 per student-hour. Assuming l cost increases of 5% per year, the retraining costs would be $10.30 to $13.30 per student- l
! hour in 1994, or a total of $144,200 to $186,200. !
i i
Savings The proposed use of a uniform manifest could reduce manifest software ?
. development costs and data entry retraining costs for waste brokers and manifest contractors.
- Pursuant to the Amendments Act, there could eventually be up to 14 disposal facilities and ' !
I the license conditions for each disposal facility could require a different manifest form. ;
Currently there are three disposal facilities and each has a different operator. One of the
- existing disposal facilities (Barnwell) is assumed to close. There is no indication that additional firms are trying to enter the field. Thus,it is assumed that there will continue to be only three disposal facility operators. In the absence of a uniform manifest, the number of new sets of manifest forms would range from 0 (one for each new disposal facility operator) to 12 (one for each new disposal facility). It is also assumed that waste brokers will ship waste to all the disposal facilities, as they do now. Waste brokers who have their own manifest software t and manifest contractors would need the capability to generate each set of manifest forms. '
J i If it would cost each entity $8,100 to $16,300 to develop the capability to generate a set of manifest forms, then the total cost for 8 entities (5 brokers and 3 manifest contractors) to modify software to generate up to 12 different sets of manifest forms would cost up to )
61,565,000. In other words, with a uniform manifest the 8 entities would realize the cost savings up to $1,565,000. There would be no equivalent cost savings to waste generators from use of' a uniform manifest if all the waste from a generator would be disposed of at the host disposal facility (i.e., the disposal facility in the compact region or unaffiliated State in which the waste is generated.). However, cost savings could accrue if a waste generator that ;
develops its own software ships some of its waste to an out-of-state or -compact processor l
t that requires use of different manifest forms than the waste generator's host disposal facility.
{
23 ;
1
/
l l
T w v ^
"sm' - "
- t',* --* =-- v'~ ~ --~
- The use of a uniform manifest would also save costs associated with retraining the data entry clerks of waste brokers and manifest contractors. If there is a total of 25 waste brokers and manifest contractors and each of three data entry clerks at each firm requires two hours of on-the-job retraining for each manifest form, then up to 1,800 student-hours of retraining would be saved. (We have assumed that because waste brokers and manifest contractors prepare more manifests than the average waste generator, they have an extra data entry clerk). lf the cost of each student-hour of retraining is $10.30 to $13.30, then the savings in data entry clerk retraining from the use of a uniform manifest would range up to approximately $24,000.
4.4.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping System To estimate costs to waste facility operators of the recordkceping requirements of the proposed amendments, several assumptions are made. It is assumea that each existing
~
disposal facility operator currently uses an electronic recordkeeping system with a data base management system (DBMS) that provides for quality assurance in accordance with NRC or State standards. With these assumptions, the recordkeeping systems have to be modified to record a few more data fields and to read shipment manifests electronically transmitted to the disposal facilities from waste generators and waste brokers. It is estimated that it requires 1
)
three months of effort (480 hours0.00556 days <br />0.133 hours <br />7.936508e-4 weeks <br />1.8264e-4 months <br />) of a computer programmer effort to meet the incremental j recordkeeping requirements of the finalrule. Assuming fringe benefits of 70% of base salary, and a base salary of $15.00 to $30.00 per hour, the cost to each disposal facility operator recordkeeping requirements would be between $12,240 and $24,480. Assuming that these costs apply to 3 disposal facility operators, then the software development costs of meeting the incremental recordkeeping requirements for disposal facility operators would be between
$36,700 and $73,400.
The software costs considered above are those associated with the proposed recordkeeping requirement. Disposal facility operators may have other software development costs, those associated with the cost of developing software to do calculations for safety and performance assessments. However, such assessments are required to obtain a license, and therefore their costs are attributable to substantive licensing requirements and not to the final I rule.
24 l
l
.i 4
I t
I There are also costs associated with retraining of dra entry clerks at disposal facilities '
t 1 about the recordkeeping requirements. At new disposal facilities, these clerks would have to !
receive initial training anyway and it would not appear to be more costly to train them on the ' l 5
recordkeeping re.quirements of the final rule. However, data entry clerks at two currently j operating facilitics will need retraining. If each has four data entry clerks requiring 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> t
of on-the-job retraining each, then 32 student-hours of training would be necessary. At ;
$10.30 to $13.30 per/ student-br, retraining costs would be approximately $400. l t
1 4.4.3 Reporting on a Computer-Readable Medium The final rule requires that disposal facilities be capable of reporting manifest l
Information to NRC on a computer-readable medium as a license condition. It is presumed i that the license would specify the format requiremencs for the information to be reported. l
< Each disposal facility operator will develop software to be used in generating the reports. As !
each disposal facility is expected to have a computer with a modern data base management system, the reporting software should be relatively simple to develop. It is estimated that it ,
I would require two months of effort of a computer programmer to write, debug, and quality assure reporting software to NRC standards per disposal facility operator. With fringe benefits at 70% of base salary, and a base salary between $15.00 and $30.00 per hour, the cost of
. reporting software is estimated to be $8,1.60 to $16,320 per disposal facility operator. For l three disposal facility operators, the cost of developing reporting software would be between
$24,500 to $49,000.
4.5 Industry Operations The costs to industry operations from the final rule arise main!y from increases in data entry costs. There are smaller costs associated with the reporting requirecment. In developing the final rule, NRC professional staff was cognizant that shipment manifests currently contain
- voluminous data, and that it was important not to require additional information that could not i be justified. However, there would be several new data fields that would have to be entered !
~
by waste generators'and brokers in generating manifests and by disposal facility operators in the recordkeeping system.
I 4.5.1 Shipment Manifest Preparation !
25 l
i Additional data entry costs for shipment manifests will depend on the type of shippers. l As explained below, nuclear utilities are not expected to incur any additional costs. The cost l to other shippers will depend on the amount of additional information required from that i shipper, and on the degree of sophistication of the shipper's data management and data entry ;
system. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that there are three types of shippers: l (1) nuclear utilities who incur no additional data entry costs, (2) generators other than utilities I who ship directly to a disposal facility'or to a collector or processor, and (3) collectors and f I
processors who combine waste from several generators before shipping it for disposal. It is j t
i also assumed that, except for nuclear utilities, all additional, data would be entered the same j way, i.e. by data entry clerks with use of a keyboard onto a personal computer or a computer !
terminal. This last assumption might ov'erestimate the effort at large-volume non-utility !
generators where shipment manifests might be prepared electronically from waste l
-management data bases; and might underestimate the effort at small volume generators f where shipment manifests might be prepared completely by hand.
i l To estimate the additional annual cost to prepara shipment manifests, estimates are !
needed for the number of shipments for each of the three types of shippers, the number of j additional entries per shipment, and the effort and cost pe'r entry. Number of entries per shipment depend on the number of additional data fields, and the characteristics of the )
1 l shipment, e.g., number of containers per shipment, number of generators contributing waste )
, to the shipment, or number of significant radionuclides in a container. l l
I I
- An estimate of the net additional data fields on the uniform manifest and attributable j to the rulemaking was obtained by comparing the Uniform Manifest forms with the manifest forms used by.US Ecology (USE) for disposal at their Richland facility. Information required
. by DOT regulations (see 49 CFR Part 172) is not considered to be attributable to this rulemaking and is not considered in determining additional data fields. The net additional data fields are difference between the data fields on the uniform manifest forms that are not on the USE manifest forms and the data fields that are on the USE manifest forms but not on the uniform manifest forms. The implicit assumption in this comparison is that in the absence of this rulemaking, all disposal facilities would require use of manifests with essentially the same information as is contained on the USE manifest forms. The appendix contains tables with
"- 26 I
.- --- - . . _ . . - - ...- - . - - .~ - . _ - . .-- _ -. -..
l- 1 l
i . detailed item-by-item comparisons of the Uniform Manifest forms and the US Ecology 4
. manifest forms. The number of additional fields by form and frequency of entry obtained from the tables in the appendix are given in Table 4-2. ;
From Table 4-2, it is seen that there are relatively few differences in the forms for information that is on Forms 540 and 541 in the NRC scheme. The only_ major difference is that Form 540 requires a listing of radionuclides in each package and the USE form does not. ]
2 There are more differences in the information on Form 542 in the NRC scheme. -The USE !
continuation sheet for sh' i pments from brokers contains information that fits on both Form 541 f
and Form 542. The continuation sheets are organized to provide container information. NRC ;
requires information on Form 542 by generator while the corresponding information on the :
. USE form is by container or by each generator contributing to the waste in a container.
- I j
. To estimate the additional effort to complete the Uniform Manifest, estimates of the !
l
- . values of the parameters (e.g., shipments per year, containers per shipments) that determine f
, the number of times the additional fields are entered must be made. Estimates of the number j of shipments per year can be made using disposed of volume, shipment, and disposal l container data for the years 1987-1989 (Roles,1990), and disposed of volume data for the l
- years 1990-1991 (DOE,1993). These data are presented in Table 4-3. For 1987-89, the !
average number of annual shipments to disposal facilities was 4,548 and the average volume :
of LLW per shipment was 359 ft 8per shipment. Assuming that this average volume per l L shipment is maintained, the average number of annual shipments to disposal facilities for the l
! five-year perloo (1987-1991) would be 4,130. There was an average of 27 disposal containers per shipment for shipments to Richland and Beatty for 1987-89. A recently l
! published study of the characteristics of Class A waste (Dehmel, et al,1994a,b) using l Information contained in the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) electronic data base for the years 1986-1990 has different statistics for the number of containers per shipment. These data, which are for 1988 through 1990 for shipments to Beatty and Richland have 103,355 containers in 2,901 shipments for an average of 35.6 containers per shipment. There were 45,989 containers in 686 shipment from broker to Beatty and Richland j during 1988-1990 for an average of 67 containers per shipment (Dehmel,1994a). From the !
difference between total number of shipments and containers, and number of shipments and 27
_ . . _ _ _ - .. _ _ _ _ _ _- ~ . . _ __ __
.- - -- -.- .- - --- . ~ - . - _ . - - - - -
i I
i
. containers for brokers, the average number of containers per generator shipment would be 26.
l There are 18,776 shipments in the MIMS data base for the period from January 1,1986 to November 1,1990, a period of 4 5/6 years. Based on the MIMS data, there were 3,884 j s
[ ' shipments per year. Of the total shipments, 2,874, or approximately 15%, were from !
- t i brokers. i i i It will be assumed that there will be 4,000 shipments per year to disposal facilities, '!
I which is approximately the average of the estimates given above, and that 15% of these j shipments (600) are from brokers. It is assumed that the average number of containers per f; shipment is 26, for shipments from generators and 67 for shipments from brokers. These ~ j assumptions are based on the container information for the years 1988-1990 (Dehmel, et al, I 1994a,b). This container information is used rather than the container information for 1987- !
1989 (Roles,1990), because it contains means to distinguish shipments from brokers and l i from shipments from generators and because it is for a more recent 3-year period. A waste j I manager at a nuclear utility stated that starting in 1990, there has been a trend to use larger ,
containers to ship radioactive trash such as " land-sea" containers used in transoceanic 4 shipments. If this trend continues, then the number of containers per shipment, or the l number of shipments, would be expected to decrease in the future and this estimate of effort ]
would be conservative.
l l
Radionuclide and other data are entered for each generator contributing waste for each container and for each discrete waste type that a generator contributes. It is assumed that 2
on the average there are 1.2 discrete waste types per generator-container. This is equivalent to assuming that 20% of the containers have two discrete waste types per generator. It is estimated that the average number of significant radionuclides in each waste type (for each generator contributing waste to each container) is 12. The instructions for Form 541 provide that a radionuclide should be listed if: it contributes at least 1% of the total activity of the container; its concentration is greater than 1 % of certain concentrations in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55; its concentration represents a Reportable Quantity under DOT regulations; or it has a concentration greater that 0.26 Mbequerels/cm'. NUREG-1418 (Roles,1990) lists
- aggregate activities by waste type for LLW disposed of at Richland during 1987-89 (in Tables I C.1 through C.3).
I 28 4.L. n-.. ._ m ., . , , . . , , -
Table 4 2 Net Additional Fields on the Uniform Manifest Compared with US Ecology Manifest
- Form / Frequency Alphanumeric Floating Point Fixed Point Form 540 (540A)*
each shipment each radionuclide in each package 2 0 3 1 0 0 Form 541 (541 A)* r each shipment 0 1 3 each container -1 2 2 each waste type (from generators) 0 2 0 Form 542 (542A)'
each shipment 1 4 0 each generator / shipment 6 4 0 each container 2 -6 0 each generator / waste code 2 1 0 each generator / container -3 2 0 ;
shipments to broker / generator 1 0 0 Total (from generators) each shipment 2 1 6 l each container -1 2 2 each radionuclide in each package 1 0 0 each waste type 0 2 0 Total (from brokers) each shipment 3 5 6 each generator / shipment 6 4 0 each container -3 -4 0 i each generator / waste code 2 1 0 each generator / container -3 -2 0 shipments to broker / generator 1 0 0 each radionuclide in each package 1 0 0 Does not include fields required by the U.S. Department of Transportation regulation Based on the US Ecology " Radioactive Waste Shipment and Disposal Manifest" revised as of April 1991 and its instructions.
Based on the US Ecology " Processed Waste Continuation" revised as of October 10,1988.
29
Table 4-3 LLW Shipments for Disposal,1987 Through 1991 Facility 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Barnwell Volume (ft')
Shepments 9.55 x 10+' 9.320 x 10+' 1.103 x 10+' 7.880 x 10+'
Containers 2,681 2,734 2,997' NA NA' NA NA NA NA NA NA Richland Volume (ft') 5.566 x 10** 4.034 x 10+5 4.083 x 10+' 2.953 x 10+5 NA Shipments 2,336 770 816 NA NA Containers 36,973 29,634 33,675 NA NA Beatty ,
Volume (ft') 3.324 x 10+' 9.341 x 10+* 1.162 x 10** 5.948 x 10** NA Shipments 770 239 302 NA NA Containers 26,351 7,778 8,812 NA NA i
Total Volume (ft') 1.845 x 10+' 1.429 x 10+' 1.628 x 10** 1.143 x 10+' 1.369 x 10+'
Shipments 5,787 3,743 4,115 NA NA Sources: Information for 1987-1989 from Roles,1990; for 1990-1991 from DOE,1993
, NA = Not available 30
I From inspection of these tables, for most wastes types there are 6-8 radionuclides with j activities greater 1% of the aggregate disposed of activity for the waste type. The estimate j of 12 significant radionuclides roughly doubles the six with activities greater than 1 % of total
- activity to account for the other four criteria for considering a radionuclide to be significant, it is assumed that, on the average, there are 18 radionuclides per package (Form 540) and 1.5 ,
generators contributing waste to each container for shipments from brokers. A representative of a processor considered these to be reasonable estimates. For shipments from brokers !
(Form 542), it is assumed that there are 16 generators contributing waste to a shipment and l that all waste in a shipment is either collected or processed. Also, for shipments from j brokers, it is assumed that all the waste from a generator was shipped to the broker in one
- shipment.
The waste manager referred to earlier indicated that data entry clerks at nuclear utilities do not, usually, prepare shipment manifests from waste information on paper. Rather, when ;
e an internal waste generator transfers radioactive waste to the waste management department, data about the waste are entered onto a computerized waste management data base. When waste is shipped offsite, the waste management data base is accessed when the shipment ;
manifest is prepared. The waste manager estimated that only about 15 minutes of effort is j required to prepare a shipment manifest in this way. This effort would not be expected to increase because of a few additional data fields that are required by the final rule. Also, nuclear utilities maintain waste management data bases for purposes other than preparing !
- shipment ' manifests (e.g., maintaining accountability). Generation of shipment manifests is j
- just one capability of the software that uses the waste management data base. Therefore, '
j the effort required to enter information~ on the waste management data base should not be attributed completely to the requirement of preparing a shipment manifest. The additional l
information required by the proposed amendments would be expected to be entered on the waste management data base. Consequently, we estimate that there is no additional data !
entry costs attributable to the final rule amendments for shipment manifests prepared by 'l 1
nuclear utilities.
4 i
In the MIMS database for the years 1986-1990,10,652 shipments of the shipments I to disposal facilities were from nuclear utilities, which is 56% of the total number of 31 i i
- _.- . .. . - - - . . . .-- . . -.. - - . . . ._ .. - . ~.. ... - -
1 i
l shipments and 67% of the shipments from generators. We will assume that approximately j 65% of all waste shipments from generators are from nuclear utilities and we estimate that-l there are 7,400 shipments' annually from generators,4,000 to brokers and 3,400 directly to q
! disposal facilities. .We assume that the changes in data entry effort apply only to the 2,590
- i. ' shipments (1,400 to brokers and 1,190 to disposal facilities) from non-utility generators. No I
\
r credit is taken for entry into a data base of manifest information upon arnval of a shipment j
~
- of weste at a broker because such a data base will be attributed entirely to the need to !
. generate man if ests when the waste is s hipped by the broker. This estimate is conservative !
[ in that it does not account for use of computerized internal waste management data bases {
- by generators other than nuclear utilities.
j l
The effort to ' enter data depends on the degree to which computers are used to .
! automate the process. At one extreme, there is no use of computers; the Uniform Manifest forms are completed by hand and all checking is by visually scanning the manually completed j
. forms. At the other extreme, computers are used to their full capability. Here, a generator !
or a broker would use data stored in a computer-readable medium and computer software to !
- electronically generate a Uniform Manifest and to transfer it electronically to the consignee. l To estimate the effort needed to complete the Uniform Manifest forms, a middle approach is used. It is assumed that the relevant information is well-organized on paper and that a data entry clerk enters it into a computer with use of keyboard and software prints the Uniform !
. Manifest forms (but there is no electronic transfer to the consignee). The software used is i assumed to have consistency checking capabilities and to have been quality assured in !
4 conformity to NRC requirements. For example, it would check whether a code has been l entered properly (e.g., 25 is a proper waste descriptor code: 45 is not), and would do the !
I additions so that the " Manifest Totals" in item 1 of Form 541 are consistent. The software is also assumed to have a menu of radionuclides so that it is not necessary to enter the I chemical symbol for a radionuclide, which saves time and precludes spelling errors. This l 1
middle approach is used to estimate the time required to complete the Uniform Manifest forms t by non-utility generators and brokers. ;
An experienced data entry clerk estimated that for repetitive data entry from paper j onto a computer with use of a keyboard,it requires 5 seconds to enter an alphanumeric field i t
32 j i
i
?
I i g }
. . . - .._ . - - - . _ ~ - - - - - . . . - - - .-.- - . . - . -..
s P
< (12 fields / min); 3 seconds to enter a floating point field (20 fields / min); and 2 seconds to 1
enter a fixed point field (30 fields / min). Two seconds are added to each time estimate to ;
. account for checking the accuracy of the keypunching of numbers and other quality I i
assurance. Then the effort required to enter and quality assure these fields are estimated to be 7 seconds for an alphanumeric fiel1,5 seconds for a floating point field, and 4 seconds for a fixed point field. Because radionuclide names, alphanumeric fields, are assumed to be {
entered with use of a menu, the effort to enter a radionuclide name is assumed to be only 3.5 !
i seconds.
i i l Based on these assumptions about the characteristics of shipments and data entry l effort, and the additional data fields summarized in Table 4-2, it is estimated that it would -
l !
require an additional 38 minutes to enter the data on Forms 540 and 541 for a representative j shipment from a generator and an additional 8 minutes to enter the data on Forms 540,541, ;
and 542 for a representative shipment from a broker, as compared with entering the data on
- the US Ecology manifest forms. This additional effort is assumed to apply to 2,590 shipments annually from generators and 600 (15% of 4,000) shipments annually from .
brokers. Then the additional annual effort for entering data on the Uniform Manifest forms is estimated to be 1,640 hours0.00741 days <br />0.178 hours <br />0.00106 weeks <br />2.4352e-4 months <br /> for shipments from generators and 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> for shipments from brokers, for a total of approximately 1,720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />. Assuming that this estimate is high or low by 20% the additional effort to complete the Uniform Manifest forms would range
- . from 1,376 to 2,064 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> annually. To estimate the cost of this additional data entry effort, it is estimated that the salary of data entry clerks is $8.40 to $13.70 per hour and that fringe l benefits are 70% of base salary. (This estimate of salaries is based on the current range of salaries of data entry clerks at Argonne National Laboratory.) Then the costs of entering the additional data fields are estimated to range from $19,700 to $48,100.
l The final rule allows manifest information to be transferred from waste generators to
- waste brokers on a computer-readable medium (e.g., on a diskette) as well as on hard copies at companying a shipment. The waste broker could then use computer software to generate its manifest rather than have data entry clerks entering data from hard copies. In Section 8.3, j lt is estimated that it requires 550 minutes to complete a representative broker's manifest.
This effort would be significantly reduced if waste generators transmitted manifest 33 i
L w y- m e , ,., v, ---e.- ---,.,,i- -w ,,_r-
information to . waste brokers on a computer-readable medium and computer software-manipulated the transmitted information to help prepare the waste brokers' manifests.
4.5.2 Waste Disposal Facility Recordkeeping Weste disposal facilities currently record the information on shipment manifests that they receive, and it would be expected that they would continue to do so regardless of the proposed recordkeeping requirements.' Then, the additional data entry costs associated with the recordkeeping requirements would be the costs of entering the data on the additional iWds in Og :Jniform manifest forms. It is assumed that the effort of data entry clerks in entering the additional information on the recordkeeping system is the same as the effort of entering the additional information on the manifests for shipments to disposal facilities (3,400 from generators and 600 from brokers annually). This effort is estimated to be approximately 2,230 hours0.00266 days <br />0.0639 hours <br />3.80291e-4 weeks <br />8.7515e-5 months <br />. Assuming that this estimate can be high or low by 20% (450 hours0.00521 days <br />0.125 hours <br />7.440476e-4 weeks <br />1.71225e-4 months <br />), then the .
range of additional data entry effort would be approximately 1,780 to 2,680 hours0.00787 days <br />0.189 hours <br />0.00112 weeks <br />2.5874e-4 months <br />. To estimate the cost of this additional data entry effort, it is estimated that the salary of data entry clerks is $8.40 to $13.70 per hour and that fringe benefits are 70% of base salary.
Then the costs of entering the additional data fields on the recordkeeping system would range from $25,400 to $62,400. As discussed in Section 4.5.1, if manifest information were to be transferred to disposal facilities in a computer-readable medium, this data entry cost could be significantly reduced.
4.5.3 Reporting of Manifest information The final rule requires that a disposal facility operator have the capability to report shipment manifest information and additional waste disposal information to NRC at intervals specified in the disposal facility's license. With the great computing power of personal computers (PCs), it will be assumed that the disposal facility operators and NRC use PCs. The I most economical ways for a disposal facility to report to the NRC would be to write the manifest information on a diskette with use of software on a PC and then mail the diskette to the NRC, or to telephonically transmit the information with use of a modem. It is assumed j that NRC will specify which information it wants and how this information should be sorted,
- so that special software could be developed for these periodic reports and a non-professional technician or clerk could run the software to generate the reports. It is estimated that it will 34 I- .............a.. . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . .
i require approximately 30 minutes of effort of a non-professional technician. Based on the salary schedule at Argonne National Laboratory, this technician salary will range between
$10.00 and $16.50 per hour. Assuming fringe benefits of 70% of base salary, the effort to i produce a report would cost between $8.50 and $14.00. Mailing a diskette first class costs
$0.52. The price of a 1 megabyte (1 MB) diskette varies from $0.35 to $2.00 and of a 2 MB diskette varies from $0.60 to $3.00 depending on brand and supplier. The cost of making a report to NRC on a 2 MB diskette is estimated to range between $9.60 and $17.50.
Assuming that there are 14 disposal facilities and reporting is quarterly, the annual cost of reporting would range between $500 and $1,000.
The information in these reports is currently sold by disposal facility operators to NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and probably Host States. The final rule will result in a revenue loss to the disposal facility operators (less than $25,000 per year per operator) from such sales being terminated. This effect is not included in this cost-benefit analysis because it is not an incremental societal cost, but is a transfer analogous to a tax (if this revenue loss would be considered a cost here, then there would be a conceling cost saving to NRC, and not a net societal cost).
4.6 NRC Costs The costs to NRC of the final rule are divided into three classes: deve!opment, j implementation, and operations. Development costs are the costs of preparation prior to implementation. They may include expenditures for research in support of the proposed !
regulatory action, for publishing notices of rulemaking, for holding public meetings, for responding to public comments, and for issuing a final rule. NRC uses a narrow definition of development costs - namely, those costs incurred after the issuance of the final rule. For this rulemaking, there would be no significant development costs, implementation costs are those
" front-end" costs necessary to realize the regulatory action and may arise from developing procedures and guides to assist licensees in complying with the final rule. Operations costs are annual costs associated with the administration of the final rule.
4.6.1 Implementation it would be expected that following issuance of a final rule, NRC staff would provide 35
?
assistance to those subject to the final rule on an as-needed basis, e.g., by responding to telephone calls for assistance. The effort needed to provide this assistance is not expected :
to be significant.
4.6.2 Operations The goal of the final rule is to enhance NRC's performance of its regulatory ,
responsibilities, thus maximizing its ability to protect public health and safety. The amendments will affect the manner in which NRC spends funds for affected responsibilities; however, it is not anticipated that the level of spending would be changed. Expenses for purchase and manual manipulation of shipment manifest and disposal-facility inventory information would be replaced by the cost of software development and the cost of using such software for a variety of applications of interest to NRC, and possibly to State regulatory agencies. Applications could include developing source terms for performance assessment -
evaluation, monitoring the adequacy of LLW regulations and performing assessments necessary for the development of regulations. It is currently an extremely laborious process ,
to track down the location of specific waste shipments or waste types. The final rule, by facilitating the tracking of waste from generator through broker,if any, to disposal facility, will enable NRC to perform its accountability function more effectively and more efficiently. ;
NRC's level of spending for activities relating to LLW are not expected to change, except for the cost of providing uniform manifest forms to licensees, which is taken to be attributable to the rulemaking. Approximately 10,000 sets would be distributed each year.
It is estimated that the cost of printing 10,000 of each of the three forms is $3,400.00 per form, for a total printing cost of approximately $10,000, annually. There is also the expense of postage. It is assumed that 100 pages of forms are mailed fourth class to each of 3,000 entities. The postage for mailing 100 pages fourth class is $1.79, or there would be total mailing costs of approximately $5,000 annually.
4.7 Regulatory Efficiency Agreement States, and the NRC for Non-Agreement States, license LLW land disposal facilities. NRC regulations governing such licenses are found in 10 CFR Part 61. Basically, the regulations require that an applicant for a license provide sufficient information and 36 1
perform safety and performance assessments to convince the regulatory agency that operation of the facility will not endanger the public health and safety, or the environment.
The Amendments Act mandates that the non-sited compact regions and unaffiliated States open waste disposal facilities. The Amendments Act also encourages NRC, or an Agreement State, to act upon an application in a timely manner. More specifically, the regulatory agency should complete all review and application processing (except public hearings) within 15 months of receipt of the application.
Experience to date, such as in Michigan and Illinois, has shown the siting and approval of a LLW disposal facility is controversial and involves political as well as technical, and health and safety considerations (English,1992) Therefore, it is important for political reasons, as well as for health and safety reasons, that the application be technically sound and the regulatory review be thorough. Otherwise, the granting of the license will be unduly delayed, or the license may not be granted. Without the capability of ready manipulation of existing manifest information or access to the information that could be stored on a national LLW data system, both of which are facilitated by the final rule, NRC or an Agreement State would be hard pressed to perform timely, credible independent assessments in the review of an application.
It can be extremely expensive if the regulatory process for new LLW disposal facilities is not carried out in an efficient manner. In 1992, LLW from a non-sited compact region or from an unaffiliated State and disposed of at one of the three existing waste disposal facilities is subject to a minimum surcharge of $40/ft8 . In 1986, approximately 1,000,000 ft* of disposed LLW was generated in non-sited compact regions and unaffiliated States (DOE, i 1987). If new disposal facilities could be opened one month earlier, on the average, the savings in surcharges could be approximately $3.6 million. I lt is not possible to estimate how many months in the licensing process will be saved l as a consequence of implementation of the final rule. However, as illustrated above, I facilitating the licensing process can result in substantial savings in surcharges averted or in I 1
storage costs if disposal is not available. Also, as discussed in Sec. 4.1, more credible I technical reviews of disposal f acility license applications can iesult in substantial dollars saved 37 l
from reductions in information uncertainties.
4.8 Summary of Costs to industry and the NRC The industry and NRC costs estimated in previous sections are summarized in Table 4-4. In this table, upfront implementation costs and annual operations costs are distinguished, and dollars are 1994 dollars. The present value of the annual operations costs are estimated using a 10% real annual discount rate and a 30-year period, in accordance with the guidance in the Handbook.
The costs of implementing the final rule are estimated to range between a cost saving !
of approximately $1.2 million and a cost of $0.63 million. Whether there will be an implementation cost or an implementation cost savings depends strongly on whether there would be additional manifest forms, such as one for each new disposal facility, or not, and on the cost of modifying manifest software. If there would not be any new manifest forms, implementation costs would be at their maximum; if there would be new rnanifest forms for each new disposal facility, implementation cost savings would be at their maximum. l l
\
l The additional costs of annual operation attributable to the final rule are estimated to !
i range between $61,000 and $127,000. The present value of these additional costs is l
\
estimated to range between $573,000 and $1,189,000. These additional operational costs !
arise mainly from the additional effort of data entry clerks in entering additional data fields of the Uniform Manifest forms.
38 i
)
l
~
Table 4-4 Summary of Estimated Costs to industry and the NRC ($1,000)
Annual Present Cost item implementation Operation Value INDUSTRY COSTS Shioment Manifest P
Software Development Uniform Manifest 163 to 326 Multiple Manifests -1,565 to O Additional Data Entry 19.7 to 48.1 185 to 452 Retraining 144.2 to 186.2 Disoosal Facility Recordkeenine.
Software Development 36.7 to 73.4 Additional Data Entry 25.4 to 62.4 242 to 587 2
Electronic Reoortino Data Transfer 24.5 to 49.0 0.5 to 1.0 5 to 9 INDUSTRY TOTAL -1,197 to 634 46 to 112 432 to 1,048 NRC COSTS (manifest distribution) 15 141 TOTAL COSTS -1,197 to 634 61 to 127 573 to 1,189
- The manifest data entry expense for brokers and recordkeeping data entry costs for disposal sites could be substantially reduced if shippers would electronically transfer shipment manifests.
- A potential savings up to $24,000 in retraining data entry clerks of waste brokers and manifest contractors from the use of a uniform manifest, as opposed to use of multiple manifests, is not included.
39
l
- 5. DECISION RATIONALE The final rule will entail quantifiable costs to industry and the NRC, and unquantifiable benefits. In Sec. 4 of this analysis, we estimated that the proposed amendments would entail the following costs (or savings): industry implementation between a savings of $1,200,000 and a cost of $634,000; and annualindustry and NRC operations costs of between $61,000 and $127,000. The present value of the annualindustry operations costs is estimated to be/
between $573,000 and $1,189,000. To put these costs in perspective, disposal fees at LLW disposal facilities are of the order of $200 million annually. The unquantifiable costs that could possibly be averted by issuance of the final rule are potentially much larger than the i
costs described above. They are measured in millions of dollars; the implementation and annual operations costs are measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. t The final rule facilitates the availability and use of information by NRC and State licensing agencies that could speed up the licensing process for new disposal facilities so that ,
surcharges for disposal of LLW generated in non-sited compact regions or in unaffiliated States could be avoided. Several million dollars a month in surcharges could be avoided. The increased availability of this information could result in substantial saving from reductions in data uncertainties. The final rule, by facilitating improved accountability for LLW, could enhance the public health and safety by reducing the likelihood of disposal in other than licensed disposal facilities.
The quantifiable costs to industry of the final rule are quite small relative to the costs of LLW disposal. As a consequence of the final rule, savings larger than the quantifiable costs could possibly be realized in several ways. Also, risks to the public health and safety, and to the environment could be reduced. Under these circumstances,it is concluded that the final rule is justified.
- 6. IMPLEMENTATION The final rule creates an Appendix G to 10 CFR 20.1001 through 20.2402 with requirements for transfers of LLW intended for disposal, including the required use of the Uniform Manifest, that will replace the requirements in Appendix F. The final rule provides {
that Appendix F will be used before July 1,1996 (except as noted below) and Appendix G 40
i i
. will be used after July 1,1997. Between July 1,1966 and July 1,1997, the consignee of j the shipment will specify to the shipper which appendix to use. In the event that a new LLW disposal facility becomes operational prior to July 1,1996, that facility may require all !
incoming shipments to meet the requirements of Appendix G. I i
implementation of the final rule requires that the retraining of data entry clerk and the development of software to generate the Uniform Manifest. In Section 4 it was estimated that software to generate the Uniform Manifest can be developed with four months of a computer programmer's effort, it is estimated that the development or modification of software and retraining of data entry clerks can be accomplished in less than six months after issuance of the final rule. If the final rule is issued during 1994, there are at least 16 months before July 1,1996, which is the earliest Appendix G would be implemented except for the j unlikely, event that a disposal facility that becomes operational before July 1,1996 would l specify that the requirements of Appendix G be followed. Licensees appear to have sufficient !
time to prepare for implementation of the final rule.
- 7. EFFECT ON SMALL ENTITIES The Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L.96-534) requires an analysis of any proposed rule, or final rule that is preceded by a proposed rule, likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of "small entities" (small business establishments, non-profit organizations, and small government establishments). Government entities that generate LLW include research and testing environmental laboratoiles, medical facilities, and military installations. Governmental generators of LLW would not be expected to be small generators within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A significant number of hospitals and l academicinstitutions are LLW generators, and most of these are non-profit organizations. It I
, will be assumed that all hospitals and academic institutions are "small entities." According to NUREG/CR 6147 (Dehmel, et al 1994b), approximately 1.200 hospitals and academic 3
institutions shipped 4.6% of the 7.8 million ft of LLW disposed of at commercial disposal l facilities during 1986-1990.
Although, a significant number of small entities will be affected by the final rule, the economic impact would not be significant. The small entities affected are hospitals and i 41 l
l
academic institutions that generated an average of only 60 f t* per year. They would not be f expected to develop manifest software, so that their only expenses from the final rule would
(
- be an implementation cost to retrain data entry clerks and an annual cost to enter additional f
. data fields. Hospitals and academic institutions comprise approximately_34% (1,200 of .l 3,500) of the generators. Therefore, approximately 34% of the cost of retraining data entry !
clerks could be attributed to hospitals and academic institutions. From Table 4-4, this one- lt time retraining cost would be bwnded by $64,000, or $53 per generator. The annual cost ;
of data entry can be assumed to be roughly proportional to the amount of waste generated. :
Then approximately 4.6% of the cost of additional data entry could be attributed to hospitals [
and academic institutions. From Table 4-4, this cost is bounded by $2,200 per year, or less 4
l . than $2 per year per hospital or academic institution. :
1 i
- . A recent study has used $150/ft* as a representative median disposal cost at l commercial disposal facilities in the neat future (Schafer and Schlueter,1992). Using this j 8
representative cost, disposal costs for an average small entity that generates 60 ft per year of LLW would be 69,000. The annual cost of disposal of LLW is larger when account is taken ;
of packaging and transportation costs and the fees of collectors or manifest contractors. The I
- average :.nsts associated the proposed rule per small entity ($53 upfront and $2 per year) are very small aosolutely and in comparison with the total costs of disposal of LLW.
I 2
- 8. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ANALYSIS .
l The Guidelines require that a regulatory analysis address the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L.96-511) when a proposed regulatory action may impose
- additional collection requirements (applications, reporting, ocordkeeping) that affect 10 or more persons. The final rule requires that the numerous waste generators and waste brokers complete a shipment manifest on a set of forms whose format is specified by the NRC. The final rule also improves the quality of information on shipment manifests. Waste generators and waste brokers currently complete shipment manifests on forms specified by the disposal facility operators. The LLW information reported on these forms is that needed by the
- disposal facilities and needed to comply with DOT regulations in 49 CFR Part 172 and with current NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. The incremental costs of completing the NRC Uniform Manifest was considered in Sec. 4.5. However, as the Uniform Manifest is a new 4
, 42 )
i l
c , .. -
1
)
federal requirement,' the total cost of completion will be estimated for the purposes of the .
Paperwork Reduction Act.
a The final rule requires that disposal facility operators electronically store the information contained on shipment manifests together with some disposal information. It is current industry practice to record all or part of the manifest information on a' computer system, j although NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 only require that disposal facilities maintain r copies of all complete manifests. The incremental costs of recording the additional information that the final rule requires was considered in Sec. 4.5. However, as the recording i of manifest information at disposal facilities is a new federal requirement, the total costs of j entering manifest information on the recordkeeping system will be estimated for the purposes
. of the Paperwwk Reduction Act (as there may be fewer than 10 disposal facility operators, ;
the' Paperwork Reduction Act may not apply to the disposal facility recordkeeping j requirement). The final rule also requires that disposal facility operators be capable of supplying manifest information to NRC on a computer readable medium in reports that would i I
be specified in license conditions. This is a new federal reporting requirement.
S.1 Justification The final rule imposes three information-collection requirements: (1) that the shipment manifest that accompanies a shipment of LLW be a set of forms whose format is specified by NRC; (2) that there be electronic storage of manifest information in a recordkeeping system for any disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR Part 61; and (3) that the operator of any
]
disposal facility licensed under 10 CFR Part 61 be capable of reporting manifest information to NRC on a computer-readable medium. The final rule also improves the quality of the information on shipment manifests by removing vagueness in waste descriptions and by requiring several new information fields. However, as discussed above, the total cost of completing the shipment manifest forms, not the incremental cost, are relevant for the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.
Uniform Shinment Manifggi: NRC could have required that specified information be
' contained on ' shipment manifests without. requiring uniform shipment manifest forms.
However, uniform shipment manifest forms have several advantages. Most shipment 43
manifest preparation is computerized. Manifest preparation software is developed by waste generators, waste' brokers, and manifest contractors who license manifest preparation software. Waste brokers who ship LLW across compact region and State boundaries and manifest contractors would have to develop additional manifest preparation software if there would be a proliferation of manifest forms to meet host state and unaffiliated state requirements in the absence of the Uniform Manifest. In Sec. 4.4, it was estimated that sav ngs, up to $1.56 million in sof tware development costs could result from use of a uniform manifest.
There are other potential advantages that are difficult to quantify. A uniform manifest could enhance the ability of first-on-the-scene responders from local govemments to properly cope with any potential transportation incidents involving radioactive waste shipments because they would have to become familiar with only a single set of forms. It could reduce delays in incident assessment or incident response. It could also reduce the number of data entry errors and reduce waste handling times, thereby promoting efficient operations.
l 1
Storace and reoortino of manifest information: Electronic storage of mani. 'st information on a recordkeeping system assists a licensee in operating a disposal facility in j accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61. These requirements include: performing l quality control reviews of shipment manifests (Sec. 61.12(j)); performing safety and .
environmental assessments for periodic license renewals and eventual facility closure (Sec.
61.27): establishing inventories of specified radionuclides (Sec. 61.7(b)); reporting radionuclide inventories as a function of waste class (Sec. 61.80(j)). Voluminous data must be manipulated to meet these requirements and electronic storage of the information on a l recordkeeping system is very helpful. 4 NRC requires manifest information from disposal facilities so that its regulatory staff has the ability to perform independent safety and environmental assessments and to monitor compliance with regulations and disposal facility license conditions. NRC also needs this information to meet its national regulatory oversight responsibilities (e.g., monitoring the adequacy of NRC regulations). NRC uses computer programs to perform its regulatory functions relative to LLW. As a result, the availability of LLW information in a computer-44
i
' ~
- readable medium would be highly efficient and useful. lf the NRC were to accept manifest
- !
- .information on paper copies, the information would have to be entered into a computer, which j would be an inefficient use of NRC staff resources and would ' duplicate data entry efforts at disposal facilities.
k A requirement to submit information on a computer-readable medium is consistent with ,
the requirements and purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. One of the express purposes of this. Act is to ensure that automatic data processing, telecommunications,= and other
. information technologies are acquired and used by the Federal govemment in a manner that j i
- improves service delivery and program management, improves the quelity of decision making, .
,- and reduces the information processing burden for the Federal govemment ar.id for persons i who. provide information to the Federal government. Reporting in a computer-readable h
medium fosters this purpose. ;
l 8
' S.2 Description of the Information Collection -
, The information that is subject to collection is contained on shipment manifests and is necessary for the safe transport and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). The
!' persons required to prepare shipment manifests are waste generators and waste brokers, who collect or process waste from generators and then ship the collected or processed waste to
, disposal facilities. There are approximately 3,500 waste generators. There are several types of waste generators. These include: operators of commercial nuclear power plants; hospitals; l colleges and universities; governments; and nuclear fuel cycle industries (e.g., facilities where 4
fuel for nuclear power plants is fabricated). There are far fewer waste brokers, approximately 25 (Dehmel et al,1994c). Another type of entity that prepares manifests is the " manifest
- contractor" who prepares shipment manifests for waste generators and who develops and !
l licenses manifest preparation software. There are approximately three manifest contractors.
i The requirements to electronically store shipment manifest information on a i recordkeeping system and to report such informuon to NRC on a coJiputer-readable medium
~
- apply to LLW disposal facility operators. Currently, there are three disposal facilities, each with a different operator. Pursuant to the Amendments Act, the number of disposal facilities is expected to increase over the next several years. It is estimated that there will be over 10 1
J 45 l
s . _ __ __ _ ~ _ i
~ _ _ _- _- __ _ ___ . ...__..__ _ . ___
l l-l ;
i I
! j disposal facilities, but that the number of operators will remain at three, since there is no l
'~
indication that new companies are entering the field.
i The information collection and reporting methods required by the final rule minimize #
. the burdens on the affected parties. It is necessary that paper copies of the portion of'the l manifests that contain DOT requirements accompany shipments. For example, in the event of an accident during transport, local emergency response personnel may be able to use this -
information to ascertain the nature of the hazard so that they could respond appropriately. -l However, the final rule allows the shipper to send other manifest information to the consignee !
electronically (e.g., on a diskette or telephonically with use of modems), if the consignee f
were a broker, the broker could use the electronically transmitted manifest information to l prepare its manifest to reduce significantly the effort of data entry clerks. Similarly, if the l consignee were a disposal facility, the operator could enter the electronically transmitted f manifest information on its recordkeeping system after the shipment has arrived and its content verified. Again, the effort of data entry clerks would be reduced significantly. The requirement of reporting manifest information to NRC electronically would reduce the burden i on NRC staff, as was discussed previously.
l 8.3 Estimate of Burden in this section, the amount of effort (in hours), and cost, required of waste generators and waste brokers to prepare the uniform manifest forms, and the amount of effort and cost required of disposal facility operators to enter this information in recordkeeping systems and ;
report to NRC are estimated. Also, software development costs are estimated, as are reduction in data entry costs from electronic transmission of shipment manifest information. )
in relating effort to cost, for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, it is )
assumed that the offact of workers engaged in a profes'sion (e.g., computer programmer) cost
$133 per hour, and that the effort of other workers (e.g., data entry clerk, technicians, and laborers) cost $45 per hour.
The amount of data entered, and therefore the cost and effect, depend on a number 1 of parameters. The parameters, together with their assumed average values are: ;
C Number of shipments to disposal facilities per year (4000; 3400 from generators and !
46
,- . -. . . - . ~ . - . - . .- .. - .- -... .- -.- -.-
l J \
- 600 from brokers); _ l
'. - -r Number of shipments to brokers'(4000); i
- Number of packages, and disposal containers, in a shipment from a generator (26); I Number of packages, and disposal containers, in a shipment from a broker (67); l 1
- Number of radionuclides in each package on Form 540 (18); !
- Number of generators contributing waste to a container (1 for shipments from
. generstors to brokers and from generators to disposal facilities: 1.5 for shipments from !
3
~ brokers to disposal facilities); l
- ' Number of discrete waste types for each generator contributing waste for each l container (1.2); !
i
- Number of radionuclides for each discrete waste for each generator contributing waste -
- to each container on Form 541 (12); !
l
- Number of generators contributing waste to a shipment (16; this parameter is needed ;
only for shipments from brokers to disposal facilities);
- Number of Waste Codes (P for Processor, or C for collector) for each generator (1; this parameter is needed only for shipments from brokers to disposal facilities); and
- Number of waste shipments to the broker from each generator (1; this parameter is needed only for shipments from brokers to disposal facilities).
Entry of data on Uniform Manifest Formst There are three uniform manifest forms: (1) NRC l
Form 540 (and continuation Form 540A) contains information needed to satisfy DOT shipping 4 paper requirements in 49 CFR Part 172 and the waste tracking requirements in 10 CFR Part j 20; (2) NRC Form 541 (and continuation Form 541 A) contains information needed for disposal !i operations and to assess and monitor disposal of radioactive waste; and (3) NRC Form 542 (and continuation Form 542A) contains generator information for shipments from waste !
brokers.
L L
L For the purpose of estimating data entry effort, data on tl,ese forms is classified as:
(1) alphanumeric (e.g., names, container identifications, units); (2) floating point numbers (e.g., activities of radionuclides, volumes); or fixed point numbers (e.g., coded waste descriptions, checkmarks),
f 47 i
s.
l 1
- w. + - -__._____ ____ _l
The effort to enter data depends on the degree to which computers are used to automate the process. For the greatest effort, there is no use of computers; the Uniform Manifest forms are completed by hand and all checking is by visual scanning the manually completed forms. When computers are used to their full capability data entry effort is minimized. Here, a generator or a broker would use data stored in a computer-readable medium and computer software to electronically generate a Uniform Manifest and to transfer it to the consignee. To estimate the effort needed to complete the Uniform Manifest forms, a middle approach is used. It is assumed that the relevant information is well-organized on paper and that a data entry clerk enters it into a computer that prints the Uniform Manifest forms. This software is assumed to have consistency checking capabilities and to have been quality assured in conformity to NRC requirements. For examole, it would check whether codes are entered properly (e.g.,25 is a proper waste descriptor code: 45 is not) and would do the additions so that the " Manifest Totals" in item 1 of Form 541 are consistent with the quantities of radionuclides given elsewhere. The software is also assumed to have a menu I l
of radionuclides so that it is not necessary to enter the chemical symbol for a radionuclide, which saves time and precludes spelling errors. This middle approach is used to estimate the time required to completed the Uniform Manifest forms.
An experienced data entry clerk estimated that for repetitive data entry from paper onto a computer with use of a keyboard,it requires 5 seconds to enter an alphanumeric field (12 fields / min); 3 seconds to enter a floating point field (20 fields / min); and 2 seconds to enter a fixed point field (30 fields / min). Two seconds are added to each time estimate to account for checking the accuracy of the keypunching of numbers and other quality assurance. Then the effort required to enter and quality assure these fields are estimated to l be 7 seconds for an alphanumeric field,5 seconds for a floating point field, and 4 seconds for a fixed point field. Because radionuclide names, alphanumeric fields, are assumed to be entered with use of a menu, the effort to enter a radionuclide name is assumed to be only 3.5 seconds.
l Based on these estimates of the time to enter data fields, the number of data fields on the Uniform Manifest forms, and the assumed values for the shipment parameters, the estimates of the time to complete the Uniform Manifest forms are given in Table 8-1, along j l
48
__---__-_____---___l
. ~ -.- _
i !
i l
, with the number of data fields. As shown in Table 81, the estimated time to enter data on l
. the forms are: 63 minutes for representative generator's Form 540 and 161 minutes for a l M
l representative broker's Form 540; 103 minutes for representative generator's Form 541 and t
1 .363 minutes for a representative broker's Form 541; and 26 minutes to complete a l I representative Form 542. Then the time to enter manifest information for a representative !
1 shipment from a generator would be slightly less than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> (63 + 103 = 166 min) and !
for a representative shipment from a broker about 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> (161 + 363 + 26 = 550 min). j The representative broker's rnanifest is estimated to take so much longer to complete primarily l
J because it is assumed that a representative shipment from a broker has more than twice as ;
L 1 .many containers than a representative shipment from a generator. !
i l l Preparation of Shinment Manifest: Waste generators are estimated to make 7,400 j t
. shipments of LLW annually; 4,000 to waste brokers and 3,400 to disposal facilities. As was i discussed in Section 4.5, a majority of shipments from waste generators (65%) are assumed j e to be from nuclear utilities, based on manifest information for shipments to the Beatty and .
- . Richland disposal facilities during 1986-1990. Furthermore, it was assumed that manifests from nuclear utilities are prepared with 15 minutes of effort by electronically accessing a waste management data base. The effort to prepare these manifests would be 0.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> / manifest x 4,810 manifest or 1202 hours0.0139 days <br />0.334 hours <br />0.00199 weeks <br />4.57361e-4 months <br />. The offort to complete the remaining 2,590 manifests from non-utility generators would be 7,165 hours0.00191 days <br />0.0458 hours <br />2.728175e-4 weeks <br />6.27825e-5 months <br /> (2,590 manifests x 166/60 1
, hr/ manifest). Waste brokers would prepare manifests for 600 shipments annually. The effect l for waste brokers' manifest preparation would then be 5,500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> (600 manifests x 550/60 )
hr/ manifest). The cost of the effort of data entry clerks to prepare shipment manifests, at
$45/hr, would be $45 x (1,202 + 7,165 + 5,500) or $624,000.
s The information in items 5 9 of Form 541 concerns the containers within which LLW is contained when it is disposed of. The containers used in the shipment of LLW to brokers are not disposal containers. Therefore, the information in items 5-9 of Form 541 is not necessary for shipments to brokers and NRC's instructions do not require its entry for such i shipments. From the number of fields, it is estimated that 16 minutes per average shipment is saved by not completing these fields. With 1400 non-utility shipments annually to brokers, the annual savings from not entering disposal container information for shipments to brokers 49 4
.y e- ,. ,.
f I
would be approximately $17,000. ;
The above estimate of the effort required to prepare shipment manifests does not i i include a component for effort to collect information. Licensees possessing radioactive ;
material are required to strictly account for that material, independent of a shipment manifest requirement. When radioactive materialis transferred intamally to the department responsible i
' I for shipment, the transfer is accompanied by a requisition with information on the material j
transferred. When the radioactive material is shipped, activities of individual radionuclides j must be summed. If the system is not automated, considerable effort may be required to sum the activities. For example, at Argonne National Laboratory where radioactive material from
{
up to 80 internal generators may be in a shipment container and where a spreadsheet is used, !
it may require _ up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of effort to do the summations. However, such effort is l
- attributed to the requirement to account for radioactive transferred offsite (e.g.,10 CFR !
i
, 40.51) and is not attributed to the shipment manifest requirement, per se. i
- 1 l
l A shipment manifest requires a survey of each container to obtain the surface radiation i level. The cost of such radiological surveys can be attributed to the shipment manifests but 4
, would not be an incremental cost associated with new information that would be required by l l'
the proposed amendments, it is estimated that surveying a container requires conservatively an average of 2 minutes (30 per hour). If there are 7,400 shipments annually from generators, with an average of 26 containers, and 600 shipments from brokers, with an of I 67 containers, then the annual effort to survey containers for surface radiation levels would
- be 7,753 hours0.00872 days <br />0.209 hours <br />0.00125 weeks <br />2.865165e-4 months <br />. If the surveying is done by a health physics technician with a cost of
$45/ hour, then the cost of ascertaining surface radiation levels is estimated to be approximately $349,000.
A shipment manifest also requires that each container be weighed. The cost of weighing containers can be attributed to the shipment manifests but would not be an
]
incremental cost associated with new information that would be required by the proposed amendments. A waste manager at Argonne National Laboratory estimated that it requires approximately 5 minutes of effort of a laborer to handle a 55-gallon drum for weighing and
- to weigh it (from NUREG-1418, more than 75% of LLW containers shipped to disposal 50 ,
I l
l
_. i
l
?
facilities were 55-gallon drums in the period 1987-1989). If the cost of a laborer's effort is
$45/hr then the annual cost of weighing 232,600 containers (assumed to be all 55 gallon j drums) at the rate of 12 per hour would be approximately $872,000. ;
i Dianosal Facil tv Recordkeening: The information on manifests received by disposal ;
facilities would have to be entered into a recordkeeping system. As discussed above, the time
, to enter information from paper to'a generator's representative manifest is estimated to be 1 3- .166 min. and a broker's representative manifest is estimated to be 550 min. It is assumed l i
that the time to enter information from a paper Uniform Manifest form onto a disposal facility l l
recordkeeping system is the same as to enter that information onto the Uniform Manifest l
! form. It is estimated that disposal facilities would receive annually 3,400 shipments from 1
waste generators and 600 shipments from waste brokers. Then proceeding as before,it is estimated that about 14,907 hours0.0105 days <br />0.252 hours <br />0.0015 weeks <br />3.451135e-4 months <br /> (3,400 x 166/60 + 600 x 550/60) of effort at a cost
! of about $671,000is required to enter the manifestinformation in the recordkeeping systems.
i The final rule allows the manifest information to be tiansmitted in a computer-readable medium to a disposal facility. The disposal facility can be assumed to have software to enter l the information from this medium as an alternative to manual entry, if there are 15 minutes of effort to enter an electronically transmitted manifest, then the savings in data entry effort for a representative manifest from a generator would be (166 min - 15 min) x $0.75/ min, or
$113.25, and the savings for a representative broker's manifest would be (550 min. - 15 min.) x $0.75/ min., or $401.25. It can be expected that most shippers would take up the option of electronically transferring the manifests. If 75% of manifests are electronically l transmitted, then the savings in entering 2,550 manifests from generators and 450 manifests I from brokers would be approximately $469,000 annually.
Renortina to NRC - The most economical ways for a disposal facility to report to the NRC would be to write the manifest information on a diskette with use of software on a personal computer, and then mail the diskette to the NRC, or to telephonically transmit the information with use of a modem. It is assumed that NRC would specify which information i i
it wants and how this information should be sorted, so that special software could be j j
51 i
)
developed for these periodic reports and a non-professional technician or clerk could run the software to generate the reports. It is estimated that it would require approximately 20 minutes of effort of a non-professional technician at a cost of $15 to generate a report.
Mailing a diskette first class costs $0.52. The price of a 1 megabyte (1 MB) diskette varies ;
from $0.35 to $2.00 and of a 2 MB diskette varies from $0.60 to $3.00 depending on brand i and supplier. Assuming that 2 MB diskettes are used at an average cost of $2.50, the cost ;
l of making a report to NRC would be $18. Assuming that there are 14 disposal facilities and reporting is quarterly, the annual cost of reporting would be approximately $1,000. l Software Develooment Costs -In Section 4.4.1, it was estimated that among waste generators, waste brokers, and manifest contractors, there are twenty sof tware packages that ;
produce hard copies of completed manifest forms. Just as the entire cost of data entry has j been attributed to this rulemaking in the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, so the entire cost of software development will also. In Section 4.4.1, it wat estimated that 3 months (12 weeks) of a professional programmer's effort and a month (4 weeks) of a supervisory engineer's effort would be required to develop and verify manifest software from scratch. j Assuming a cost of $133/ hour for the programmer's and the engineer's effort,it would cost about $86,000 to develop a manifest software package from scratch. More likely, existing softwar's would be modified rather than starting from scratch. In this case, it is estimated that two months of professional effort would be needed, at a cost of $43,000. The cost of manifest software for the Uniform Manifest is estimated by assuming that 75% (15) of the manifest software packages will be modified and 25% will be written from scratch. Then, approximately $1,075,000 would be needed for manifest software development, it is assumed that software for entering manifest information on a disposal facility recordkeeping system would be developed by each disposal facility operator (3) rather than .
1 for each disposal facility (14). It is assumed that a data base management system (DBMS) I would be used to store the information in a sortable data base. it is estimated that it would require approximate two weeks of effort of a profession programmer to design the sortable recordkeeping data base and an additional six weeks to develop and test the software for storing manifest information in the recordkeeping data base. Assuming a programmer's cost ,
of $133/hr, then it is estimated to cost approximately $43.000 to develop and verify 52
- ./
recordkeeping software, if this is done by three disposal facility operators, then the total cost would be $129,000.
Disposal facility operators would also have to develop software for reporting to NRC.
Assuming that NRC would want manifest information sorted such that tables similar to those in NUREG 1418 (Roles,1990) would be in the reports, it is estimated that it would require 3 weeks of effort of a professional programmer at a cost of approximately $16,000 to develop and verify report-writing software. If this is done by three disposal facility operators, then the total cost would be approximately $48,000.
Summarv - We have estimated that the total annual cost of the information collection requirements is about $3.8 million. This total is itemized in Table 8-2. Approximately
$457,000 could be saved in data entry costs at disposal facilities from electronic transmission j of manifest data, and an additional $17,000 more by not entering container information (items l 5 9 on Form 541) for shipments to brokers. Annual disposal fees charged by disposal facilities are estimated to have a median value of $150/ft* (Schafer and Schlueter,1992). If I the volume of LLW disposed of is maintained at the average amount of the years 1987-91 (1,480,000 ft' annually), the annual disposal costs are approximately $220 million. There are additional significant costs for transporting and packaging waste (from Abstract 2.1.4 of NUREG/CR-4627), in the mid 1980's burial cost were approximately 40% of total disposal costs). Even with the entire effort of preparing shipment manifests and entering the information on manifests on recordkeeping systems at disposal facilities, and software development, attributed to the rulemaking, the associated costs are less than 2% of the total cost of disposal of LLW.
8.4 Cost to the Federal Government i j There would be no additional cost to the Federal government and NRC specifically from l information collection in terms of staff time and administrative expense, except for the cost !
of printing and mailing manifest forms and instructions (approximately $15,000 annually)
= discussed in Section 4.6.2. NRC staff would not be involved in the preparation of shipment 4 manifests or_ in the recording of manifest data at disposal facilities. Receiving manifest information from disposal facilities on computer-readable media would decrease significantly 1
53
+ ,e - , , - - , , - - - - _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
i i
e
- NRC staff effort ' required to process this information so that it could be better used for other
- purposes.
't i
e t
.1 i,
)
1 1
l L E 54 i
j r i 1
e i
i l
Table 8-1 Data Fields on the Uniform Manifest and Their Entry Times Number of Fields Time
- Frequency / Form Alphanumeric Floating Pt Fixed Pt (min)
(7 sec) (5 sec) (4 sec)
Each Shipment 540 (540A) 30 0 8 4.0 541 (541 A) 2 12 4 1.5 542 (542A) 3 4 0 0.7 Each Package / Container
- 540 (540A) from gen 9 3 0 33.8 540 (540A) from broker 9 3 0 87.1 541 (541 A) from gen 3 5 2 23.4 541 (541 A) from broker 3 5 0 60.3 Each Radionuclide in Each Package 540 (540A) from gen % 0 0 27.3 540 (540A) from broker) % 0 0 70.4 Each Discrete Waste Type Each Container 541 (541 A) from gen 2 2 6 24.9 541 (541 A) from broker
- 2 2 6 96.4 Each Radionuclide for Each i Discrete Waste Type for i Each Container 541 (541 A) from gen % 1 0 53.0 541 (541 A) from broker' % 1 0 205.0 Generator (16) 542 (542A) 6 4 0 16.5 Each Waste Code for Each Gene:ator (1) 542 (542A) 3 1 0 6.9 Each Shipment to Shipper for Each Generator (1) 542 (542A) 1 0 0 1.9 Total Time 540 (540A) from gen 63.1 543 (540A) from broker 161.5 541 (541 A) from gen 102.8 )
541 (541 A) from broker 363.2 i 542 (542A) 26.0 Utilities (540 & 541) 15.0 55
i i
i i
.. Table' 81 Notes ' f
- The relevant enclosure is the package for Form 540 'and the disposal container for form 541.
Times based on 26 packages and containers per shipment from a generator and 67 packages -;
- and containers in a shipment from a broker; 18 radionuclides per package and 12 radionuclides ;
} per generator-container; 1.2 discrete waste types por generator-container. i Based on waste from 1.5 generators in each container for shipments from brokers, i
}- Table 8 2 ' Summary of information Collection Costs I i -l
!. ' item Entities incurring the Cost Cost (10004) l 1 )
l- Entry of information on Uniform. . . !
! Manifest form Shippers (generators, brokers) 624 i
- j. >
- - Entry of Uniform Manifest information onto disposal facility . Disposal facility operators 671 recordkeeping system a.
! Reporting to NRC Disposal facility operators 1 ,
e r
- - Manifest generation software Generators, brokers, manifest i development; contractors 1,075' l Developing software for storing ,
- manifest data in a disposal facility Disposal facility operators 129 l recordkeeping system. -
~
Developing software for creating Disposal facility operators 48 l'
reports for transmission to NRC ,
Radiological survey of containers Shippers (generators, brokers) 349 1 Weighing of containers Shippers (generators, brokers) 872 i
[ Total 3,769 -
Based on 75% of manifest software being modifications of existing software and 25% being written from scratch.
9 REFERENCES l Dehmol, J-C, ( . Loomis, J. Mauro,.and M. Kaplan,1994a, Characteristics of Class A Low-Level l Ma6cactive Weste 1986 1990: Executive Summary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report i NUREG/CH-6147, Vol.1, Jan.
Dehmel, J-C,' D. Loomis, J. Mauro, and M. Kaplan,1994b, Character /st/cs of Class A low Level ;
i 56 l p !
5
., . - - . . ~ , , , . , , , . . _ , . _ . . . . _ . _ _ , . . . + . . . - _ . . . . _ _ . .
I l
l Radioactive Weste 1986-1990: Main Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR-l 6147, Vol. 2, Jan, i
Dehmel, J-C, D. Loomis, J. Mauro, and M. Kaplan,1994c, Characteristics of Class A Low-Level i Radioactive Waste 1986-1990: Main Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR-l 6147, Appendix G, Vol. 6, Jan.
English, M.R.,1992, Siting low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities: The Public Policy ;
Dilemme, Quorum Books, New York, N.Y.
l Foutes, E.C., and C.J. Queenan, lil, Economic Analysis of LL WDisposalMethods, Proc. Eighth Annual ,
DOE Low-Level Waste Management Forum, U.S. Department of Energy CONF-860990, Session I, pp.
36-53 (1987).
Hoaberlin, S.W., et al,1983, A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-3568, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-4646, December. l Roles, G.W.,1990, Characteristics oflow-Level Radioactive Weste Disposed During 1987 Through i 1989, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG-1418, Dec.
Schafer, J.J. and R.O. Schlueter,1992, Ufe-Cycle Cost Sensitivity of LLW and TRU Weste Transportation, Disposal, and Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning, Proc. International Topical Meeting on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management, Spectrum '92, August 23-27, Boise, Idaho, August 23 27, 1992.
Sullivan, T.M., and C.J. Chen,1989, low-level Waste Shallow Land Disposal Source Term Model:
Data Input Guides, U.S. Regulatory Commission Report NUREGICR-5387, Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-NUREG-52206, July.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),1987, The 1986 State-by State Assessment of low-level Radioactive Westes Received at Commercial Disposal Sites, U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE /LLW-66T, Dec.
i U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),1993, Disposal of Low-Level and Mixed Low-level Radioactive 57 i i
f I
I i i i
l i Weste Dwing 1930, U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE /EH-0332P, August.
U.S. Nucieer Regulatory Commission (NRC),1984, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear j Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/8R-0058, May. l t
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),1985, inspection Report of Unauthorized Possession of UnseeledAmericium-241 andSubsequent Confiscation etJ.C. Heynes Co., Newark, Ohio, U.S. Nuclear - ,
. Regulatory Commission Report NUREG 1153, Tl86 900411, November. l l
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),1986, Generic Cost Estimates, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory !
Commission Report NUREG/CR-4627, June.
- i i
d v
E $
l l
1
(
e 1
1 i
t i
i i
l l
?
58 l
I i
I APPENDlX Table A 1 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests - Form 540 :
Item # and Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology - US Ecology :
from Generator from Broker j s
l 1 Emergency Contact l Telephone 1 alphanumeric Not found Not found i
< once per shipment l Organization 1 alphanumeric Not found No found i once per shipment !
2 Exclusive Use 1 checkmark Not found Not found once per shipment j 3 No. Packages 1 fixed point 1 fixed point 1 fixed point !
once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment j 4 EPA Reg. Waste .
Yes or No 1 checkmark Since mixed waste is Since mixed waste is ;
- once per shipment prohibited, not prohibited, not .
Manifest # 1 alphanumeric needed needed [
l once per shipment i 5 Shipper Name & Facility 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric ;
once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment !
' User Permit # 1 siphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment each page each page i Shipment # 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once por shipment once per shipment Contact 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric
, once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment j Shipper ID # 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment each page Shipper Type 1 checkmark Not found Not found once per shipment Telephone No. I alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 6 Carrier
, Name & Address 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric j once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 1 Contact 1 alphanumeric Not found Not found l once per shipment Signature & Date 2 alphanumeric Not found Not found i once per shipment EPAID 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment Shipping Date 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once por shipment once per shipment once per shipment Telephone I alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 2
59 r- w --y='-- -----r =*
Table A-1 (Cont.)
ltem # snd Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology US Ecology from Generator from Broker 7 Number of Pages Pages per Form 3 fixed point Not found Not found once per shipment Total No. Pages 1 fixed point 1 fixed point 1 fixed point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 8 Manifest No. I alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each page each page each page 9 Consignee Name and Address 3 alphanumeric 1 checkmark 1 checkmark once per shipment once per shipment one per shipment Signature & Date 2 alphanumeric (preprinted) (preprinted) once per shipment Contact 1 alphanumeric once per shipment Telephone 1 alphanumeric once per shipment 10 Certification 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric 3 alphanumeric Signature /I'itle/Date once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment
~
)
11 DOT Description Proper Ship Name 1 alphanumeric 2 floating point 2 floating point each package each DOT description each DOT description Hazard Class 1 alphanumeric (DOT descriptions are (DOT descriptions each package preprinted) are proprinted)
UN ID Number 1 alphanumeric each package 12 DOT Label 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric
- Radioactive" each package each package each package 13 Transport index 1 floating point 1 floating point a floating point each package each package each package l
1 60 l
l
.l
Table A 1 (Cont.)
Item # and Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology US Ecology from Generator from Brokers 14 Phys / Chem Form Physical Form 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each package each package each package Chemical Form 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each package each package each package 15 Individual 1 alphanumeric Not found Not !ound Radionuclides each radionuclide per package 16 Package Activity 1 floating point Not found Not found each package 17 Total WeightNolume 1 floating point Not found; attributed Not found; attributed each package to Form 541 Items to Form 541 Items Unit 1 alphanumeric 8,9 8,9 each package 18 Package ID 1 alphanumeric Not found; attributed Not found; attributed each package to Form 541, item 5 to Form 541, item 5 l
l 61 l
Table A-2 Comparison of Unifcam Manifest and US Ecology Manifests - Form 541 '
Item # and Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology US Ecology -
from Generator from Broker 1 Manifest Totals No. Containers 1 fixed point 1 fixed point 1 fixed point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment i Disposal Vol. 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point i once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment Disposal Wt. 1 floating point not found not found once per shipment ;
Activity 5 floating points 5 floating points 5 floating points '
once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment !
Source 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment !
SNM 4 floating point & 4 floating point 4 floating point 4 3 fixed point once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 2 Manifest No. 1 siphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each page each page each page 3 Page 2 fixed points 2 fixed points 2 fixed points each page each page each page 4 Shipper information Name 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment ID 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric once per shipment once per shipment once per shipment 5 Disposal Container Container ID 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each container each container each container Generator ID 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each generator in each generator in each generator in each container each container each container 6 Container 1 fixed point 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric Description each container each container each container 7 Container Volume 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point each container each container each container l 8 Container & Waste 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point l Weight each container each container each container I
62
- _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___
t I i J
i 4
I Table A-2 (Cont.)
i item # and Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology US Ecology from Generator from Broker d
i
- 9 Surface Radiation j
, Units 1 fixed point '
each container
. Level ~ 1 floating point 2 floating points 2 floating points each container each container each container l
- i
. 10 Surface Contam. I J
sipha/bota 1 floating point Not found Not found )'
each container gamma 1 floating point Not found Not found each container 4
11 Waste Descriptors 3 fixed points 3 fixed points 3 fixed points
, each waste type
- each waste type' each waste type' 12 Waste Volume 1 floating point Not found 1 floating point each waste type each waste type 13 Sorbent Media 3 fixed point 3 fixed point 3 fixed point l
j sach waste type each waste type each waste type 4
14 Chemk:al Descp.
Form /Chel Agent 2 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric sach waste type each waste type each waste type Wt % Chel Agent 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point
- each waste type each waste type each waste type 15 Rad Description Radionuclide 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each waste type- each waste type- each waste type-radionuclide radionuclide radionuclide
- Activity 1 floating point 1 floating point 1 floating point each waste type- each waste type- each waste type-radionuclide radionuclide radionuclide Total Activity 1 floating point Not found 1 floating point each waste type each waste type 4
16 Waste Class 1 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric each container each container each container i
- each waste type for each generator contributing to each container 4
4 63
.-. .. . . _ . - - - . . - - . _ . . _ . ~ . _ - . . - . - - . - . - - - . - - . - . - . - - - . .
i 4
l i
Table A-3 Comparison of Uniform Manifest and US Ecology Manifests - Form 542 l ltem # and Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology l I Waste Collector / Processor .
Name 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric I once per shipment each container j ID 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric j once per shipment each container Shipping Date 1 alphanumeric not found l once per shipment 2 Manifest Number 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric each page each page l 3 Page Number 1 fixed point 1 fixed point each page each page 4 Generator identification 1 alphanumeric 2 alphanumeric each generator each generator-container 3 5 Generator Information l
Name 1 alphanumeric 1 alphanumeric 2
each generator each generator-container
' Permit No. I alphanumeric Not found each generator
. Telephone 1 alphanumeric Not found each generator
- 6 Generator Facility Address 2 alphanumeric Not found each generator
.2 7 Proprocessed Waste Vol. 1 floating point Not found each waste code J
8 Original Manifest No. I alphanumeric Not found each ship to broker per gen.
l 9
k 4
4 64
,- r, .
e <
Table A 3 (Cont.)
Item # and Name Uniform Manifest US Ecology 9 Waste Code (P or C) 1 alphanumeric (coded) Not found each waste code for each generator 10 Compact Region / State 1 alphanumeric (coded) Not found each waste code for each generator 11 Totals Source Material 1 floating point 1 floating point ,
each generator + total each generator-container +
each container Special Nuclear Material i floating point 1 floating point .
each generator + total each generator-container +
4 x each container i Activity 1 floating point l 1 floating point each generator + total each container ;
Volume 1 floating point Not found; attributed to item ;
each generator + total 12, Form 541 l l
l l
65 1 t
1 i .
i I
i i
l 1
i i
i i
i l
ATTACHMENT 4 i
DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT l 1
l l
a
,e L _ a -
m a --.,. 4,w-. .t_ - ,,c f
NRC ISSUES REGULATIONS TO IMPROVE LOW-LEVEL WASTE SHIPMENT MANIFEST INFORMATION AND REPORTING The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 to improve the information contained in low-level waste (LLW) shipment manifests, including the use of a uniform LLW manifest, require LLW disposal facility operators to store manifest information electronically, and for those operators to submit manifest information on a computer-readable !
medium.
LLW is currently disposed at three disposal facilities: the Barnwell, SC disposal facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., the Richland, WA, facility operated by US Ecology, and the Utah facility near Clive, Utah operated by Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Each year these facilities receive thousands of shipments of LLW.
Low-level radioactive waste shipped to a LLW disposal facility requires a shipment manifest which describes the contents. Shipment manifests are large detailed documents containing information required by the NRC and others. The NRC believes that the existing manifest and recordkeeping systems suffer from three major deficiencies: (1) information in existing shipment manifests is inconsistent and does not meet all regulatory needs as currently envisioned; (2) information storage at existing LLW disposal facilities is similarly L inconsistent and incomplete; and (3) the information cannot be readily accessed and evaluated.
The amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61 will rectify these problems by
, (1) improving the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests i that are required to control transfers of LLW ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establishing a set of NRC forms, that serves as a national Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, and captures the information needed to meet NRC, DOT, State and Compact information j requirements; (3) requiring LLW disposal site operators to electronically l
store container-specific manifest information; and (4) requiring disposal site i
l operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information l on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes). l The amendments will improve NRC and State programs for regulation of LLW -
disposal and assure that the chain of custody of- LLW can be tracked from j generation through disposal. The Uniform Low-Leve1' Radioactive Waste Manifest is also designed to satisfy transportation shipping paper requirements of the Department of Transportation.
Further details of the proposed rule are contained in a Federal Register Notice published on .
l l
l 2
l
i I
f ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTERS l
l i
i
g 1 UNITED STATES i" j t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4 001 l
j
.... 4 ,
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives ,
Washington, DC 2'J515 i
Dear Mr. Chairnn:
l The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the i enclosed final amendments to the Comission's rules in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61. '
The amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information i
. contained on manifests that are required to control transfers.of. low-level j radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC forms, that captures the-information- l needed to meet NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact
% formation requirements; (3) require LLW disposal ~ site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports.of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of-information needed
~for the safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through disposal. ,
In developing the final rule, the Commission has. sought and responded to :
comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also worked with the Department of Transportation on those aspects of the Uniform !
Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions. We believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final _ product,
, however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the earlier Federal Register notice.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
federal Register Notice
.cc: . Representative Barbara Vucar.svich N/ lf*
t y & - UNITED STATES j
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 '
\...../ :
I The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman j Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee.on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The'NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final' amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Parts 20'and 61.
The. amendments will: (1) improve the quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests- that are. required to control . transfers of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal at a land disposal
- facility; (2) establish a set ~ of NRC forms, that captures the information needed to meet'NRC, Department of Transportation, State, and Compact information requirements; (3) require.LLW disposal site operators to electronically store _ container-specific manifest information; and (4) require
' disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes).
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information needed for the safe operatior and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure ,
that the chain of cuMndy of LLW can be tracked from generation through ;
disposal. !
In developing the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded to comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also worked with the Department of Transportation ^on those aspects of the Uniform Manifest. forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forrts, and associated instructions. We ;
believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final product, '
however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the earlier Federal Register notice. j i
Sincerely, '
1 Dennis K. Rathbun, Director <
Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
. Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Michael Bilirakis ;
l
'L" b ,
+
a nas p i UNITED STATES l 3
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056 5 0001
\...../~
i The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Chairman ,
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation -l Committee on Environment and Public Works United States: Senate Washington, DC 20510 .)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has'sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final amendments to the Commission's. rules in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61.
The amendments will: (1) improve the . quality and uniformity of information contained on manifests that-are required to control transfers of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) ultimately intended for disposal- at a-land disposal facility; (2) establish a set of NRC' forms, that captures the information )
needed to meet NRC, Department of Transportation,, State, and Compact !
information requirements; (3) require LLW disposal site operators to electronically store container-specific manifest information; and (4) require disposal site operators to be capable of submitting reports of stored manifest information on a computer-readable medium (e.g., magnetic disks or tapes). !
These amendments are intended to ensure the availability of information needed for the safe operation and regulation of LLW disposal facilities and to ensure that the chain of custody of LLW can be tracked from generation through disposal.
In developing the final rule, the Commission has sought and responded to comments and inputs provided by public commenters. Commenters included State regulatory authorities, regional LLW Compact Commissions, LLW disposal facilities operators, LLW generators, utilities, nuclear service industries, Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. The Commission has also worked with the Department of Transportation on those aspects of the Uniform Manifest forms and instructions which address transportation safety requirements. Many of the specific comments have been incorporated into the final rule, the Uniform Manifest forms, and associated instructions. We believe that these commenters have helped to improve the final product, however, the concept and context has remained similar to that presented in the ear _ lier Federal Register notice.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson h V &lML /f