United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-107 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, July 31, 1996)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the attached

report from its Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. The report,

in the form of a letter, provides comments on the elements of an

adequate NRC low-level radioactive waste program.

#

Attachment:

As stated
July 24, 1996

The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson

Chairman

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington DC 20555-0001

Dear Chairman Jackson:

SUBJECT: ELEMENTS OF AN ADEQUATE NRC LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

PROGRAM

You have expressed interest in our view of what constitutes an

adequate low-level radioactive waste (LLW) program. This topic

was discussed by the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW)

in connection with its report to the Commission on SECY-95-201,

"Alternatives to Terminating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program," July 31, 1995. In

addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) LLW program

has a direct link to decommissioning and the Site Decommissioning

Management Plan (SDMP) program. This report relates the comments

of the ACNW and its continued deliberations to a practical

template.

Several fundamental assumptions emphasized in the introduction

will help clarify the structure and priorities found in this

description of a LLW program. This letter, as the subject

implies, only addresses what the Committee believes are the

"elements" of an adequate NRC low-level radioactive waste

program. It is not intended to be a comprehensive program, the

ideal program, or anything more than the subject of the letter

implies. Neither have we attempted to specifically relate the

elements to activities that are already a part of the current NRC

program. We decided that the concept would be clearer if we

stuck to the principle of describing the program elements without

the interruption of frequent reference to current practices and

activities. The Committee is aware that many of the elements

noted are involved in the current program. In addition, the

content and structure of an adequate program are outlined without

the constraints of budget or politics. Further, this description

is focused only on a NRC program. Programs under the

jurisdiction of Agreement States will, of course, have a

structure and scope determined by the individual State within the

compatibility and adequacy criteria of the NRC. Such programs

may differ from those identified here.
2

EXECUTIVE ABSTRACT

A program on LLW that is believed to be adequate to meet the

responsibilities of the NRC is described. This description is

based on selected fundamental principles and a view of the role

of the NRC in its relation to the public, the states, and

licensees. An adequate program must have elements that include

staff capabilities; protocols related to standards, regulations,

licensing; evaluation of technical and programmatic factors and

documents; research; communication with the public; and

interaction with other groups. This description presents a

framework of a LLW program rather than simply reinstating

activities that have been reduced by budget pressures.

1. INTRODUCTION

The NRC LLW program represents a most important interface

between NRC and the public. The current absence of LLW

facilities has forced the waste to be dispersed in thousands of

interim storage location places that are generally much less

secure than the storage areas for spent nuclear fuel. The LLW is

generated and stored in a large variety of locations that are

closer to the population and groundwater aquifers than any other

major source of regulated radioactive materials. The nuclear

waste issues, as conveyed to the public, have no closer general

association with public health and safety than through LLW

management. Therefore, the Commission should assign very high

priority to the maintenance of a competent LLW program with a

focused structure. In this context, the elements of an adequate

LLW program are described, one that accomplishes the goals

required by the mission of the NRC and responds to the impact on

and importance to the public of this phase of nuclear activities.

The underlying assumptions on which a program is based define the

scope and objectives of the program. This description of an

adequate LLW program is based on the following assumptions

including: (1) an Agreement States program has been established

through revision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(AEA), (2) the goal of the NRC's LLW program is the protection of

public health and safety and of the environment, and (3) the role

of the Federal Government is to provide a centralized,

demonstrably qualified, and highly responsive source of

regulatory concepts, activities, and audits to which the public

and governmental entities can turn for a satisfactory model and

in case of questions, doubts, or concerns. The elements of an

adequate LLW program are, by this definition, not limited by

budgetary constraints or by political divisions. However, the

"adequate" nature of the LLW program can be contrasted to an
3

1 Some of these wastes are precluded from NRC attention by various Acts of Congress. If there is a desire to frame

a LLW program that is adequate but circumscribed under current laws, then such materials as defined in restricting

legislation would be excluded from the scope. However, it is clear that the public draws no artificial distinctions

such as made by Congress about the jurisdiction over the various kinds of relatively benign radioactive materials.

"ideal" program by budgetary constraints. The present

description does not address specific budgetary issues for

several reasons, not the least of which is our lack of experience

with NRC budget processes.

In addition, the adequate program is not intended to interact

with Agreement States programs except in a supportive manner or,

as now practiced, when evaluations are required. Finally,

elimination of parts of the described program can be expected to

have a negative effect on the adequate nature of the remaining

program.

2. BASES OF THE PROGRAM

(a) Objective

An adequate NRC LLW program ensures that the processing, storage,

and disposal of LLW, as it is defined in 10 CFR Part 61, are

carried out in accord with other NRC regulations (e.g., 10 CFR

Part 20) and that the current and future impact of such

activities will not represent an excessive risk to the affected

population or the environment. This objective extends to all

LLW-related activities within the jurisdictions of the NRC.

(b) Scope

For the purpose of this limited description, the primary scope of

the LLW program includes all activities, regardless of agreements

(e.g., Agreement State contracts) or coordination (e.g.,

compacts) among participants that involve the processing,

temporary storage, transportation, and disposal of LLW. Also, it

would be desirable to include in an adequate LLW program a modest

amount of attention to "greater than class C" (GTCC) waste as

defined in Part 61 and to "mixed waste." Under such an expanded

scope, other wastes that would be included in an adequate LLW

program are naturally occurring and accelerator produced

radioactive material (NARM) and naturally occurring material

(NORM), wastes from uranium recovery and processing, wastes that

are formed by the inadvertent concentration of contaminants

(e.g., sewage, bag house dust), and wastes derived from

decontamination and decommissioning activities 1

.

3. COMPONENTS OF AN ADEQUATE LLW PROGRAM

The components of an adequate LLW program include standards,

regulations, licensing, enforcement, evaluation, communication,
4

2

This is an important, albeit perhaps nontechnical, criterion not to be overlooked.

3

The distinctions made by the USEPA should, in an ideal situation, be rectified.

4

The provisions listed can be installed in revised regulations (Parts 61 and/or 20) or could be formulated in

Regulatory Guides, technical position papers, or other documents. The selection of the avenue should be based on

the extent to which the provisions are necessary to the protection of the health and safety and the environment and

the extent to which alternative processes could accomplish the same goal.

technical support and technical resources, research, and

activities with other entities. The distinction between an

"adequate" and an "ideal" LLW program is likely to be in the

scope and completeness of execution of the LLW components. In

order to be classed as adequate, the LLW program needs to contain

those elements and

subelements that are critical (or believed to be critical by the

public2

) to the NRC'S public protection role. Program components

at the "adequate" level are briefly described below.

(a) Standards

An adequate LLW program must have available to it generally

applicable environmental standards, preferably expressed in terms

of risk. The standards for groundwater protection should address

the risk at the edge of any disposal facility in terms

appropriate to this point of enforcement. In addition, the

standards for exposure of the general population and occupational

workers should be available in terms of risk that is in concert

with risk standards found in other regulations. The present

standards may be acceptable, except that Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) groundwater standards include resource protection

that is not directly relevant to public health and safety3. The

protocol for a working relationship between the NRC and the EPA

needs to be developed, perhaps using the current interaction on

the Yucca Mountain standard as a model.

(b) Regulations4

The regulations, specifically Parts 20 and 61, should be reexamined and revised so that their principal, obvious outcome is

the protection of public health and safety when advanced concepts

(e.g., above-grade vaults, advanced waste forms) of LLW disposal

are utilized. The NRC should have in place regulations that

identify minimum site characteristics for an acceptable LLW

disposal facility location. There should be very few unequivocal

disqualifying site attributes, and the site characteristics

should be developed while mindful of the variety of disposal
5

5

This would require revision to Part 61 since at present there is no time limit for showing compliance with the

25/75/25 mrem/y dose. The matter of time limits for demonstration of compliance with regulations is still being

discussed by the ACNW.

6

The ALARA concept poses some difficulties when the process of defining compliance with regulations is

described to the public. Nevertheless, the ALARA concept as a process can be used as a powerful tool in the

regulatory arena and should be retained in LLW regulations.

7

Risk levels in regulations should take into account the irreversible nature of contamination in certain situations,

e.g., groundwater supplies from major aquifers. The exact means for taking this into account is not clear but the

EPA ground water report gives some indication of what could be used as a starting point.

8

The potential conflict of this recommendation with the apparent NRC position on its Agreement State relationships

(i.e. NRC has relinquished authority) is recognized. However, if the NRC is to be viewed as the competent entity

that assures public protection, the NRC must be prepared to intervene in a deficient operation, regardless of the

techniques likely to be submitted by prospective practitioners

and the wide diversity in proposed facility terrains.

Regulations should identify the performance of a repository

related to risk and be coupled to a time frame 5 over which an

applicant

must demonstrate compliance. To be considered adequate, a LLW

program should include regulations so structured that anticipated

LLW disposal licensees (now largely but not exclusively in

Agreement States) would be able to use the regulations as guides

for demonstrating their compliance. Further, the regulations

should identify the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA)

process as part of the basis for performance of a LLW disposal

facility and should ensure that the ALARA concept is employed,

not as a numeric goal or quasistandard, but as a process 6. In

order to be a useful guide, the regulations should (1) state the

limits of contamination of groundwater at the accessible

environment7 (e.g., the EPA drinking water limit for appropriate

aquifers), (2) state the limits on airborne contamination as

measured at the site boundary, (3) refer to 10 CFR Part 20 for

occupational exposure limits, and (4) set the limits to the

contamination of the soil at the site. The regulations should be

carefully crafted to allow applicants flexibility in reaching the

desired goals. Agreement State regulations should be compatible.

The NRC LLW staff should, however, be prepared to evaluate the

proposals of applicants that elect to follow paths other than

regulatory guides or position papers while claiming to arrive at

the required level of protection of public health and safety. In

order to maintain the LLW program in the adequate range, the NRC

staff should be prepared to examine and modify the regulations as

experience dictates. In addition, the NRC staff should exercise

the capability to examine and evaluate the regulations of other

entities, such as Agreement States8

. Also, the internal
6

agreement status. This is believed to be a requirement for an adequate program.

9

This may be perceived as too stringent, especially in times of budgetary stress. On the other hand, the public view

of the necessary technical quality of those charged with protecting its health and safety may well demand such a

level of competence.

organization structure of the NRC that deals with Agreement

States should ensure that the technical experts from the Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) are directly

available to help the Agreement States. Small teams of experts

in technical and licensing matters could be drawn from various

divisions and groups by matrix management. The role of the

Office of State Programs should be defined to ensure such NMSS

participation.

(c) Licensing

The NRC staff should be capable of managing, with internal

expertise, all important aspects of licensing a LLW facility.

Similar capability must exist for the approval (e.g., review of

topical reports) of concepts, equipment, and processes.

Procedures for licensing, i.e., requirements for documentation

and associated information, should be defined in available

documents. These should detail the considerations to be used by

the NRC staff in the review process. The details of compliance

determination strategies and methodologies should be defined in

guides except in those rare instances where rulemaking is

required when focused (e.g., singular) protocols are deemed to be

optimal (should be rare) or to avoid excessive and unproductive

legal arguments at the time of processing the license

application.

This implies that the LLW staff in an adequate program largely

has technical capability no less than any applicant or

intervenor9

. Such competence can be obtained by employing

qualified personnel maintained by, for example, continuing

scientific and technical activities. The latter is a necessary

part of maintaining a capable staff for an adequate LLW program.

(d) Enforcement

An adequate LLW program should contain NRC inspection and

enforcement activities to ensure that public health and safety is

unequivocably protected. The public must be able to see the

enforcement of the NRC regulations. Further, the evaluation of

the compatibility and adequacy of Agreement State programs must

contain provisions measuring the quality of the enforcement

process as well as the use of evaluation criteria that are

directly related to public health and safety, e.g., number of
7

incidents, number of overexposures, and violations of technical

specifications leading to excessive risks.

(e) Evaluation

Evaluations can be divided into several parts. The NRC staff

must have sufficient technical skill (see (c) above and footnote

9) and sufficient working knowledge to evaluate the submissions

of potential licensees. This includes information about site

characteristics, as well as disposal and operating systems.

Further, the NRC staff must be able to support Agreement State

activities by providing requested technical evaluations. Such

support will likely involve negotiation about the extent, timing,

and costs. The NRC LLW staff must remain cognizant of activities

in Agreement States and should provide requested comments and

advice, especially when recognized deficiencies could lead to an

unsatisfactory outcome.

The NRC LLW program staff should have the capability to evaluate

all aspects of the performance of LLW facility licensees. In

addition, incidents that result in serious violation of the

technical specifications of a LLW facility, provide indications

of important deficiencies in the control of wastes, result in

excessive exposures of personnel, or result in offsite

contamination in excess of predetermined levels should be

investigated and evaluated by the NRC LLW staff. In this role,

the NRC LLW staff as the technically competent and vigilant

Federal oversight agency should seek to ensure the protection of

public health and safety.

(f) Communication With the Public

The adequate LLW program must be able to communicate, in terms

clear to the public, the actions and their consequences of

evaluating applications, granting licenses, evaluating Agreement

State programs, rectifying deficiencies in licensee and Agreement

State activities, etc. The NRC staff needs to communicate

regularly with Agreement States and licensees. The interactions

should be designed to address technical issues and to ensure that

misconceptions and misunderstanding of LLW regulations or the NRC

role in their application are corrected in a timely manner. In

order to ensure this process is effective, staff size and

capabilities must match the needs and the results of evaluation

of the outcome of the interaction processes. The use of small

interdisciplinary teams (see (b) above) may be an effective

paradigm. Public perception of NRC activities should reflect the

basic mission of the NRC, i.e., protection of public health and

safety and the environment. Regular reporting to the public on

all facets of LLW disposal and management should be part of an

adequate LLW program.
8

(g) Technical Support

The NRC must be able to provide technical support to licensees

and Agreement State programs when requested and also when such

support appears to be required. As already noted, technical

evaluations and support in the prelicensing stage should include

evaluation of applications, identification of deficiencies in

analyses and data acquisition, etc. The NRC staff should be able

to formulate peer review process protocols for LLW technical

issues that would aid the potential licensee or Agreement States

in developing a sound and defensible technical basis for license

applications. Technical support from an adequate program must

also be functioning during the operational and closure phase of

LLW facilities. An adequate LLW program should evidence

coordination between the LLW staff and operating materials

licensees.

(h) Research

An adequate NRC LLW program may encompass research activities.

However, the LLW program need not involve a research component,

except that the maintenance of technical skills of the staff

could be implemented in part by research programs, and except in

instances where important research broadly related to LLW is not

being done by other groups. Research activities must

specifically address problems noted in evaluation of LLW disposal

facility sites or that have been identified through internal and

external performance evaluation of the LLW systems. Research on

site- or facility-specific problems need not be part of an

adequate LLW program. In the absence of a suitable research

program, the NRC LLW technical staff needs to be provided with

scientific and technical growth through other avenues.

(i) Interfaces

An adequate LLW program should have identified points of contact

with other agencies and organizations, as well as within the NRC.

The former include the EPA regarding standards and mixed wastes,

the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding GTCC disposal and

Agreement States. Sound agency management will define the extent

and distribution of such contacts .

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES IN AN ADEQUATE LLW PROGRAM

In SECY-95-201, the NRC staff presents in Table 1 the options

considered in the SECY paper and the activities for a number of

elements. We comment here on their relevance to an adequate LLW

program.

(a) Rulemaking will be needed both initially to develop

functional bases for the adequate LLW program and
9

10The assignment of RES personnel to the rulemaking role may be an unnecessary artifact of previous agency

operations. If the LLW staff is competent, interaction with OGC advisors may be all that is necessary.

occasionally thereafter to correct and expand regulations as

the need arises. The LLW staff10 should have sufficient

technical capability to evaluate the work of RES and others

in the rulemaking process.

(b) The NRC LLW staff will need to be able to respond to

petitions in concert with other offices (e.g., the Office of

the General Counsel).

(c) The Commission should be able to obtain policy guidance and

advice from the LLW staff. That staff can, in the course of

normal duties, develop various technical documents that

provide guidance to potential applicants, to Agreement State

programs, and to others.

(d) International activities should be part of an adequate LLW

program, owing to the importance of such activities to the

U.S. and to the safe use of nuclear technology. The extent

to which such activities are pursued needs to be carefully

defined, largely because of budget constraints.

(e) Import/export authorization need not be part of an adequate

LLW program. This topic can be managed by other Federal

agencies in consultation with NRC and DOE.

(f) Emergency access to LLW facilities is not a necessary part

of an adequate LLW program and could be managed by another

Federal agency.

(g) Assistance to other Federal agencies should be part of an

adequate LLW program if the topics so warrant. NRC

management should determine the extent of involvement on a

case-by-case basis.

We trust these comments are responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

/s/

Paul W. Pomeroy

Chairman, ACNW