-

NUREG-0782

Vol. 1

ltninonmrinent h@wat Sternen

on 10 CFR Part 61 ""Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Summary

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

September 1981

0 a
Available from

GPO Sales Program

Division of TLchnical Information and Ducument Corstrol

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cownission

Washington, PC 20555

and

SNationdl Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161
-

NUREG-0782

Vol. 1

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Summary

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

September 1981
FOREWORD

The evaluations and analyses set out in Volume II of this EIS

include a systematic analysis of a broad range of alternatives

relating to the form and content of waste, the engineering design

and method of operation of disposal facilities, institutional

controls, financial assurances, and administrative and procedural

requirements. Rather than presenting the results.of the individual.

analysis of alternatives" this summary draws on the various-analyses

and presents the collective 'major-conclusions, findings, and''

recommendations that have been derived and incorporated into the

'Part 61 rule.' It is not possible to present the rationale or'to

summarize all the'requirements'in this'summary. NRC has, therefore,

concentrated on' the' major requirements'of the rule--the'performance

objectives and technical requirements that establish the, controls

to be applied'in'disposal of waste. 'The discussion often crossreferences specific sections or paragraphs of,.the.proposed rule,,

which is included as Attachment'A to this'summary.

The results of the' analyses carried out in this EIS indicate that,

with modest increases in cost-relating to improving the'form'and

properties of 'waste 'shipped :for disposal- (most of 'which are

essentially being'implemented today) and modest improvements' in

Ahe design and operation of a near-surface disposal facility (many.

of which -are being used' at some of:the'existing sites today), the

potential health, safety, and environmental, impacts 'from disposal

of LLW and the degree of long-term social commitment can-be reduced.'-.

The ability to predict the long-term performance and'impacts of''

near-surface disposal facilities is also improved, and the uncertain

and high costs required to care for disposal sites over 'the long

term are reduced. . .

Stated simply, we 'can put' some modest increased .effort and cost

into the disposal of LLW today--leading to reduction in'potential

impacts, reduction in long-term care costs, and increased confidence

in the performance capability of near-surface disposal facilities.'

Or, we can continue as we have in the past, possibly leading to

situations as has been' evidenced at' some existing sites where the

potential impacts over the long term may be high, the costs for,-

'long-term care high, and 'confidence in ,the long-term performance

-low. The proper course 'of 'action'is'the former, and the performance

'-objectives, technical, and other requirements selected and set out'

in the new Part 61 regulation and in amendments 'to'other existing'

parts of NRC's regulations' are' directed 'at "these'key aspects.

i
VOLUME I

Summary

Page

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION--PURPOSE, SCOPE, NEED

AND STRUCTURE OF THE EIS .......................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ................................................... 1.

1.2 Scope . .1.................................... 1.3 Need 'for theProposed Action ...................... 2

1.4 Structure of the EIS. 3

1.5 Scoping for the EIS. 3

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. 4

2.1 Waste Generation and Characteristics . 5

2.2 WasteDi sposal 5

2.3 Federal and'State Responsibilities in Commercial LLW

Disposal.................................................... 6

3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS ................ 8

4. COSTS AND IMPACTS OF BASE CASE (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE.18

5. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES--DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA .22

5.1 Performance Objectives...................................... 22

5.1.1 Protection of the Inadvertent Intruder .23

5.1.2 Long-Term Environmental Protection .30

5.1.3 Assuring Safety,During Operations .35

5.2 Technical Requirements .. 35

6. WASTE CLASSIFICATION . . .39

6.1 Classes of Waste .40

6.2 Maximum Average and Allowable Concentration Limits .41

6.3 Transuranic Isotopes ........................................ 42

6.4 Isotopes Not Include-d In Table ............................ 42

6.5 Mixtures of'Radiosto'pes.43

6.6 Implementation of Waste Classification .43

7. ADMINISTRATIVE, PROCEDURAL, AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. 44

7.1 Procedural and Administrative Requirements on Disposal

Facility Operators .44

7.2 Financial Assurance Requirements .48

ii
Table of Contents (Continued)

7.2.1 Requirements for Short-Term Financial Assurances

for Operations, Closure, and Postclosure Observation

and Maintenance ...................................... 49

7.2.2. Requirements for Long-Term'Financial Assurances for

Institutional Care ................................... 51

7.3 Manifest Tracking System ...................................... 53

8. UNMITIGATED IMPACTS .............................................. 53

8.1 Environmental Consequences Occurring Directly as a Result

of the Proposed Part 61 Rule ................................ 54

8.2 Environmental Consequences Occurring Indirectly as a

Result of the Proposed Part 61 Rule ......................... 56

8.2.1 Assumed Regional Disposal Facility Designs and

Waste Source Term .................................... 56

8.2.2 Results of the Regional Analysis ..................... 57

ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste ................. 66

List of Tables

Table

5.1 Commercial Waste Disposal Sites. 6

S.2 Waste Streams Considered in Analyses .11

S.3 Radionuclides Considered in Analyses .12

S.4 Impact Measures Used in Analyses .16

5.5 Principal Long-Term Radiological Impacts for the Base Case

(No Action) Alternative .19

S.6 Other Impacts and Costs of the Base Case (No Action)

Alternative................................................. 21

S.7 Summary of Incremental Barrier Costs for Facility

Design and Operation .26

S.8 Summary of Long-Term Environmental Impacts from Regional

Case Study .58

S.9 Summary of Costs and Short-Term Radiological Impacts for

the Regional Case Study .61

iii -
I IiIME

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

List of Figures

Figures

S.1 Low-Level Waste Generation Regions .......................... 10

S.2 Life Cycle and Financial Assurances for a Disposal

Facility Following the Proposed 10 CFR Part 61 .45

iv
SUMMARY

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION--PURPOSE, SCOPE, NEED, AND STRUCTURE

OF THE EISThe proposed action being considered in this environmental impact statement

(EIS) is the issuance of a new regulation, Part 61, to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules in Title:10, Code of Federal Regulations.

(10 CFR). Part 61 will provide licensing procedures, performance objectives,

and technical requirements for the issuance of licenses for.the land disposal

of."low-level" radioactive waste (LLW).-.Specifically,,the proposed action

includes consideration of requirements on the standards of performance that

should be met in land disposal; technical requirements for.the siting; design,-.:

operation,'closure and postoperational.activities for a near-surface disposal

facility; technical requirements on waste form that waste generators would be

required to meet:for acceptance of waste atia disposal facility; classification

of waste; administrative and procedural requirements for licensing a disposal

facility; and provisions for adequate financial assurance.

1.1 Purpose.

NRC has a two-fold purpose ..in preparing this EIS. First, itis to fulfill

NRC's responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act of, 1969 (NEPA).-

NEPA requires that a federal agency prepare an EIS for "major actions significantly affecting the quality of.the human environment.". NRC has determined

that the promulgation of Part 61is such .an action and this EIS has, therefore,

been prepared.

Second, NRC has prepared this EIS to demonstrate the decision processes-applied

in the development of Part 61. It is the intent of NEPA to have federal agencies

consider alternatives and to incorporate environmental values into the decisionmaking process at an early stage. NRC has analyzed alternative courses of action,

and requirements were selected with consideration of costs, environmental impacts,

and health and safety effects to current and future generations.

1.2 Scope . - . ; . -

This EIS analyzes requirements for the land disposal of radioactive waste and

specifically, near-surface disposal. Near-surface disposal involves disposal

in the uppermost 15.to 20.meters of the earth's surface. Specific.technical

requirements for other alternative land disposal methods (e.g., deep-mined

cavities) will.be addressed in subsequent rulemaking actions. It also does

not address-other methods such as ocean and space.disposal. Requirements for

ocean disposal, are a responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Space disposal, although feasible, ,is not developed-to the point of routine

technical and economic application...-

This EIS is not a generic EIS in that it does not analyze -all of-the issues

involved in the disposal of LLW. Rather, this EIS provides the decision.analysis

for requirements in the Part 61 rule. Only issues that are germane to this

decision process are analyzed and considered.

1
2

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action

Current NRC regulations for licensing radioactive materials do not contain

sufficient technical standards or criteria for the disposal of the licensed

materials as waste. As discussed below, the need for comprehensive national

standards and technical criteria for the disposal of radioactive waste is well

documented.

Performance objectives are needed to define the level of safety, environmental

protection, and social commitment that-should be achieved in the disposal of

LLW. To ensure that the performance objectives are met, technical requirements

are needed regarding the siting, design, operation, and'closure of a LLW disposalfacility. Requirements onhpostclosure activities are also needed, as are requirements on the form, packaging, and content of the disposed waste. Administrative

and procedural requirements for licensing a LLW disposal facility should be

reviewed and changis'evaluated. Finally, requirements for financial assurance

need to be evaluated to assure adequate financial resources for closure and

postclosure activities.

Comprehensive standards, technical criteria, and licensing procedures are thus

needed. They are needed to assure the public health and safety and long-term

environmental protection in the licensing of new disposal sites. They are also

needed with respect to operation of the existing sites and with respect to final

closure and stabilization of all sites.

In evaluating the level of safety which should be achieved, NRC identified

3 principal components that needed to be considered:

1. Protection of occupationally exposed workers and the public during

operation of the facility;'

2. long-term environmental protection; and

3. Protection of an inadvertent intruder.

A level of safety has been established for occupationally exposed workers and

protection of the public during operation of the facility and is set out in

the existing standards in 10 CFR Part 20, which applies to the activities of

all NRC licensees.

Neither the federal government nor any national and international organizations

have, however, defined such a level of "safety'specific to the disposal of LLW'

involving long-term environmental protection and protection of an inadvertent

intruder. NRC thus had to establish performance objectives to define the level

of safety which should be achieved for each of these. Protection of aninadvertent intruder is a new concept, 'generally unique to' disposal of waste.

With respect to standards on long-term releases to the-environment, the'Environmental Protection Agency is developing such standards through its overall program

to develop generally applicable'environmental standards; however, no standard

for LLW disposal presently exists.
3

In addition, there was a fourth component, generally.unique to waste disposal

that also needed -to be addressed:. long-term'social,6commitment. Future generations should not be burdened with long-term expensive commitments.to care for

wastes generated today, and the development of requirements'for the disposal

of waste should take into-account the-long-term commitment of social and natural

resources to care for waste over the long term.

1.4 Structure of the EIS

This-EIS has~beenpprepared in.accordance with requirements'of the National

Environmental Policy Act. It has also been-prepared'following Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for preparation of environmental impact

.,statements and.NRC-implementing regulations.as set out in 10 CFR Part 51, . "Licensing and Regulatory-Policy and'Procedures for'Environmental'Protection."

This EIS is being published in four'separate volumes. 'Volume I is this summary.

Attachment A to this summary~is the-proposed Part 61.rule. Volume II contains

the main text which consists of ten chapters described in greater'detail below.

Volumes III and IV contain appendices:A-Q which set.out details and other

supporting technical information to that contained in the main text.' The

chapters and appendices are frequently referenced in'this summary.

* Chapter 1 of the main text is' an introduction which presents background information about LLW disposal and the purpose, scope, and structure of this EIS.

Chapter 2 presents the overall approach NRC.has followed in developing regulations for.LLW disposal.:-Chapter 3 describes the affected environment and the

technical approach' followed in'this EIS in analyzing LLW disposal. Chapter 4

presents and analyzes alternatives regarding protection of an individual who

might.inadvertently.intrude into a disposal facility atea future time.

Chapter 5 presents and analyzes alternatives relating to long-term environmental protection and potential releases'to the environment from'a disposal

facility.. Chapter 6 presents and analyzes alternatives relating to safety

during operation of the facility. -.Chapter.7 presents the classification of;'

waste for near-surface disposal,' defining those wastes which are acceptable'

for disposal by near-surface disposal-methods and those wastes which are

generally not acceptable and must be-disposed of by other methods..- Chapter 8'-

presents the regulatory .program for .licensing the land disposal of radioactive.

wastes.., Chapter:9-presents and analyzes requirements for financial assurance.

Chapter 10;presents typical unmitigited impacts of Part 61 through analysis of

the disposal of waste on-a regional'basis following the preferred technical

requirements identified in. this EIS.

1.5 Scoping for the EIS

Scoping'of an.environmental'impact'statement is defined by the Council on

Environmental'Quality'in 40 CFR Part 501.7 as "...an early and open process

for determining.the' scope of.-issues to'be.'addressed and-for identifying the'

'significant'issues related to a proposed action." Alth6ugh'thefeconcept of EIS

scoping is.a relatively.recent'development, 'NRC has conducted 'scoping 'activities

relative to the proposed Part 61.and this EIS'since 1978. ., Included hive been:
4

1. Publ-ic comments in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the' LLW Disposal Regulation (10 CFR Part 61) published in

the Federal Register on October 28, 1978;

2. Public comments on a preliminary draft of 10 CFR Part 61 dated

November 5, 1979;

3. Four regional workshops on Part 61 sponsored-by the Southern States

Energy Board, the Western Interstate Energy Board, the Midwest Regional

Office of'the Council of State Governments and the New England Regional

Commission;

4. Input from the State'Planning Council, the'National Governors Association,

the National Council of State Legislators, and the National Conference

of State Radiation Control Program Directors;

5. A Natural Resources Defense Council Petition for Rulemaking;

6. Discussions with industry, public interest groups, state and federal

agencies, and others;

7. Licensing experience and current LLW management techniques at existing

disposal sites;

8. Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop standards

for LLW disposal and regulations for disposal of nonradioactive solid

and chemically hazardous wastes; and

9. The results of federal, state, and other organization's studies and

technical data on LLW management and disposal.

Public participation in the development of Part 61 and analyses of the major

scoping activities and public comments are discussed in Appendix C.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The environment affected or potentially affected by the generation, transport,

and'disposal of LLW encompasses the whole'of the 'nuclear industry and much of

society. It consists of all the industries, hospitals,'private individuals,

and governmental agencies and laboratories that generate LLW through the use'

of radioactive materials as a normal part of their day-to-day' activities and

functions. It consists of those involved in supplying waste processing and

packaging services at waste generator facilities, and transporting waste'-from

waste generators to disposal facilities. It consists of those involved in the

ownership, operation, and long-term control of the disposal facilities. It

involves the various regulatory agencies such as NRC, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the state radiation control programs-that'license, regulate,

and inspect all waste'maairgement phases to assure an adequate'level of safety.

In consists of society: the individuals, small population groups,' and the _ general population that can be potentially affected by the various activities

involved in the generation and disposal of waste. Finally, it consists of the
5

natural environment'including the ground and surface water, the atmosphere,

and various plant and-animal-species that would be affected by site-specific

activities.'

2.1 Waste Generation and Characteristics

The term "low-level waste" serves as a general term for a very wide range of

radioactive wastes. All industries; hospitals; medical, educational, or research

institutions; private-or government laboratories; or facilities forming part

of the nuclear fuel cycle (e.g., nuclear power plants, fuel fabrication plants)

utilizing radioactive materials as a part of their normal operational activities

generate so-called low-level radio'a'tivie'waste just as'they generate other types

of hazardous and nonhazardous waste; LLW consists of the radioactive materials

themselves and other materials which have been in contact with radioactive

material and are contaminated or suspected of being contaminated.

Presently,'there are more than 20,000 companies, institutions, laboratories,

and government facilities licensed by NRC or Agreement States to use radioactive

materials as a normal part of day-to-day activities. Because of the wide range

in the types of activities and 'in-specific purposes of application, LLW'is

generated in many waste types, forms, and amounts. It ranges from trash'that''

is only suspected of being contaminated to highly radioactive material such as

activated structural components from nuclear power reactors'. The form of the

generated waste can be solid, liquid, or gaseous. It can consist of a widerange of chemical forms and can be shipped in a number of different types of

packages.-'

Currently, about 85,000 m3 (3 million ft3) of "commercial" L1W is generated

annually. It ranges in activity from thousands of curies'per cubic meter to

less than a few microcuries per cubic meter. Most of the activity disposed of

at the commercial sites is contained in a relatively small volume of waste which

is generated by less than 100 licensees. Based on projections'of LLW volume

prepared by NRC for the basic waste stre-ams considered in this 'EIS, about"

3.62 million M3 (128 million ft3) will be generated during the period 1980-2000.

Of this, .about 65% of the waste is projected to be generated by fuel cycle - sources and-35% by nonfuel cycle sources. -Institutional generators will account

for about 19% of the nonfuel cycle'sources.'

2.2 Waste Disposal

The operators of the disposal facilities offersthe essential services of

providing a licensed nd controlled slte-for'disposal of 'radioactive waste.

The waste is disposed of by a method generally known as shallow land burial

(SLB). This method of. waste disposal consists of placing packaged waste into

excavated trenches. The filled trenches are backfilled with soil, capped,'and

mounded to facilitate rainwater runoff.- e.

Presently, there are 6 commercial sites: 3 operating and 3 closed. One of

the-operating sites, located at Barnwell,:South Carolina, is operated by ChemNuclear Systems,-Inc. The other two operating sites, located at Beatty, Nevada
6

and Richland, Washington are operated by U.S. Ecology, Inc. (formerly the Nuclear

Engineering Company, Inc.). The commerical sites are summarized in Table S.1

below. The Department of Energy (DOE) also operates 14 sites throughout the

country for the disposal of wastes generated from defense and DOE research and

development activities. These 14 sites are not subject to NRC regulatory

jurisdiction.

Table S.1 Commercial Waste Disposal Sites

Originally

Licensed Currently Operational

Location Operator By (year) Licensed By Status

Beatty,

Nevada

U.S. Ecology, Inc. AEC (1962) State Open

Maxey Flats,

Kentucky

West Valley,

New York

U.S. Ecology, Inc.*

Nuclear Fuel

Services, Inc.

Kentucky (1962)

New York (1963),

State Closed

State Closed

Richland,

Washington

U.S. Ecology, Inc. AEC (1965) State and

NRC**

Open

Sheffield,

Illinois

U.S. Ecology, Inc. AEC (1967) NRC Closed

Barnwell,

S. Carolina

Chem-Nuclear

Systems, Inc.

South

Carolina (1971)

State and

NRC**

Open

*U.S. Ecology was the operator while the site was open. Currently,

maintains the site as a caretaker for the state of Kentucky.

**NRC licenses only special nuclear material.

Hittman, Inc.

2.3 Federal and State Responsibilities in Commercial LLW Disposal

There are five key federal agencies that administer programs-regarding themanagement and disposal of-LLW. These include the Nuclear Regulatory-Commission

(NRC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) in the Department of Interior, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the

Department of Transportation (DOT).

NRC has the responsibility in the United States of regulating and licensing

the commercial and nondefense governmental use of source, byproduct, and special

nuclear material. This responsibility extends to licensing commercial disposal
7

of LLW in licensed facilities. NRC carries out its responsibilities'in compliance with overall federal radiation protection guidance and environmental standards

established'by the'Environmental Protection Agency.' EPA was''charge'd with this

responsibility in the Reorganization Plan Number Three of 1970. The U.S. Geological

Survey. is responsible for basic research 'in the geological sciences and development

of basic data for application inthe development of criteria and to'provide

technical advice'in the 'assessment'of specific disposal sites. The Department

of Energy carries out federal responsibilities for the research,` development,

and'transfer of LLW disposal'technology'to commercial industry. The U.S. Department of Transportation has the primary'responsibility for regulating waste

conta'iners, transport vechicles, and other aspects of interstate transport of

radioactive waste.

Existing'NRC regulations for commercial LLW'disposal in licensed disposal

facilities are principally-contained in-a few paragraphs in 10 CFR Part 20

(§20.302). tThe requirements'mainly'describe in general terms the types of

information to be included in an application for a disposal'facility,'and

require that LLW .disposal facilities must be sited on land owned by the state

or federal government. 'In practice, 'this 'requirement has been met through

lease conditions between the disposal facil ity operators and state landlords

which provide that the 'states'assume responsibility for long-term control and

surveillance of the'facility sites'after closure.

Other NRC regulations--Part 30 ("Rules of General Applicability to Domestic

Licensing of Byproduct Material"); Part 40 ("Domestic Licensing tof Source

Material"),.'and Part 70'("Domestic'Licensing of Special Nuclear'Material")--apply

to possession of'licensedsmaterial-by'aadisposal'facility licensee.- "Part 2

("Rules of' Practice for Domestic Licensing-Proceedings") contains general

requirements for NRC licensing proceedings.' Part'51 ("Licensin'g"and Regulatory

Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection") contains requirements for'

compliance with' the Naitional-Environmental Policy Act-of-1969 (NEPA).

In discharging its responsibilities, NRC is empowered by-the Atomk Energy Act

to relinquish part of its regulatory authority over source, byproduct,' and

special nuclear material to the states. Under Section 274 of the Act,'before

the NRC enters' into'such an agreement;' the" state must have a radiation control

program that is-adequate to protect the public'health aid''safety and'compatible

with NRC's program. Currently, there are 26 such Agreement States. Licensing

of commercial'LLW disposal''facilities'is ipart of'the authority which'may be

relinquished by NRC to'Agreemernt States.' Of the 'six commercial disposal

facilities which have operated-in the"United States, five of these'facilities

are located in Agreement States and are princlipally'regulated"by the-Agreement

States (See Table S.1). ' , ;

To the extent that'a.'new 'regulatioin such as' Part 61 represents-a change in NRC's

radiationiprotection program'fo' siource,' byproduct, and special nuclear material,

it is necessary that the'Agreement'States cooperate in'the'formulatioii of compatible regulations and revise their existing regulations as necessary. Current

NRC regulations regarding NRC's relationship with the Agreement States are

contained in 10 CFR Part 150.
8

3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The overall method of analysis followed in this EIS may be summarized as follows:

1. First, the costs and impacts from the generation, transport, and disposal

of waste at a reference near-surface disposal facility are calculated.

This analysis is termed the "base case" analysis and represents the

"no action alternative." The reference facility is'sited and operated

following existing practices and recommendations for siting and site

operational safety. The base case facility, however, does not utilize

some existing procedures commonly in effect at the real operating

sites--e.g., the disposal of higher exposure rate packages on the'

bottom of disposal trenches. These assumptions were made to allow'

the calculation of a base level of costs and potential environmental

impacts' against which improvements (alternatives)'could be evaluated

with respect to their costs and effectiveness in mitigating impacts

of the base case.

2. Second,'a range of modifications and improvements (alternatives to

the base case) are evaluated with respect to their incremental change

in cost and effectiveniess in mitigating potential impacts of'the base

case. The alternatives evaluated include'those-relating.to various

waste form, processing, rind packaging options, near-surface disposal'

facility designs and operating procedures; site considerations; active

institutional control time periods, and performance'objectives. Alternatives were also considered and'evaluatid regarding financial'assur--

ance mechanisms for closure, postclosure care, and active institutional

control, and the administrative'procedures that should be followed in

licensing near-surface disposal facilities.

3. Third, a comparative evaluation'of. the'base case and-alternatives is

conducted which yields selection of the preferred performance objectives and technical requirements for the siting, design, operation,

and long-term.inistitutional control .of a disposal facility. The

performance'objectives, technical, and other requirements developed

through the analyses collectively form the basis for the new requirements to be codified through the Part 61 rulemaking action.

4. Finally, application of the preferred performance objectives and

technical requirements selected and incorporated'into Part 61 is

evaluated to assess typical unmitigated impacts of LLW disposal,'

following the preferred requirements. The disposal. of waste according to the preferred requirements is analyzed on a regional basis at

four regionally operated sites and the typical costs and impacts are

determined. The analysis also helps assess the applicability of the

Part 61 requirements to the wide range in site and waste characteristics expected in the regional disposal of LLW.
Information Base for Analysis

To perform these analyses, an information base had to be developed which involved

three main components: alternative disposal'facility environments, alternative

waste characteristics, and alternative disposal facility designs and operating

practices. Based upon this information base, an analysis methodology was

developed to calculate impacts and compare'alternatives.

First, the continental United States is 'assumed to be divided into four regions

as shown in Figure S.1. The four regions considered correspond to the five U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission regions and are termed the northeast region (NRC

Region I), the southeast re'gion(NRC.Region II), the midwest region (NRC

Region III), and the western region (NRC Regions IV and V):' In each region,

a hypothetical regional disposal facility site is characterized. (The site in

the western region is generally termed the southwest site.) These -sites',

while not representing any particular location within a region--or any existing

or possibly planned site, reflect typical environmental-conditions within the

regions. This allows consideration in.the calculational methodology of a wide

range of environmental conditions such as the amount of.'rainfall or the average

distance from the waste generator to the disposal facility.,

The next component of the information base involved considering and characterizing a wide range of'waste types, waste forms, and processing options. In

previous studies on LLW management and disposal, the disposed waste was usually

assumed to be a mostly uncharacterized mass with little'attempt to distinguish, in a quantitative manner, the different waste types and forms. -In this

EIS, however, LLW is separated into 36 waste streams and each waste stream is

characterized in-terms of its volumes and physical, chemical, and radiological

properties as projected to be routinely generated during the period 1980 to

2000. The 36 waste streams so considered'in this EIS are listed in Table S.2:

Each waste stream represents a type of waste generated by a particular type of

waste generator and having physical, chemical, radiological, and other characteristics unique to that individual stream. The most important radionuclides present

in each waste stream are identified and the geometric mean of the range of

activity concentrations for each'radionuclide is determined from' available

data. The radionuclides considered are shown in Table S.3. The volumes of,

each waste stream-.are considered'on a regional basis. That is, the volume of

the .wastelstream'is projected for each of the above four regions over the

next 20 years, which allows consideration of, regional impacts of management

and disposal of'LLW.

Furthermore,- four.'generic alternative waste form and processing options are

considered. These generic processing options, called-"waste spectra," represent

four relative levels of'waste processing activities applied to the 36 waste -

streams characterized. The waste'spectra have been developed to limit the number

of waste form and packaging alternatives that would have to be analyzed, since'l,

an infinite number of possibleIcombinations of various waste streams and processing

options are'available.' The four spectra, which are described in detail in

Appendix"D, are as follows. Waste spectrum 1 characterizes'existing and, in

some cases, past.waste management practices. Waste spectrum 2 characterizes

improvements in the form of the waste through processing and reduction in waste
.Ali 

Si' - l

sd 

as 

as

INM 

mu 

I

NECLAU EN SPACING LIUNITAIa SYHBOLS lTY akdf* 

Of= 

".474.],-\IV

2Kw" 

-12W\ Rl l

e ~Figure 

5.1 Low-Level blaste Generation Regions|

[ [E~usEOF SACE ll11^Tlo~s 

SOL~Sh.
11

Table S.2 Waste Streams Considered in Analyses

Waste Stream Symbol

t . I- 'n i~ ._A

uroup 1: LWK Process wastes

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

BWR

BWR

BWR

Ion Exchange Resins.

Concentrated Liquids

Filter Sludges

Filter Cartridges

Ion Exchange Resins

Concentrated Liquids

Filter Sludges

P-IXRESIN

P-CONCLIQ

P-FSLUDGE

P-FCARTRG

B-IXRESIN

B-CONCLIQ

B-FSLUDGE

Group II: Trash

PWR Compactible Trash

PWR Noncompactible Trash

BWR Compactible Trash

BWR Noncompactible-Trash .

Fuel Fabrication Compactible Trash

Fuel Fabrication Noncompactible Trash;

Institutional Trash.(large facilities)

Institutional Trash (small facilities)

Industrial SS* Trash (large facilities)

Industrial SS Trash (small facilities)

Industrial Low Trash (large facilities)

Industrial Low Trash (small facilities)

Group III: Low Specific Activity Wastes

Fuel Fabrication Process Wastes . -

UF6 Process Wastes

Institutional LSV** Waste (large facilities)

Institutional LSV Waste (small facilities)

Institutional Liquid Waste (large-facilities)

Institutional Liquid Waste (small facilities)

Institutional Biowaste (large facilities)

Institutional Biowaste (small.facilities)

Industrial SS Waste

Industrial Low Activity Waste'-l

Group IV: Special Wastes

LWR Nonfuel Reactor Components

LWR Decontamination Resins -

Waste from Isotope Production Facilities

Tritium Production Waste

Accelerator Targets - .

Sealed -Sources - - ..

Industrial High Activity Waste

P-COTRASH

P-NCTRASH

B-COTRASH

B-NCTRASH

F-COTRASH

..F-NCTRASH .

I-COTRASH

I+COTRASH

N-SSTRASH

N+SSTRASH -

' N-LOTRASH

N+LOTRASH

F-PROCESS

U-PROCESS

.I-LIQSCVL

-I+LIQSCVL

I-ABSLIQD

I+ABSLIQD

I-BIOWAST

I+BIOWAST

N-SSWASTE

N-LOWASTE

L-NFRCOMP

L-DECONRSN-ISOPROD

N-TRITIUM

N-TARGETS

.. N-SOURCES.

N-NIGHACT

*SS: Source and Special Nuclear Material

**LSV: Liquid Scintillation Vial
12

Table S.3 Radionuclides Considered in Analyses

Half Life Radiation

Isotope (years) Emitted Principal Means Of Production

H-3 12.3

C-14 5730

Fe-55 2.60

Co-60 5.26

Ni-59 80,000

Ni-63 92

Sr-90 28.1

Nb-94 20,000

Tc-99 2.12 x 105

I-129 1.17 x 107

Cs-135 3.0 x 106

Cs-137 30.0

U-235 7.1 x 108

U-238 4.51 x 109

Np-237 2.14 x 106

Pu-238 86.4

Pu-239 24,400

Pu-240 6,580

Pu-241 13.2

Pu-242 2.79 x 105

Am-241 458

Am-243 7950

Cm-243 32

Cm-244 17.6

X

5Y

X

x

5, Y

x

5, Y

5, Y

a, Y

a, P, Y

a, y

a, P y

a, y

a, Y

a

a, y

a, 3, Y

a, y

a, y

Fission; Li-6 (n, e)

N-14 (n, p)

Fe-54 (n, y)

Co-59 (n, y)

Ni-58 (n, y)

Ni-62 (n, y)

Fission

Nb-93 (n, y)

Fission; Mo-9B (n, y), Mo-99

Fission

Fission; daughter Xe-135

Fission

Natural

Natural

U-238 (n, 2n), U-237 (5 )

Np-237 (n, y), Np-238 ( 53);

daughter Cm-242

U-238 (n, y), U-239 (5 ), Np-

(p )

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture; daughter

Am-242

Daughter Pu-241

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture

(P )

-239
13

volume with relatively-modest -expenditures of time and money. These two spectra

bound existing waste management practices, which are currently ;in a marked state

of change due to state initiatives, a lack of disposal capacity, and economic

considerations. In waste spectrum 1, for example, light water ion-exchange

resins and filtei sludges are shipped to disposal facilities, in a dewatered

form 'Several ather-high- activity waste streams are also shipped to disposal

facilities in an unstable-form, and no.special effort is made to compact

compressible waste streams. :In waste.spectrum 2, all light water reactor.

process-wastes, including ion-exchange resins and-filter sludges, are stabilized

by solidification while other high activity waste streams are stabilized through

improved packaging techniques. All compactible trash streams are compacted.

Waste spectrum.3-characterizes further waste form improvements and volume

reduction-at further increased costs,.including incineration of most combustible

waste streams. .Wasteispectrum 4 .characterizes the maximum volume reduction

and improved-waste-forms that.can currently be practically achieved..

The third component of-the information-base involved characterizing (costs,

operational-exposures, -etc.) a number.of alternative disposal facility'.designs

and operating practices. These alternatives are developed.in Appendix F to

the main text, and include alternatives which will reduce potential impacts

to inadvertent intruders, reduce ground-water migration and long-term social :

impacts, improve operational-safety, or combinations thereof.. The alternatives

characterized include the following:

.. Deeper trenches - ' Improved monitoring

Thicker trench covers - tMoisture barriers

Increased backfill thickness '"Sand backfill

.Layered waste disposal"'- Improved surface water

Slit trenches ' drainage' '

Caisson disposal - Weather shielding

Concrete walled trenches Stacked waste emplacement

Grouting Waste segregation

Engineered intruder barriers- Deicontainerized disposal

Improved compaction '- 'Dynamic compaction '

I .. r 

Other disposal alternatives were also briefly examined. These included potential

land based.methods-(intermediate depth disposal, mined cavities) as well as other - potential-disposal methods.(ocean disposal, space disposal). -'.

Use of Reference Waste Volume-and Disposal Facility"-'..

From the above, it can be seen:that when considering t

the effect of alternative

regional, waste form, and facilty design and operation characteristics on the'.

magnitude of the impact measures calculated, an extremely' large' number' (thousands)

of -possible permutations can be considered.. To enable development of. performance

objectives and technical requirements-for LLW disposal, the number of these .
14

permutations needed to be-controlled and analyzed on a systematic basis. NRC,..

therefore, adopted use'of (1) a reference waste volume distribution and (2) a

reference disposal facility site and design.

As discussed in Appendix D, the reference waste-volume distribution is generated

through averaging all the'waste volumes assumed-to be generated in each of the.

36 streams-for each of-the four regions, and normalizing these volumes to one

million m3 of waste for'waste spectrum one. This allows the effects of

alternative waste spectra and alternative disposal facility designs and operating

practices to be compared on a common basis.

To, help provide conservative bounds to the potential-costs -and impacts of waste

disposal, the reference LLW disposal facility is assumed-to be sited in a humid&

eastern environment. NRC staff anticipates that over the next 20 years, over

three-quarters of the waste generated in the United States will be generated

in humid environments--i.e., in the eastern and humid Midwestern sections of

the country. Regional disposal of waste therefore implies that most;of the

waste generated in humid environments would also be disposed in humid environments. Potential ground-water impacts (and actions required to protect ground

water) at a humid'site are generally expected to be greater than those at an

arid area. For this EIS, the reference disposal facility is assumed to-have

environmental characteristics corresponding to the southeast regional site,

although either the northeast regional site or the midwest regional site could

have been used for this purpose.

The reference facility is sized to accept a relatively large quantity of waste--

i.e., 50,000 M3 of waste per year over a 20-year operating life, or a total

volume of one million m3. This corresponds to approximately one-quarter of

the total volume of LLW projected in the United Stat'es. to the year 2000. Disposal

of one million m3 of waste in the reference facility will require about 150

acres of land, which corresponds to an approximate upper bound of the land area

of current commercial disposal facilities.

The reference facility site minimally meets all of the site suitability requirements set out in Chapter 5. The facility is also assumed to be operated in

compliance with minimum radiation safety practices required by provisions of

10 CFR Part 20. Although the facility is. assumed to comply with the NRC Branch

Technical Position on Site Closure and Stabilization (Appendix I), no special

effort is assumed regarding the waste form or design and operational practices

to ensure long-term site stability. Several design and operational improvements

directed at stability'that have been instituted at some-existing sites have

not been assumed for the'base' case''site (e.g., vibratory compaction of backfill

material). This has been done to establish a base case level of long-term costs

and radiological impacts against which measures to improve site performance,

achieve greater site stability, minimize radiological impacts, and to ensure

adequate funding can be assessed. The facility is described in detail in

Appendix E. A brief description follows.

The disposal facility is assumed to be operated for profit by a small corporation which is engaged in other nuclear-related business activities in addition
15

to operating the disposal facility. The disposal area at the reference facility

includes 58 disposal trenches with dimensions of 180 m (591 ft) long, 30 m

(100 ft) wide, and 8 m (26 ft) deep. The rather large trench sizes assumed are

representative of recent trends at existing disposal sites. Support facilities

and structures at the siteiinclude"'(1) an'administration'building, (2) a health

physics/security building, (3) a warehouse, (4)'a garage, (5) a waste activities building, and'(6) a storage shed. "All'structures-at the site are

one-story metallic structures on concrete pad foundations.

Shipments of radioactive waste arrive by truck and are processed onto the site

on a first-come, first-served basis.' Accompanying the shipments are manifest

documents--termed radioactive shipment records (RSRs)--which describe the content

of the shipment. Arriving shipments are' inspected for compliance with applicable

federal regulations and waste acceptance criteria established as conditions in

the disposal facility license.

Waste is randomly emplaced in the'ttrench,"sometimes using cranes and forklifts,

and backfilled with dirt removed during.trench excavation. Random waste emplacement results in a trench volume use efficiency of about 50 percent. Waste is

emplaced to within one meter of the top' of the trench. Earthen fill: is then

backfilled into the trench until the trench cover approximately corresponds to

the original grade of the site surface. A-one-meter thick earthen cap is then

placed upon the backfill and-is mounded. The earthen cap is then covered with

natural overburden material as necessary to provide good drainage characteristics

and according to the final contours plhnned for the site surface. The overburden

is then reseeded to promote growth of a short-rooted grass cover.

After a 20-year operating period,"closure (decommissioning) of the facility is

assumed to require approximately one to two years and involves dismantling and

decontamination of site buildings, disposal of wastes-produced-during dismantlement and decontamination operations, and final site seeding and contouring. The

licensee also makes a final survey of the disposal area to make sure direct

radiation levels are at essentially background levels.. Following closure, the -

disposal license is terminated and-control of the site is-transferred'to the

site owner. For this EIS, the site owner is assumed to be-a state'agencywhich carries out an active institutional control program of surveillance,

monitoring, and maintenance for 100 years.

Impact Measures

The impact measures considered in this EIS include short-term radiological,

exposures, long-term radiological-exposures, costs, energy. use, and land use.

These impact measures are listed in Table S.4. - ; - -

Of these, the principal .impact measures considered involved long-term radiological

exposures and costs. Long-term.radiological exposures could involve activities>'

such as man potentially contacting the waste after disposal (i.e., inadvertent

human intrusion into the disposal facility), potential leaching and transport of

the waste through the ground water; intrusion and dispersion by plants and animals;

long-term erosion of the site with-eventual uncovering of the waste and surface
16

Table S.4 Impact Measures Used in Analyses

Waste Management Phase Impact Measure

Waste processing

Waste transportation

Waste disposal

Costs

Energy use

Occupational exposures due

to waste processing

Population exposures due

to waste Incineration

Costs

Energy use

Occupational exposures

Population exposures

Costs

Energy use

Land use

Occupational exposures

Exposures to individuals

and populations due to:

o operational accidents

o ground-water migration

o inadvertent human

intrusion

water and air transport; and release

waste containing radioactive species

discussion is provided below:

of gaseous decomposition products from the

(e.g., tritiated methane gas). Further-''

Human Intrusion Exposure Pathways. Intrusion into disposed waste may be

either deliberate or Inadvertent. A deliberate intrusion event implies that

the intruder knows of the potential hazard of the disposed waste but for some

reason deliberately chooses to ignore the hazard. (For example, the intruder

could be seeking something of possible value in the disposed waste.) NRC

believes that deliberate intrusion into the disposal facility cannot reasonably

be protected against, and it is not considered further. After the facility

closes, however, and after active institutional control and surveillance over

the facility have been removed, one or a few individuals could inadvertently

disturb waste at the disposal facility through such activities as constructing

a house or through gardening. In this case the intruder is unaware of the

presence of the waste.

Intrusion into a closed waste disposal facility, assuming a breakdown in

institutional controls, has been examined in detail in studies by a number of
17

industry, national-laboratory, and:federal agency contractor investigators (see -.

Section-4.2.1 of Chapter 4). -:These studies analyzed a range of intrusion

exposure pathways'Irianging from potentially trivial events to events which

could cause relatively significant exposures.- -

Based on a review of the pathways considered by these investigators, NRC

selected a limited number for analysis in the EIS. The events are conservatively assumed to occur based upon consideration of typical human activities.

NRC recognizes the hypothetical nature of..such events and that they may never

occur. Given their hypothetical nature,,NRC has assumed-reasonably conservative (but not overly conservative) actions on the part of the intruder. In

addition, some judgment was also made as to the likelihood and extent of the

events occurring depending upon specific waste forms and disposal. practices.

Two concentration-limited events and one activity-limited event are analyzed.

One involves the assumed construction of a house directly on the disposal

facility and is-referred to as the intruder-construction.scenario. 'A modification of this scenario, termed the intruder-discovery scenario, -is assumed to

occur when the inadvertent intruder-contacts solid remains of waste, realizes

that something is wrong and ceases intrusion activities. The second event -

involves an individual-or-several individuals living in the house thus constructed and is referred to as the intruder-agriculture scenario. The activitylimited event, which involves consumption of water by the intruder from a well

drilled at the site, is termed the intruder-well scenario. (See following section

on ground-water migration.) In addition, potential population exposures from,

radioactive material dispersed by the inadvertent intruder are also analyzed.

Ground-Water Migration. Potential impacts due to long-term releases to ground

water are given major.consideration in this EIS. Ground-water impacts are

calculated for :four human access locations: (1) a well located onsite which

is assumed.to be used by a potential inadvertent intruder following the end of

the active institutional control period;.(2) a-well located at the site boundary

which is assumed toube used by a.few individuals; (3) atwell.assumed to'be

located approximately 500 meters downgradient from the.disposal facility and

used'by-a:small population of about 100 persons; and (4) a small.stream located

about one-kilometer downgradient of the disposal facility and assumed to be used

by a small ,population of about 300 persons... All exposures listed are to .

individuals.

Possible increases in percolation-,into disposal cells due to intrusion by humans,

burrowing animals, deep-rooted plants',"-or other factors are incorporated into the

analyses.

Other Long-Term Release PathwaYs. There may be other potential pathways for

long-term release of radionuclides to the environment from disposed waste.

These pathways include:O- 4," ; '

o.. Gaseous-releases from decomposing.waste; -

o Plant and-animal intrusion; and

o Wind and-surface water erosion and transport.
18

NRC staff believes, however, that the most significant pathway is ground-water

migration. Gaseous releases do not have a large impact and can be reduced by

assuring stable site conditions. Impacts from plant and animal intrusion are

site-specific and can be reduced through engineering designs applied to reduce

ground-water migration and potential intruder exposures. Erosion is a slow,

long-term process which can be controlled through proper siting and good

operational techniques.

Costs. Costs are calculated over 20 years operation of the disposal facility

and are separated in this EIS into three components:

o processing costs

o transportation costs

o disposal facility costs.

Waste processing costs include costs associated with processing (e.g., compaction,

solidification) and packaging wastes prior to disposal. Processing costs are

separated into those associated with processing by waste generators and those

which could result from transfer of the waste to a centralized regional processing

center prior to disposal. Transportation costs are costs associated with transferring the waste to the disposal facility and for the reference facility, are

calculated based upon an average transport distance of 400 miles.

Disposal facility costs are separated into (1) design and operating costs and

(2) postoperational costs. Design and operating costs are those costs associated

with siting, designing, constructing, and operating the facility over 20 years.

These costs may be further separated into capital and operational costs (see

Appendix Q), and are a function of the alternative disposal facility designs

considered in the'EIS. Postoperational costs are divided into closure costs

and institutional control (long-term care) costs. Closure costs are calculated

assuming that adequate funds for-closure are provided for by the licensee through

use of an investment fund (represented as a surcharge on received waste). The

availability of funds for closure is assumed to be assured by a mechanism such

as a surety bond. Institutional control costs are calculated based on the

assumption that a state-operated sinking fund is established and that a surcharge

is levied upon the waste received at the disposal facility on a cost-per-wastevolume arrangement. All postoperational costs are calculated as costs to a

disposal facility customer.

4. COSTS AND IMPACTS OF BASE CASE (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)

Principal long-term radiological impacts for the base case (no action)

alternative are listed in Table S.5 for several time periods following license

termination.

Direct impacts to a potential inadvertent intruder (in mrem/yr to an individual)

are summed over all 23 radionuclides considered in the analysis and volumeaveraged over all 36 waste streams disposed into the disposal facility. The

highest potential intruder exposures are those to the bone. Whole body

exposures are also shown. Over the first 500 years, potential exposures to

the bone from the intruder-construction scenario drop by a factor of 3 from
19

Table S.5 Principal Long-Term Radiological Impacts for the Base Case

(No Action) Alternative

Ir . . I . .. V

* : ' ' . - - ./ 'Cost§and .. ...* t..s Impacts -

-~Direct intruder impacts:

Body (mrem/yr)yo 100 C

A

O 500 C

-A'

o2000'CA

Bone -(mrem/yr)

o100 C

A

o 500 C

A

o 2000 C

A

1. 502E+3**

1. 769E+3

7.808E+1 --' 4.336E+1

4.491E+1

2. 251E+1 I . . r

* 3.095E+3

^ 2.482E+3 - 1.183E+3

4.851E+2 , 8.264E+2 ' I n 5A7-01

1. .: . - .

i -,

Offsite'releases from intrusion (at 100 years):

Airborne,impacts (man-millirem/yr).--

o Body

Bone - ,

. . O.. t IL. . _

.I. .

2.242E+3

4. 060E+4 -

Waterborne impacts (millirem/yr) -: ' ' ' o Body

o Bone - 8.475E-2'

5.097E-1 , 1 * .

*Ground-watirimpacts: (mrem/yr) ''; -

Body - , o Intruder well - - - 3.044E+1':(100)*** *

o ;Boundary-well ' ' ' 1.571E+2 -(70)

o jPopulation well . ;- - 4.434E-1 (6,000)'

o' Surface'stream' - - - 1.781E-2 '(8,000)

Bone , , o Intruder well ' ' ' 3.063E+0 (6,000)''

o Boundary well -. 3.061E+0 (6,000).

o Population well ''6.197E-1 (8,000)'

O- SurfaceStream :'-2.685E-2' '(10,000) ;

Thyroid - ---

o -Intruder well'- ' - ' -8.462E+2 (4,000)

o Boundary'well:' - , 8.462E+2 (4,000)'

o' Population well- '2.673E+2 -(4,000)

o ;Surface stream- , ' "1.218E+1' (4,000);

,C = intruder-Construction Scenario'

A = Intruder-Agriculture Scenario

"*The notation 1.502E+3 means 1.502 x 103.

***The numbers in parentheses indicate the approximate time in years

following facility closure that maximum impacts occur.
20

about 3 rems/yr to about one rem/yr. Over the next 1500 years, however,

potential exposures are reasonably constant, and are still at about 800 mrem/yr

at 2000 years. A similar pattern is observed for potential exposure to the

whole body. The potential exposures were conservatively calculated giving no

credit (with the exception of activated metal) for the ability of waste form

to reduce airborne dispersion of radionuclides or uptake by plant roots. That

is, the waste is assumed to behave and disperse in a manner similar to ordinary

dirt.

Ground-water exposures are also calculated in a conservative manner and are

high for the base case. Due to the readily degradable nature of much of the

waste and assumed inadequate site operational practices, severe slumping and

subsidence problems occur. The disposal area is assumed to be characterized

by potholes and subsidence depressions, leading to concentrated sources of

rainwater infiltration. Maximum annual doses to all organs, with the exception

of the thyroid and bone, are about 30 millirem at the intruder well, exceed

150 mrem at the boundary well, are on the order of 0.1 mrem at the population

well, and are on the order of 10 2 to 10 3 mrem at the surface body water.

Maximum annual thyroid doses are in the range of 850 mrem at the intruder and

population wells, 270 mrem at the population well, and 12 mrem at the surface

water body. It is not likely that doses to actual individuals could ever be

this high, notwithstanding the conservatism of the analysis. For one thing,

potholes and depressions would be filled in by the site owner, thus reducing

the percolation. In addition, ground-water movement of radionuclides would

almost certainly be detected through monitoring wells long before appreciable

exposures could be received by the public. A more important point is that a

considerable amount of effort and cost to the site owner may be required to

prevent such exposures from occurring. I

This is evidenced by the size of the postoperational funds that would have to

be collected during the 20-year site operational period--i.e., $38.2 million,

or about $38/M3 assuming 1 million m3 of waste ($1.08/ft3). These costs are

shown in Table S.6 and are calculated assuming a high level of long-term

maintenance in a site having moderately permeable soils. For sites having very

impermeable soils where there is a possibility of a major leachate pumping and

treatment problem (such as the current situation at the Maxey Flats, Kentucky

disposal facility), then the amount of postoperational funds that would have

to be collected is estimated to be $50 million ($1.42/ft3).

NRC believes that this level of long-term maintenance and costs is unacceptably

high. There is considerable uncertainty in the calculated long-term costs and

the costs could easily be higher. Leaving a disposal facility in a condition

so that extensive active maintenance activities are required to ensure public

health and safety could result in a considerable financial burden to the site

owner and to future generations. It is important to realize that-these costs

were calculated assuming that funds are collected as a surcharge on received

waste and placed into a state-operated sinking fund (at an average interest

rate of 10% and an average inflation rate of 9%). However, the facility may

close prematurely and prior to collection of sufficient funds. The loss in

accrued interest could be significant. For example, a major leachate pumping
21

Table S.6 Other Impacts and Co'sts of the Base Case (No Action)

Alternative

,., 1. , . Costs and Impacts*- .-

Short-term population exposures(-(man-mrem):

Processing by waste generator*,

Processing at regional processing center**

Waste-transportation -

Short-term occupational exposures (tnan-mrem):

7.12E+5

I .

Processing by waste generator** . Processing at regional-processing center**

Waste transportation

waste disposal ,

Waste generation and transport costs: (s)

.6.89E+6

. 3.05E+6

Processing by waste generator" . Processing at regional processing center** . Waste transportation 2.49E+8 ' f , +1' . I -

. I . I r .

Disposal costs: ($)

Design and op.

Postoperational - Total

Unit ($/m3)

Incremental energy use: (gal)**

. .1. 85E+8,

" 3.82E+7,

2.23E+8 .. '223

Land 'use: Cm2) , - - . 3.47E+5 -

.Waste 'volume disposed: ,',(m3) 1. OOE+6

' Total volume not acceptable: '(3) - 0

*Costs and impacts are total costs'and impacts over the'20-year operating-life of the disposal facility. , . , -. .

**Not'calculated for the base case-(see'-text for explanation).
22

and treatment program is estimated to cost about $1 million per year in 1980

dollars. By the year 2000 and assuming a 9% interest rate over 20 years, this

leachate pumping and treatment program would cost between five and six million

dollars. The site owner could easily be saddled with expenditures of several

million dollars per year for several years.

Another problem is that a high level of long-term maintenance implies that one

is depending upon extensive human actions possibly carried out several years

in the future in order to ensure public health and safety, and there is no ' assurance that such extensive activities would actually be carried out. For

example, a seemingly minor to moderate water accumulation problem could be

potentially ignored (perhaps for the sake of economics) until a major expensive

problem develops. In addition, extensive site maintenance activities can lead

to releases of quantities of radionuclides offsite and subsequent human exposures.

Other base case costs and impacts are also summarized in Table S.6. The costs

and impacts are calculated over 20 years of waste generation, processing,

transport, and disposal. Included are population exposures from waste processing

and transportation; occupational exposures for waste processing, transportation,

and disposal; costs for waste processing and transportation; incremental energy

use for processing, transportation, and disposal; land used for disposal; and

total waste volume disposed of. Impact measures for energy use as well as

occupational exposures, costs, and population exposures for waste processing

are not calculated for the base case and are not shown in Table S.6. Rather,

incremental changes in these impact measures associated with alternative

disposal facility design options and additional waste processing'of specific

waste streams are calculated. This is explained in greater detail in Section

4.3.2 of Chapter 4 and in Appendices D and G.

In summary, Tables S.5 and S.6 establish a baseline of cost and impact data,

and furthermore demonstrate a need for regulatory action. The'data shows that

inadvertent intruder exposures are relatively high at 100 years, at which point

they begin to decrease, leveling off at around 400-500 years. Although the

exposures to the inadvertent intruder are not so high as to cause great

(immediate life-threatening) concern for the one or few individuals who might

be exposed, some additional controls could be exercised that could reduce such

potential exposures to lower levels during the 100 to 500-year time frame.

Furthermore, the major portion of the exposures may be contributed by a few

waste streams that could be controlled to reduce potential exposures. The same

would apply to exposures from consumption of ground water at various locations.

Finally, the unstable site conditions for the base case results in a very high

level of long-term maintenance and costs to the site owner, and a corresponding

high level of long-term social commitment.

5. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES--DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

5.1 Performance Objectives

As a part of the analyses, NRC analyzed a range of alternative performance

objectives to assure an adequate level of protection for the inadvertent
"- .'71 ,:J -

23

intruder and'long-term social and environmental protection. As previously

discussed there are four basic performance objectives'that should be achieved

in disposal:

1. Protect the inadvertent intruder;

2. Assure long-term stability to eliminate the need for long-term

maintenance after operations cease; ''

3. Protect public health and safety (and the environment) over'the long

term; and

4.' Assure safety during the short-term operational'phase.'

The results'of the analyses to arrive at preferred performance'objectives are

presented below.

5.1.1 Protection of the Inadvertent Intruder

The impacts for potential inadvertent intrusion, while not immediately lifethreatening, are significant since impacts on the order of several. hundred

mrem/yr couldlaist 'fOr'long time periods." Four methods were addressed by'which

potential-human intrusion impacts may be mitigated: ' ' '

-1. Controlling the disposal of specific waste-streams';

2.; Waste form and packaging;-

-3. Use of engineered and/or natural barriers to intrusion; and

4. Institutional controls. - :

Controlling the Disposal of Specific Waste Streams

In the analysis, the potential hazard'to an inadvertent'intruder is initially

principally'due'to gamma radiation'from fission products such as'Cs-137, and

averages at about 1.5 to 3 'rems/yr at 100 years following license termination.

Due to radioactive decay, however, the potential hazard quickly drops to about

1000 mrem/yr'to' bone at about 500 years following facility closure and about'- ' 800 mrem/yr to bone at'about 2,000years following facility closure. Most of

the longer-term hazard is caused by-two small ,olume waste streams '(1.94 E+4 m3)

containing-large quantities'of transuranic isotopes If these waste'streams

are eliminated from-the analysis (that-is,'if transuranics in large quantities

are eliminated from near-surface disposal), potential long-term impacts averaged

over the remaining 34 waste streams are only a few mrem/yr (e.g., 3 to 5) after

500 years. ; - - - -

Thus,'it appears that by eliminating waste streams containing large'quantities

of transuranics'from near-surface'disposal,- the long-term'hazard to a potential

inadvertent-intruder may be greatly'reduced.; Over the short term. however,

even with the-removal of the transuranic streams,'potential-impacts can be
-M.. I 

24

significant--e.g., about 1.5 rems/yr. It is useful to consider ways in which

the near-term impacts may be reduced. As discussed below, this could result

from more restrictive near-surface disposal requirements for a few higher-active

waste streams.

Waste Form and Packaging

Another way in which potential intruder exposures can be reduced is through

improvements in waste form and packaging, as well as minor improvements in

site operational practices. These improvements can lead to reduced exposures

in two principal ways:

1. The likelihood that the intruder will stay in contact with the waste

(e.g., construct in it, grow crops in it) is reduced if the waste is

placed into a stable form or package and disposed in a segregated

manner from unstable wastes; and

2. The potential for the waste to be dispersed into a form which can be

readily inhaled or taken up by plant roots is reduced if the waste

is placed into a stable form or package.

Potential inadvertent intruder hazards were calculated for the base case based.

upon an assumption that all waste streams are randomly mixed together during

disposal. Due to the slumping, subsidence, and higher infiltration that would

be associated with this disposal practice, rapid waste degradation could occur.

Even wastes that have been placed into a stable form or package could be subject

to such rapid decomposition. However, if the stable wastes were also segregated

and disposed of in separate disposal cells so that waste degradation would be

minimized, then the likelihood that inadvertent intrusion would lead to prolonged

contact with the stable wastes would be greatly reduced. It is not credible

to suppose that such activities as housing construction or gardening could take

place under these conditions since the inadvertent intruder would contact hunks

of waste and realize something is wrong. Potential exposures would be limited

to those received during discovery of the waste. If high activity waste-streams

are stabilized and segregated from compressible waste streams, exposures to an

inadvertent intruder averaged over all waste streams would be reduced at 100

years following closure from 1 to 3 rems/yr to less than 100 mrem/yr.

In addition, if the waste is contacted through inadvertent intrusion, then

potential inhalation exposures would be reduced if the waste is in a stable,

less dispersible waste form. Similarly, exposure pathways which occur through

consumption would be reduced if the waste is placed into a low leaching form.

In order for radionuclides to be taken up by plants, the radionuclides must

first be dissolved and leached out of the waste.

Another question addressed is how long waste form may be relied upon to reduce

intruder impacts. As a minimum, the waste form should last through the operating

life of the disposal facility, the closure period, any observation period prior

to the termination of the facility license, and the active institutional control

period. This results in a requirement of waste stability for at least 150 years.

This requirement should be readily achievable, since if the disposal cell is
25

stabilized so that minimum infiltration is introduced'to the disposal cell,

then the waste form should beeffective against intrusion for several hundred

years. It is not reasonable, however, to expect this to be the case indefinitely.

After several hundred years'(i.e., on'the order of 500 years), most of the

shorter-lived radionuclides will have decayed away, leaving the longer-lived

radionuclides.- The reduction in hazard after-500 years takes-place at a much

slower rate.- It.would-appear, then, that for most wastes, a limit of 500 years

would appear to be the maximum reasonable upper bound. Attempting to reduce

intruder impacts through waste form beyond 500 years would really not accomplish

much in the way of additional protection.

Use of Engineered and/or Natural Barriers to Intrusion

Another method by which the hazard to a potential intruder may be reduced is

to dispose of the waste .in'a manner. that would make it more difficult'for a

potential intruder to contact the waste--that is, by placing one or more natural

or engineered barriers between the waste and the intruder.' The majority of

the waste streams that could require'disposal by methods that provide protection

against inadvertent intrusion would probably. also be characterized by high surface

radiation levels;

NRC analyzed a number of such potential barriers to an intruder and these are

described in detail in Appendix F and Chapter 4. The barriers considered and

additional facility costs associated with use of these barriers are shown in

Table S.7. These costs are for facility design and operation and do not include

costs for closure and long-term care. In general, the barriers can be grouped

into three major categories as follows:

1. Engineered barriers, including grouting or "engineered structures"

such as-caissons or concrete-walled trenches;

2. Depth'of disposal, including thicker trench caps,'layered waste

disposal, and slit trenches; and

3. Other methods of disposal, including intermediate depth burial, mined

cavities, ocean disposal, and space'disposal.

Most waste streams contain relativelylow levels of act'ivitywhile some contain

relatively high levels of activity.: It would not'appear'to be justified to

require that all waste streams would require disposal u'sing a barrier to an

intruder. For most waste streams,. the potential-hazard falls off rapidly with

time--e.g., to levels on the order of a few millirems or less after a few hundred

years. Thus, the use-of-such barriers would only-be required -for-the higher

activity waste streams. This can be provided in a relatively inexpensive manner

through techniques such as layering. Layering refers to the technique of placing

higher activity waste streams at thebottotm fotle-disposal cell so that there is

it least 5 meters of earth or lower activity waste between the top of the higher

activity waste and the surface of the earth. Using this technique, waste volumeaveraged intruder exposures can be reduced (at7100 years following site closure)

to the range of 70-80 mrem/yr. If higher activity waste streams are stabilized

and segregated from compressible wastes, volume-averaged exposures at this time

period are reduced to exposures in the range of 30 mrem/yr.
26

Table S.7 Summary of Incremental Barrier Costs

For Facility Design and Operation

Additional Disposal Costs

Type of Barrier $/m3 /ft3

fin ; A n * IOU ULOGI I CM

Thicker cap - 3m of soil

Thicker cap - 3m of compacted

clay

Layered waste disposal

Slit trench (10% of waste)

Caisson disposal (1O% of waste)

Walled trench (10% of waste)

Walled trench (100% of waste)

Grouting--cementt

Grouting--low-strength cementt

Engineered intruder barrier

Intermediate depth burial

Mined cavity

Ocean disposal

Space disposal

u

1.59 0.05 *

10.89

37.73

91.49

216.45

256.09

160.99

60.46

46.86

59.17

53-159

327-654

710-2200

2,000,000

0.31

1.07

2.59

6.13

7.25

4.56

1.71

1.33

1.68

1.50-4.50

9.26-18.52

20.11-62.31

56,600

*

**

**

*

*

*

A

A

A

*

*Unit costs based upon 1,000,000 m3 of waste disposed.

**Unit costs based upon volume of waste disposed by the

disposal method indicated. For this table, the costs

are based upon a volume of about 100,000 m3.

tUnit costs include additional costs for stacked waste

emplacement.
27

A time limitation on the effectiveness of natural and engineered barriers was

also considered.. From the analyses performed for this EIS, 'it was determined

that due to radioactive' decay, exposures to a potential inadvertent intruder.'

from'almost all waste streams typically considered to be'LLW.fall to a~few

millirems after a few hundred years--e.g., 500 years. *After'500 years, only a

few waste streams are estimated to result in annual potential'intruder exposures

of a few hundred millirems., Very few (e.g., one or two) streams having small

volumes are estimated to result in potential intruder exposures exceeding

500 mrem/yr.after 500Iyears.

On the other hand, waste streams that are generally considered to be "high-level

waste" (e.g., spent reactor fuel, solidified-first solvent extraction stages

from a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant) contain much higher initial'levels of

radioactivity. Typically, the potential hazard from high-level waste disposal

is dominated by fission products over approximately the first 600 years. After..

that approximate time period, most of the fission-product activity has decayed,

except-for iodine-129 and technetium-99; radioactivity is dominated thereafter

by the actinides--e.g., U, Np, Pu, Am, Cm and their daughters. 'Wastes which'

still contain appreciable activity after several hundred years (egg.', 500 years)

would appear to more closely resemble high-level waste than what'is usually

considered to be-low-level waste. .

Finally, limitations-on the effectiveness of barriers to a potential ihadvertent

intruder was discussed at the regional workshops on the Part '61 regulation. At

these workshops, there appeared to be general agreement that a time period of

500 years.seemed appropriate for most-easy-to-implement intruder barriers.

Institutional Controls ' -

Another mechanism for reducing potential Impacts to a" potential inadvertent

intruder is use of institutional controls.. Institutional controls'are controls

which require performance of some action by, a government. agency to'preclude

human.contact;with the waste,-_or require a continuing social'order.l.1Examples

include controlled access to the site, controlled productive use'of.the site

(e.g., as a golf course), and periodic inspection and surveillance '"Ultimately,

institutional controls must also-rely upon;relatively passive means involving

some-manner of social order. Probably-the most significant concepts-for longterm passive institutional control ;measures are those'of control of-the land by

a governmental organization, land-use restrictions in the form of'titles or

deeds, -and multiplicity of records. ; ; ' .

Given this, however, it-is still appropriate to consider how'long institutional

controls may be expected to preclude intrusion. Markers and'monuments established at a disposal site may be stolen or defaced,' and the nature of the hazard

may be buried in forgotten governmental files. Land-use restrictions may be

potentially ignored, or a future government bureaucracy may simply mistakenly

release a site for inappropriate use. , , -

The maximum time-period'for which active institutional controls can be relied

upon to preclude inadvertent intrision'.has been investigated'by'a number of

people,, including EPA as well as i' number of researchers 'doing work 'on establishing a waste classification system.. EPA has prop-os-ed that a limit of 100 '

years should be used as a limit for the length of institutional controls. -This

limit was proposed based upon consideration.of public input received at a number
28

of public forums on radioactive waste disposal held by EPA. In various studies

exploring ways in which to classify radioactive waste for disposal, different

institutional control periods have been used. The institutional control periods

assumed in these studies were all less than a few hundreds of years and ranged in

these studies from 100 to 200 years.

The maximum time period that should be assumed for active institutional controls

was discussed at a series of four regional workshops held on the preliminary

draft of the Part 61 rule. The general consensus of these workshops was that a

100-year limit for active institutional controls was appropriate.

Development of Preferred Performance Objectives

Based upon the analyses and discussion of the previous subsections, the following

conclusions were reached:

1. The potential for inadvertent human intrusion into a closed disposal

facility at some point after closure of the disposal facility is likely.

Extensive intrusion activities such as major housing or apartment

construction are unlikely. The potential exposures from inadvertent

intrusion are relatively high for the first few 100 years (i.e.,

1.5-3 rems/year at 100 years) but, provided that a few waste streams

are removed, then drop to a low level (a few mrem/year) after about

500 years.

2. Some waste streams'present relatively little hazard to an inadvertent

intruder. Some present an initial high potential hazard. If inadvertent

intruders can be protected against contacting these latter waste streams

for a few hundred years, then such waste streams present much reduced

potential hazards. Such protection may be achieved through use of

natural and engineered barriers to intrusion. However, there is a

limit (e.g., 500 years) as to how long such barriers can be expected

to last. Some waste streams may not be acceptable for near-surface

disposal.

3. The extent and consequences of potential inadvertent intrusion are

related to waste formeand disposal facility design and operating

practices. For example, improved waste form and packaging can reduce

potential exposures through inhalation and food consumption pathways.

Volume reduction may increase exposures from direct gamma radiation.'

If the waste is in a structually stable form and segregated from other

wastes, then as long as the structural stability is retained, the

possibility of extensive inadvertent intrusion activities is not

considered credible.

4. Institutional controls can be effective in reducing the potential

for inadvertent intrusion and in reducing potential intruder exposures.

Two aspects were then analyzed in further detail and specific limits developed

to determine the disposal'requirements of different LLW'streams based on

protection of an inadvertent intruder--that is, to determine which streams may

be acceptable for near-surface disposal, which streams may require barriers to
29

an intruder, and which streams may be generally unacceptable for near-surface

disposal.'-'The aspects that were developed included:, ;.

1. An exposure guideline defining an acceptable level of safety regarding

protection of an inadvertent intruder which can be used to stipulate.,

when controls against potential intrusion should be implemented; and

2. -A maximum time during which active institutional controls can be relied

on to prevent inadvertent intrusion. - : ' -'

Three alternative dose rate limits were examined quantitatively in this EIS

for protection of an inadvertent intruder:

o 25 mrem/yr to the whole body;

o -500 mrem/yr to the whole body; and

o -5000 mrem/yr (5 rem/yr) to the whole body.-

Four alternative active institutional control periods were also analyzed:

o '50 yearso 100 years ' . -

o 150 years- --

o 300 years'

These alternatives were examined in aicase study set out in Chapter 4 of this

EIS. The results of this case study are too lengthy to include here but resulted

in the selection of a 500 mrem/yr (whole body) dose rate guideline for protection

of an inadvertent intruder and a 100-year assumed maximum active institutional

control period.

The preferred dose limitation criteria objective selected by NRC is similar to

the maximum permissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas as set out

in 10 CFR Part 20. -A dose ratetlimit in the range of-25 mrem/year was judged

to result in considerably more costs, more change in-existing practices, and

greater reduction in disposal. efficiency than the other two alternatives. This.

is especially important considering.the hypothetical nature of the intrusion

event. The 5 rem/yr alternative was seen-toinvolve approximately the same

costs and impacts as the 500imrem/yr alternative. The higher dose rate limit,

however, could potentially allow disposal of larger quantities of long-lived

isotopes,.which could result in-moderately higher intruder hazards which could

extend for long time periods. Therefore, 500 mrem/yr (whole body) was selected

as a general dose rate limitation guideline. This limitation agrees with the

consensus of the four regional workshops., - -

The second question was how long should credit be given to active institutional

controls to prevent such intrusion. A time period that is too short could result

in very high disposal costs for much of the LLW. A period that is very long,

on the other hand, may place an undue burden on future generations. NRC analyzed

alternative institutional control periods of 50, 100, 150, and -300 years to,

see if there was any technical preference for selecting one time period over

another. From the analysis, there did not appear-to be any overly compelling -

numerical;reason to-adopt a particular :iinstitutional--control period.: NRC,

believes, however, that institutional controls will last at least 50 years.
30

Three-hundred years appeared to be too long of a time period and did not offer

any compelling numerical advantage over 150 years. The preferred alternative

was, therefore, in the range of 100 to 150 years. NRC selected 100 years as

the preferred institutional control period. This period of time agrees with

previous estimates on the effective length of active institutional controls

made by EPA and also is consistent with the consensus of the regional workshops.

Based on the comments received on the preliminary draft of Part 61 and at the

workshops, NRC identified no overriding social or political rationale for

selection of one time period over another. The general consensus was that

100 years was about the right time period upon which reliance should be placed

on active institutional controls.

5.1.2 Long-Term Environmental Protection

In developing performance objectives, NRC considered two key aspects related

to long-term environmental protection: long-term potential exposure pathways,

and long-term site stability.

The potential exposure pathways included: (1) ground-water migration,

(2) gaseous releases from decomposing waste, (3) plant and animal intrusion,

and (4) wind and surface water erosion and transport. Of the pathways, the

consumption and use of water containing radionuclides from disposed waste is

believed to be the most significant long-term environmental release pathway of

potential human exposure. Thus, NRC concentrated on analysis of ground-water

impacts in development of the performance objective.

In the analysis, it became apparent that long-term ground-water migration cannot

be analyzed by only considering potential radiological impacts. Site stability

and the need for long-term social commitment to care for sites over the long

term and to maintain potential radiological impacts to low levels must also be

considered as an integral part of the analysis.

The unpredictable nature of waste/disposal site instability can lead to increased

radiological and economic impacts at both humid and arid sites. At humid sites,

stable disposal cell covers are needed to minimize water infiltration into the

waste and thus maintain potential ground-water releases to levels as low as

reasonably achievable. Waste instability in poorly drained soils can especially

lead to a potential "bathtub" problem, which can further lead to costly long-term

trench pumping and site stabilization programs. In arid sites, trench instability

can lead to subsidence and increased plant and animal intrusion plus increased

potential for wind erosion and dispersion of trench contents.

Three interrelated factors contribute to waste form/disposal site instability,

the contact of water with waste, and the resulting long-term radiological and

economic consequences:

o site environment;

o site design and operations; and

o waste form.

To consider the maximum potential impacts from waste disposal, the base case

site analyzed was a humid site, although as stated above, waste/site instability

is also important at arid sites. Variations to site designs and operating
31

practices can lead to greater site stability and minimize long-term migration.

Some of these variations considered in the EIS include: (1) segregation of

compressible wastes and wastes containing large quantitiessof organic chemicals

or chelating agents, (2) thicker, less permeable disposal cell covers, (3) improved

compaction of disposal cell contents'and covers, (4) stacked disposal of-waste

rather than random disposal, (5)'grouting of disposed wastes, (6) decontainerized

disposal of low-activity compressible wastes, and (7)-use of engineered structures

such as concrete-walled trenches. -

The waste form (coupled with site design and operating practices) is probably

the most significant factor contributing to site instability--a factor containing

the paradox that-much'if 'not most of the problems with site instability:-and

high maintenance costs is caused by the wastes containing the least activity.

Most of the waste sent to LLW disposal facilities consists of very low activity

material such as trash which is frequently easily degradable.:,f.In the past,

some of this waste has been packaged in easily degradable packages such as

cardboard boxes. Most of-the waste, however,-.is currently.packaged in longerlasting, but still degradable, rigid containers such as wooden boxes and

55-gallon steel drums. Large void spaces can-also exist within waste packages

and the disposal cells after waste disposal. As the waste material degrades

and compresses, a process which is-accelerated by contact by water, additional

voids are-produced. This leads to-settlement of the disposal cell contents,

followed by subsidence or slumpipg-of the disposal cell cover:. This increases

the percolation of water into disposal:cells, accelerating the cycle. This

slumping and subsidence is-frequently quite sudden. - ;

The use of the rigid-containers wouldbe expected to reduce the amount of

short-term subsidence. Over the longer term, however, subsidence problems

would still be observed, and factors contributing to this include: (1) thewaste contained in the rigid containers is. still frequently easily degradable -

and (2) even if the waste is not readily degradable (e.g., activated alloy

metal), it is frequently packaged into containers so that large voids are left

within the containers. The rigid containers initiallyprovide;some structural

support-to the disposal cell covers, and act to:'bridge" voids-withinthez

disposal cell and waste packages.- Eventually, however, this structural supportis lost as-the rigid containers rust or rotout, leading to disposal cell ' - --

settling at rates which are difficult to predict. The:basic problem is the

production of .voids.. .If. a waste container-were completely filled-with relatively

nondegradable, noncompressible materials--e.g., activiated metal'with void--:

spaces within the container filled-with sand--and disposed so that voids between -

waste packages could be eliminated, then degradation of the waste package would:

not be expected to result-in a subsidence problem. : : - *- . e. - - ;,,- I ,

In Chapter 5 of the main text, an extensive case study was performed including

alternate site characteristics, waste forms and packages, disposal facility

designs, and-.facility operational: procedures.,. Twenty, separate;cases were.

considered in the case-study.. The alternatives were principally directed at

improving-long-term site -stability (e.g. , reducing void spaces within the waste

and-trench after disposal)-and eliminating the contact of water with the waste.

both during and.after operations. -They included changes which could/be -

implemented with little additional effort and increased cost, and those involving

high effort and increased cost.
32

These alternatives included the following:

1. Alternatives Examined to Achieve Stability

o Compaction of backfill (and waste) during operations

o Use of improved waste forms and packaging

o Stacking of waste packages

o Walled trenches and other engineered techniques

o Segregation of stable and unstable wastes

o Decontainerized disposal

2. Alternatives Examined to Reduce Water Contact with Waste

o Thicker, compacted caps

o Moisture barriers

o Improved waste forms and packaging

o Walled trenches and other engineering techniques

o Segregation of stable-and unstable wastes

o Use of a permeable backfill

The case study with its many nuances is too extensive to be reproduced here.

From the analysis, however, NRC believes that the siting, design, operation,

and closure of the disposal facility should be clearly directed toward achieving

the maximum practical site stability. Disposal facility stability and the

corresponding potential for ground-water migration directly affect the level of

long-term care and maintenance by the site owner. Past experience with LLW

disposal clearly indicates that one of the most important objectives of LLW

disposal should be that the disposal facility is stabilized so that little or

no maintenance is required by the site owner. NRC staff believes that the

alternative of not considering this as a performance objective is clearly not

acceptable.

Although the stability performance objective is needed, care is required in

implementation to arrive at an equitable distribution of costs. Much of the

waste sent to LLW disposal facilities consists of very low-activity material

such as trash which is frequently easily degradable~and compressible. This

complicates the analysis, since most of the waste streams that contribute the

most to site instability are the same waste streams that contain the least -

activity. Much of this low-activity waste is only suspected of being contaminated and/or is generated by small waste generators such as hospitals and research

laboratories. These factors increase the difficulty of arriving at a costeffective solution to the problem-of disposal facility instability. That is,

it is difficult to justify requiring large additional expenditures to dispose

of otherwise low hazard material.

One alternative would be to incinerate and solidify all combustible waste streams.

In general, although NRC staff believes that waste incineration may be a costeffective solution for some waste generators, it would cause economic hardships

if required generally, particularly to small waste generators such as hospitals and

research laboratories. Costs would run on the order of $927/m3 ($26.25/ft3). In
33

addition, it is not a solution that could.be generally,-instituted on a reasonable

time basis. Other alternatives such as extensive engineered disposal techniques

(e.g. ; 'grouted or concrete-walled trenches, decontainerized disposal), also'

appeared to have a number of drawbacks, for general application. - These drawbacks

included significant additional-:disposal.costs and significantly increased

occupational exposures:at the disposal,facility. -Fore example,,additional

disposal'costs would run at-about $60.50/m3 ($1.70/ft3) for grouted disposal,

$211/M33 (S6/ft3) for disposal into a grouted'concrete-walled trench, or.$49/M3

($1.40/ft3) for'decontainerized disposal.

The most'reasonable alternatives considered--those which could-be implemented,.

with reasonable costs and within areasonable time frame--involved stabiliza- '

tion of higher activity waste streams coupled with segregated disposal of lower

activity-unstable waste streams;' Segregation is-estimated to cost an approximate;

additional $6/M3 ($0.17/ft3).- Stabilization of'the higher activity'strieams. .

could be accomplished by either stabilizing the waste form (e.g.,'through solid-'1

ification), stabilizing the waste package (e.g., through use of'high-integrity

containers), or by disposal facility design '(e.g., by placing the waste into a.

structure which supports barriers to moisture). Once the disposal cells arestabilized, then improved barriers to moisture may be emplaced, further reducing

exposures to levels as low as reasonably achievable. .

This means that there still may besome:long-term maintenance required for the

segragated low-activity waste disposal.cells.; However, since thie activity'

contained in these disposal cells would be relatively low, the impacts from.

increased percolation into these disposal.cells would also be relatively'low;' in

addition, long-term maintenance can-be reduced through such improvements infacility design and operating practices as: ..

o improved backfill; - ' . -

o improved disposal cell covers;

o increased attention paid to minimizing voids in disposal cells; 'amd

0o improved compaction of disposal cell covers.

Such-improvements, which are, estimated to cost an approxim3te additional $22/r 3

,

($0.62/ft3) in operational costs above' the base case, are already'being imple- : mented to a certain extent at existing operating disposal facilities."'Thus,

implementation of such practices would involve-few'additional costs to waste, ;<

generators. - . . - ' -.

Readily achievable improvements in waste form which would reduce long-term

maintenance include the following: ..'; 

o additional compaction of compressible wastes, ''

o :increased.attention paid to minimizing~voidsin waste containers; and

o use of longer-lasting waste containers. '

The first two of the above options are already being carried out by a number

of waste generators.
34

In regard to improved containers, polyethylene drums are available, for example,,

which have been certified by DOT for use in transporting nonradioactive hazardous

wastes such as oxidizers or corrosive'solids. These are apparently available

at approximately the'same (or possibly reduced) price as standard steel 55-gallon

drums. Compared to steel 55-gallon drums; which is the most common type of waste

container used in the nuclear industry, a polyethylene or other type of plastic

drum would be expected to degrade very much slower after disposal, provided

that the drum is designed to be compatible with the waste form and the disposal

environment. The radionuclide containment capability would therefore be expected

to be greater than a typical steel 55-gallon drum. More importantly, reduced

container degradation would result'in reduced compression of disposal cell

contents, thus reducing subsidence and infiltration of water.

If the above options were generally carried out, then it is possible that the

level of maintenance required for the low-activity disposal cells can be reduced

to very low levels.

Given this overall objective--the need for disposal facility stability--numerical

limits for migration were derived.

The EPA has a program underway leading to development of a standard for long-term

releases of radioactivity to the environment from LLW disposal facilities. In

the absence of that standard, NRC considered existing NRC and EPA standards and

narrowed the range of alternatives to be analyzed in this EIS to a range of 1-25

mrem/year. One mrem/year was selected as a lower bound since it was less than

the 4 mrem/yr limit in EPA's national primary drinking water standard (40 CFR'

Part 141), and it-would provide a low limit against which the ability of current

technology to meet such a limit could be analyzed. Twenty-five mrem/year was

selected as an upper bound since it was already in use as an existing EPA standard

(40 CFR Part 190) applied to routine operating releases from nuclear fuel cycle

facilities.

Based on the analyses, NRC concluded that a limit in the range of existing EPA

drinking water regulations (4 mrem/yr) can be achieved at the nearest public

drinking water supply given some'tmodest increased costs'and changes. NRC also,

concluded that meeting.the EPA drinking water standards at the nearest public

drinking water supply results in annual potential exposures of less than 25 mrem

whole body, 75 mrem thyroid, and 25 millirem to any other organ to an individual

who might consume water from a well located at the site boundary.

An annual exposure limit of 25 mrem whole body, 75 millirem thyroid, and 25 mrem

to any other organ to the maximally exposed individual at the site boundary

coupled with an annual population limit of 4 mrem at the nearest public drinking

water supply was, therefore, selected as the preferred performance objective.

Because of the need to consider other potential environmental release pathways,

albeit small, the performance objective includes potential releases from surface

water, air, plants, and animals. Broad public acceptance of the application of

the EPA drinking water standard and the existing fuel cycle standard at the site

boundary was also expressed in the public comments and workshops on the preliminary

draft Part 61 rule.
35

Moderate changes in waste form and packaging and disposal facility design and

operating practices are needed to.meet the selected performance:objectives.

These principally include methods by which the stability of the disposal

facility can be'enhanced:

1. 'Stabilization of higher activity waste streams;

2. Segregated disposal of low activity unstable waste streams from stable

wastes;

-3. Improving site'stability through operation techniques such as improved

backfilling and compaction; and

- 4. Reducing contact of waste with water.

Many of the the higher costs which would be associated with the stabilization

of higher activity wastes represent activities that many waste generators are

already-carrying.out to meet existing disposal facility license conditions.

5.1.3 Assuring Safety During Operations

The function of.a near-surface radioactive waste disposal facilityis to contain

disposed radionuclides over the long term, and potential long-term impacts are

of major concern in licensing an LLW disposal facility and in determining disposal

,requirements for specific types and forms of waste. However, protection of public

health and safety during the operational phase of the disposalfacility is also

of concern when licensing'the facility and'regulating its operation. As part

-of the analysisperformed'in'Chapter 6 of this EIS, NRC determined'that existing

standards in the NRC regulation 10 CFR'20 were an adequate performance objective

for operational safety. 'The Part 20 regulation already provides standards for

control of and limitation for release of radioactive materials to the environment from operations.at NRC-licensed facilities, as well as limitations on the.

allowable radiation doses to radiation workers and the public.

5.2 Technical' Requirements, '

Based upon the analyses for the performance objectives,'a number of technical

requirements were developed to help ensure that the performance objectives would

be'met.'' These technical requirements are set-out in Subpart D of the Part 61

rule. (See Attachment A to this summary.) The technical requirements generally,

either fell directly from the analysis to determine theperformance objectives or'

were'developed based upon past experience and existing-good'practices. A given.

technical requirement frequently helps to ensure that.more than'one performance

objective will be met.''

Most of the technical requirements can be related to three-key principles that

are of most significance in assuring the performance objectives are met., These

three principles are:

1. Long-term stability of the disposal facility and disposed waste.

Trench cap collapse, subsidence, increased water infiltration,
36

and the need to actively care for the facility over the long term

are all reduced if stability is ensured.

2. The presence of liquids in waste and the contact of water with waste

both during operations and after the site is closed. Water is the

primary vehicle for waste transport and its presence in and contact

with waste can contribute to accelerated waste decomposition and

increased potential for making the waste available for transport offsite.

3. Institutional and other engineering and natural controls that can be

readily applied to reduce the likelihood and impacts of inadvertent

intrusion.

The following chart summarizes the relative importance of each in

assure achievement of each of the performance objectives.

helping to

Performance Objectives

Migration Maintenance Intruder Operations

Long-term Reduces water Reduces uncer- Reduces like- Reduces

stability of infiltration tainty and need lihood for potential

waste and and thus the for long-term inadvertent occupational

facility potential for maintenance. intrusion. hazards.

migration. Reduces long- Reduces impacts Reduces offterm care costs. to inadvertent site releases

intruder. in the event

of an accident.

Contact of Reduces Reduces need for Reduces waste Reduces

water with potential for active mainte- degradation potential

waste migration and nance during and and thus impacts hazards.

offsite after operations. to intruder. Reduces

transport of potential for

waste offsite

releases.

Institutional Custodial care Assures proper Reduces like- Reduces

and other during institu- maintenance. lihood for potential

intruder tional control inadvertent occupational

controls reduces potential intrusion. hazards.

for water Reduces impacts

infiltration. to inadvertent

intruder.
37

As discussed below, safety during disposal facility operations is also an

important'consideration.

Stability'

In translating-thes6'-principles 'into technical requirements, NRC found that'in

general many were already being'addressed in one way or another;at one or-more

of the existing'operating sites. For example, methodsto improve site stability

which-are-either-already being carried out or maybe readily implemented include

improved, more stable waste'forms and packaging for higher'activity wastes,

reducing void spaces between packaging placed in trenches, compaction'of backfill

material and trench covers, and use of institutional controls to continue to'

maintain and control site access after active operations cease.

The preferred alternatives selected will result in the least disruption of

existing'practices and 'will leave maximum flexibility in how'stability can beachieved. The-preferred alternative'is to' require'that higher activity wastes '

must be'placed into a stable form and segregated in disposal. Waste-segregation'

is estimated'to:'cost an approximate $6/m3 ($0.17/ft3)' in additional disposal'

costs. Stability of-the waste form can be'achieved by several means:'

1. The waste form itself (results in no increase in costs over those

today);'

2. Processing the waste to a stable form through techniques such as

improved'packaging, use of high integrity containers, or waste,

solidification (the costs for this can'range from negligible additional

packaging costs to an approximate additional $450/m3 for high'integrity

containers up to-about an additional $2000/m3 in solidification'costs.

The costs are believed to be conservatively'high. In any case, the

industry is generally already moving toward this alternative'and it:' - is, therefore, not a significant change from existing practices);

-3 :-Use of engineering design at the disposal'facility. -Many engineering ' design-alternatives are possible-including caiissons"filled with'concrete

-and-concrete-walled trenches. (The cost for a concrete-walled trench'''

-including use of'concrete'grout'as a backfill material was estimated -

--to cost an approximate'additional -$21 /m3 ($6/ft3) in disposal costs.)

NRC also evaluated a number of facility design and operational improvements

that are in many cases currently being applied'at the existing operating sites'- ' to improve long-term site stability. These include waste placement, backfill, -- and'compaction of backfill and trench covers. The use of specific design and

operational techniques would be'evaluated'for a spe'cific facility on a caseby-case basis as part of licensing that facility.'

Contact with Water

A number of specific requirements relating to site characteristics, disposal

facility designs and operating practices,-waste forms-and packages, and

institutional controls are established which are directed at reducing the
38

contact of water with waste, both during operations and over the long term

after closure (See Sections 61.50, 61.51, 61.52, 61.56, and 61.59). These

included requirements that the site be free of areas of flooding or frequent

ponding and providing sufficient depth to the water table that ground-water

intrusion into the waste will not occur. They also included design features

such as trench covers being designed to prevent water infiltration, to direct

rainwater away from trenches and.to prevent waste from sitting in rainwater in

open trenches. Waste form requirements address the disposal of liquid waste.

The minimum requirements provide'that waste containing liquids must be packaged

in sufficient absorbent material to absorb twice the volume of liquid. Higher

activity wastes containing liquids must be converted into a stable form that

contains not more than 1% free-standing liquid by volume.

Institutional Controls

Since the use of institutional controls to control site access and to monitor

and care for the site over the long term is current practice, NRC included the

costs for 100 years of active institutional control in the costs for the basecase (reference) disposal facility. As such, this requirement reflects current

practice and does not represent an increased cost over that today. The

potential costs for maintenance of the site during this period can, however,

vary depending upon the degree of site stability. As discussed above, the

requirements in Part 61 directed at site stability should reduce the need and

costs to actively maintain a site during this period.

Institutional controls (physical activities of man such as site surveillance

or inspection) shall only be relied upon for 100 years following site closure

to keep people from inadvertently intruding into the site and to carry out an

environmental monitoring program and minor custodial care (see Section 61.59).

Safety During Operations

An applicant's or licensee's operational procedures and programs for compliance

with the operational. safety performance objective would be evaluated on a caseby-case basis. NRC staff believes that this approach would be preferable to

setting out a number of prescriptive requirements for safe facility operation.

Measures which could be used to minimize potential operational releases and

exposures will be influenced by site-specific conditions at the particular

disposal facility considered. Detailed prescriptive requirements would also

inhibit incorporation of potential improvements in site safety. Some of the

procedures and programs which would be analyzed as part of a specific application would include the following:

o The applicant's radiation safety program for control and monitoring

radioactive effluents and occupational radiation exposure to

demonstrate compliance with the Part 20 requirements and to control

contamination of disposal facility personnel, vehicles, equipment,

buildings, and grounds. Both routine operations and accidents would

be addressed, and the program description would include procedures,

instrumentation, facilities, and equipment.
40

2. Consideration of potential hazard to an individual or a population

* from-potential consumption or use of contaminated ground-water.

A classification system based on these two considerations--intrusion and

migration--presents some difficulties in calculating acceptable concentration

limits for'waste. The'calculation"of concentration limits for exposures to an

inadvertent intruder are relatively'straightforward since.the-potential exposures

are directly related to the concentrations of the radionuclides available for

uptake.' In-addition, potential intruder'exposures are relatively less-,

site-specific.:- .

It is considerably less straightforward to set out categories of waste based

upon consideration of ground-water migration. Potential ground-water migration

impacts could occur from consuming water from a well.located onsite, consuming

water from a well'located at the site boundary, or to.populations'consuming water

down-gradient of the site. Potential migrational impacts are much-more a function

of site-specific environmental and geohydrological conditions than concentrationlimited intruder impacts'. Potential.migrational impacts are.furthermore a function

of the total inventory of radionuclides at a disposal site.

Combining these two considerations, the approach that has been taken is to first

determine waste classification requirements (based upon concentration limits)

considering protectiontof a potential~inadvertent intruder. Second, based on

the analyses in Chapter 5, four radionuclides were identified that are of significance from the standpoint of migration. These are H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129.

These nuclides have been addressed on a site-specific inventory basis. ,That--.

is,,.the total quantity of these four radionuclides acceptable for disposal atany particular-site will be determined as.part of .the.licensing-process based'-

on the specific hydrogeological conditions, facility designs, and;operating,

procedures at.the site. The waste classification procedure proposed by;NRC is.,

summarized as-Table 1 in the attached Part 61 rule (see Section 61.55;of.the

rule)..

.r- I.. ,. -

Three classes of waste are determined by the Part 61 requirements:

1. ~Wastes for which there are nostability.requirements but which must -bedisposed of in.a segregated manner from other wastes. These wastes,

termed Class-A segregated wastes, 'are defined in terms of maximum .

allowable concentrations of certain isotopesand certain minimum

requirements on waste form that:are necessary.for safe handling..

2. Wastes which need to be placed in a stable form and disposed in a

segregated manner from unstable waste forms. These wastes, termed

Class B stable wastes are also defined in terms of 'allowable'concentrations-of isotopes and requirements for a-stable waste formas

well as minimum handling requirements. - -

3. Wastes which need to benplaced-into'a stable form, disposed in a

segregated manner from nonstable waste forms, and disposed of so

that a barrier is provided against potential inadvertent intrusion
39

o The applicant's quality assurance program for siting, design,

construction, and operation of the disposal facility, and the receipt,

handling, and emplacement of waste. Audits and managerial controls

would be included as part of this program.

o The applicant's procedures and plans for construction and operation

of the disposal facility. These would include methods of construction;

waste emplacement; procedures for and areas of waste segregation;

types of intruder barriers; onsite traffic and drainage systems;

methods and areas of waste storage; and methods to control surface

water and ground-water access to the wastes.

o The applicant's environmental monitoring program to provide data

to evaluate potential health and environmental impacts, as well as

plans for taking corrective measures if migration of radionuclides

is indicated.

o The applicant's administration procedures to control activities.

o The applicant's physical security measures.

o If the application includes the proposed receipt, possession, and

disposal of special nuclear material, the procedures and provisions

for criticality control.

Despite this, however, NRC analyzed some potential impacts associated with

facility operation and concluded that many of the same requirements that would

reduce long-term environmental impacts and impacts to a potential intruder

would also help reduce operational impacts. For example, segregated disposal

of low activity compressible wastes from stabilized high activity waste--which

reduces exposures to an inadvertent intruder, reduces ground-water migration.

and reduces long-term maintenance of the disposal facility--would also tend to

reduce the impacts of a potential accidental fire in a disposal cell. Stabilizing

high activity waste streams reduces the impacts of a waste container potentially

dropped accidentally from a height and releasing part of the container's contents.

Finally, NRC identified some specific general waste form and packaging requirements that have been developed and applied in the past at disposal facilities.

These requirements provide protection of the health and safety of site workers,

facilitate handling of waste, and minimize the potential for releases to offsite

areas. These requirements have been condensed from consideration of current

practices at existing disposal facilities and are summarized in Section 61.56

of the proposed rule as minimum waste form and packaging criteria.

6. WASTE CLASSIFICATION

Based upon the analyses in Chapters 4 and 5, there are two fundamental mechanisms

to classify wastes for long-term hazard:

1. Consideration of potential hazard to an inadvertent intruder due to

direct contact with the disposed waste; and
41

after institutional controls have lapsed. These wastes-are termed

Class C intruder wastes and are also defined in termisof allowable'

:concentrations'of isotopes and requirements for disposal by deeper

'.burial or some other barrier. .

Upper concentration limits are'also defined for Class C waste.- Wastes containing

concentrations higher than the upper limits would be generally unacceptable for

near-surface disposal. The disposal of:such'wastes should be subject to

case-by-case determinations depending upon the specific waste forms and .

disposal techniques. In addition, four isotopes--H-3, C-14, 1-129 and

Tc-99--require site-specific inventory considerations to assure the per-;

formance 'objective for long-term environmental protection -is not exceeded.

6.2 Maximum Average and Allowable Concentration Limits . -

The radionuclides concentrations calculated by NRC represent maximum average

concentrations in disposed waste. "If they were applied as allowable-concentration limits, the actual average radionuclide concentration in the-disposed

waste in any disposal -facility would be-less and, in most cases, significantly

less than the calculated maximum average concentrations.- This.is due to the

mixing or-dilution of all the various-waste stream packages-containing varying

concentrations.of radionuclides during disposal. . . :

To help in maintaining exposures to levels as-low as reasonably achievable,

the NRC staff believes that calculated maximum average concentrations should-.

be used. -Thistreduces the potential long-term hazard from long-lived'radionuclides.- .NRC.staff also believes, however, that there should be.flexibility

and that exceptions should be considered when there is good.reason to do so.-,

A specific example in this letter is the isotope Cs-137..:This isotope, which is

a beta-gamma emitter having a half-life of about 30 years, is present in significant quantities:in some wastes. For example, from 25 to-75.percent of the

activity inspent LWR resins can be due to Cs-137. In the analyses performed

in Chapters 4,:5, and 6, concentrations of Cs-137 were used which were based.;

upon geometric means of a number of data points.' However, there was a consider--

able range in the concentrations. -It is therefore possible that the analysis -

in Chapter 4 could underestimate the volume.(and costs) ofLWR wastes which -.

would have to be processed and disposed by more expensive means:. If the Cs-137.

concentrations were a factor of 10 higher, the overall intruder hazard at

100 years-would be Increased some, but the volume-weighted hazard would still

be less than 500,millirem/yr. Use.of the higher concentrations-would not effect

the long-term potential hazard.

The Cs-137 concentrations were, therefore, raised by a factor of- 10 for Class B

and Class C waste, and for the maximum concentration generally' acceptable for nearsurface disposal. .A somewhat higher factor--i. e., 20--was applied to the interface concentration-between Class Akand B wastes to account -for the preponderance

of trash in ClassAVwaste which contain very.low-concentrations of cesium or ,

none at all. As.noted,Aincreasing the cesium concentration does increase the

short-term potential hazard-somewhat but not above-the 500 mrem/yr performance

objective. The long-termpotential hazard does not change. -
42

6.3 Transuranic Isotopes

Based upon work performed for this environmental impact statement as well as

work performed by others, NRC decided not to raise the existing working limit

of 10 nCi/gm for transuranic isotopes. This decision is based on several factors.

For most of the alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides, the maximum average

concentrations calculated were in the range of 10 nanocuries per gram. As noted

above, these concentrations are conservative in that they do not consider credit

for dilution by other wastes.

In the spirit of the ALARA concept, the lower value of 10 nCi/gm has been demonstrated as an achievable concentration to control the-disposal of transuranic

nuclides by near-surface disposal. This value has been imposed by the Department

of Energy for some eleven years and by most of the commercial disposal site

operators for nearly that long. The last commercial site imposed the 10 nCi/gm

restriction in 1979. In addition, it is believed that most of the potential

for economic gain that would result from a higher limit (say in the range of

100 nCi/gm) could be negated by current limitations in routine measurement

techniques. There is also a tendency toward a more conservative assessment of

the hazard of certain transuranic nuclides (e.g., as in ICRP-30) and it does

not seem prudent at this time to use higher values. In adopting the existing

limit of 10 nCi/gm, NRC staff recognizes that the principal concern regarding

potential future health hazards of TRU disposal is due to long-lived alpha

activity. One exception to this rule would be Pu-241, which is a beta emitter

which decays with a 13.2 year half-life to Am-241, which is an alpha emitter

having a half-life of 458 years. The ratio of the specific activity of Pu-241

to Am-241 is about 35. Thus, to maintain an equivalent limit for alpha emitters

of 10 nCi/gm, a limit of 350 nCi/gm will be allowed for Pu-241.

6.4 Isotopes Not Included in Table 1

NRC calculated and set out in Table 1 of the proposed Part 61 rule, limiting

concentrations for 11 isotopes having half-lives over 5 years; natural, depleted,

and enriched uranium; plus transuranic radionuclides. These are believed to

generally cover many, if not7most, of the longer-lived radionuclides currently

delivered to a disposal facility. Of the hundreds of radioactive isotopes that

have been identified, most have half-lives not exceeding 5 years. A limit for

isotopes with a half-life of less than 5 years is also included in Table 1.

For Classes A, B, and C waste, the concentration limit for Co-60 was used. As

shown in the table, there is no upper bound allowable concentration for such

isotopes since the calculated limits exceed the natural specific activity of

the isotopes. Using the Co-60 concentration for Classes A, B, and C is believed

to be conservative since Co-60 has a half-life greater than 5 years and emits

two energetic gamma rays.

NRC also recognizes that there are several other isotopes (e.g., thorium and

radium) for which concentration limits should be developed. Others may also,

be identified. NRC plans to analyze development of limits for such radionuclides

subsequently. In the meantime, some working concentration limits should be

considered for isotopes not presently analyzed. For these, NRC believes a reasonable, yet conservative, approach would be the following:
43

o :Use ofvalues'for Sr-90 for'beta-emitting isotopes with little or no

gimmaira-diation'; '-..

0o' Use of values'for Cs-137 for'beta-emitting isotopes having:significant;"

' gamma radiation; and ' '-

o Use of values for enriched uranium (U-235) for alpha-emitting isotopes

other than radium.'

For radium,' no limits are establishedas of yet. -In addition, NRC calculated

limits'for U-235 and U-238 and applied themias.the limits for enriched uranium

(U-235) 'and natu'ral~and'depletiedauranium'(U-238). The useof.U-238 for depleted.

uranium appears acceptable, 'but"'a calculated limit may be different forinatural

uranium which would include consideration'of daughter isotopes. 'As noted above,,-

NRC plans'to'furthe'r develop in the near future limits for nuclides not presently

analyzed, including limits'for-natural uranium, U-233, and other isotopes..'

6.5 Mixtures of Radioisotopes

Table 1 lists concentrations for single isotopes. However, LLW packages delivered

to disposal facilities'seldom contain just one radioisotope; generally, the ',--

waste packages contain''a'mixture of radioisotopes. To account for this mixture,

NRC staff proposes'to apply a sum-of-the-fractions rule similar to that described-..

in Table-II ofrthe existing 10'CFR Part 20.. -That is, the sum of ratios of an

isotope concentration in waste to thieconcentrations in the table shall not exceed

unity-for any waste class.' That is,

a b Cc

-+ - <.I, ,where

Ca' b' CIc - ''~ '':

'Ca, Cb, *Cc = concentrations.inWwaste of isotopes a, b, and c;

C', C, C' = limiting concentrations in a given waste class for

a c b isotopes a, b, and c. . .

In addition, concentrations may be averaged over the volume of any package.

For example,'for a 55-gallon drum,'the' conce'ntration'limits'.may be:multiplied.

by ajfactoi of 200,000 (the approximate volume of a 55-gallonCdrum in'Cm3) to.,

determine the allowable total activity'that could be placed iii a 55-gallon' drum.>'

6.6 Implementation of Waste'Classification ;'

To implement'a waste classification'requirement, it will be necessary for waste'-

generators to identify and quantify specific radionuclides'in the final';waste'

form as shipped for disposal.

In some cases, the identity'and concentrations of raidionuclides in each'-waste

package will.be extremely'difficult'to determine--particdlarly for radionuclide's

which require complex, expensive, and time-consuming analyticali'procedures.
44

Thus, in some cases, it is not practical to determine the concentrations of

all relevant radionuclides by direct measurement. One solution could be.to

routinely measure only those radionuclides that can be reasonably and accurately

measured without terribly expensive and sophisticated techniques. Concentrations

of other radionuclides would be scaled to the measured radionuclides based upon

existing or generator-specific data.

For purposes of review and comment, NRC has prepared a specific example on the

use of scaling factors and action levels for LWR waste streams which is set

out in Chapter 7 of the main text. The example reflects the type of guidance

which could be set out in a regulatory guide on classification of waste. Two

radionuclides which are present in relatively high concentrations in LWR waste

streams and can be readily measured by gamma spectroscopy are Co-60 and Cs-137.

In the procedure, these two isotopes would be routinely measured and the

concentrations of other radionuclides would be estimated based upon scaling

factors developed from either data specific to the facility or from a set of

reference scaling factors developed from existing data.

7. ADMINISTRATIVE, PROCEDURAL, AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

This section summarizes the principal administrative, procedural, and financial

requirements set out in the proposed Part 61 rule. The principal administrative

and procedural requirements on disposal facility operators are presented first

(in Section 7.1), and are discussed in the context of the expected life cycle

of a typical LLW disposal facility. The financial requirements are then presented in Section 7.2. Finally, the proposed new waste manifest tracking system,

which effects waste generators and waste transporters as well as disposal facility

operators, is discussed in Section 7.3.

7.1 Procedural and Administrative Requirements on Disposal Facility Operators

The life cycle of a disposal facility can be divided into five phases: (1) preoperational phase, (2) operational phase, (3) closure phase, (4) observation and

maintenance phase, and (5) institutional control phase. These five phases are

summarized in Figure S.2 and discussed in more detail below.

Preoperational Phase

The preoperational phase consists of disposal site selection, characterization,

and licensing. Disposal site selection and characterization is a period of data

gathering and planning. The applicant selects a region of interest and searches

for a number of possible disposal sites (a slate of candidate disposal sites)

using reconnaissance-level information. The applicant then narrows the possible

sites down to one. After a proposed disposal site has- been selected, the applicant

begins a detailed investigation (geology, depth to ground-water table, amount of

rainfall, etc.) of the proposed disposal site. The applicant also initiates the

preoperational monitoring program.

The applicant prepares an application for the land disposal facility following

Subpart B of Part 61. -The applicant also prepares an environmental report. Of

particular importance to this application are the methods by which the applicant
45

Figure S.2 Life Cycle and Financial Assurances for'a

Following the Proposed 10 CFR Part 61

Disposal Facility .

Time in' -

Years Jkctivity Form of Financial Assurance -'

1-2 yrs Site Selection and

Characterization

1-2 yrs Licensing Activities

- .

Licensee responsible for costs incurred

Licensee responsible for costs incurred

including licensee fee' ' '

Site closure plan including cost estimates

foreclosure is submitted'as'part of licensee

application

Lease arrangement withi long-term care -

arrangements for 'financial responsibility '

between licensee and state submitted for

20-40 yrs License' Issued; Site

-'is in Active Operation; Waste Received

review to NRC for-adequacy

Licensee.obtains adequate short-term sureties

to provide for-closure

Short-term sureties in'place for closure:'

NRC periodically reviews and requires'

updating to account for changes in'inflation,

site conditions, etc.

NRC'periodically reviews'revisions 'to lease'

arrangements to ensure that'arrangements' '

for financial responsibilities for long-term'

care are adequate'

1-2 yrs Site Closure and

Stabilization

Costs covered from short-term-sureties, '

if necessary; otherwise, licensee performs -

activities

Lease arrangement between site owner and - operator for long-term care is still in

effect:'' ' K ' -

.I- ... L

5-15 yrs Observation and Licensee still responsibleefor all further

Maintenance costs 'during this period, with ihort-term

assurances still in place. .

100 yrs License Transferred to Terms and conditions of lease are met, and

Site Owner; "Active a. either state or licensee provides-funds toInstitutional Control' pay. for all-required and necessary activities

Period" of this'period
46

will comply with the Part 61 performance objectives and technical requirements,

the preliminary site closure plan, arrangements concerning land ownership and

associated responsibilities, and financial assurance.

Licensing activities begin when the applicant files the application. Prior to

docketing, the application is reviewed for completeness and acceptability in

accordance with the new 12.101(b)(2). A notice of receipt of the tendered

application is published in the Federal Register. The Commission notifies

state, local, and tribal officials and begins to coordinate with these

officials. Once docketed, the application is again noticed in the Federal

Register and the application and accompanying environmental report widely

distributed. An opportunity for interested parties to request a hearing is

provided pursuant to 10 CFR 2.105. Application fees are paid in accordance

with 10 CFR Part 170.

The regulatory review period follows. The applicant continues any disposal

site studies and the preoperational observation and monitoring. The applicant

also responds to informational requests from NRC. Section 61.3 requires that

construction not begin until a decision is made to issue the license. The

application and environmental report are updated if necessary.

Based upon the application, environmental report, and any additional information,

the Commission prepares a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and

publishes it for public comment. Based upon public comments and any additional

information, the staff prepares and publishes a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). If hearings are requested, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(ASLB) is appointed. Hearings, if any, would be held in accordance with existing

rules in 10 CFR Part 2. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and/or

the Commission may review the findings of the ASLB, or the ASLB findings may

be appealed to these next levels and to the courts. Upon resolution of the

hearings, reviews, and appeals, the Director* takes final action to issue or

deny the application in accordance with the criteria in Section 61.23, plus

any conditions rendered by the Licensing or Appeals Boards or the Commission.

A notice is published in the Federal Register in accordance with Section 2.106.

If the ownership of the land has not been transferred to the state or federal

government, transfer would now take place. If the license is issued, it is

subject to the general license condition in Section 61.24 and to specific

conditions as required.

States and Indian tribes may participate in the Commission's license review

process. Subpart F of the proposed Part 61 rule addresses such participation,

which is in addition to participation as already provided in Parts 2 and 51.

Examples of the forms that state and tribal participation may take include:

1. Development of technical data, including but not limited to, socioeconomic; hydrological, geological, environmental, or land use data

for incorporation into the Commission's environmental impact statement

on the application or other analyses.

*The "Director" means the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
47

2. Development of public participation mechanisms to be included in the

licensing process.,

3. -Provisions of.a-technical data.base~to provide verification to the

Commission for,-materials presented in the license application.

4. -Exchange of state and Commission staff for cooperative review.> '

Operational Phase.

After issuance of a license by the Commission, the land disposal facility is

constructed and waste receipt and'disposal operations start.' At intervals specified in the license (the normal term for materials licenses is-currently 5-years),

the licensee would be required to submit a license renewal application

(Section 61.27). At this time, the disposal site closure plan and'funding.-

requirements would be updated and financial arrangements for assurance of

adequate funding reviewed. -A public hearing would be offered. The licensee

may also apply for amendments to the license at any time during the operational

phase (Section 61.26).

Disposal Site;Closure Phase

As the disposal site.becomes filled, the time for disposal site closure approaches:

Prior to closure, the licensee would'.submit a final closure plan for review

and approval (Section 61.28).. A public hearing would be offered.- Upon approval,.

the licensee implements the plan. .This' would.consist of decontamination and

dismantlement,. as-appropriate; of buildings or other site facilities.'.Final

disposal site contouring and preparation.is performed. The licensee should:

work toward closure during the entire operational phase so that disposal site

closure-would not.involve a major task.-'

Postclosure-Observation and Maintenance

Implementation of the closure plan would be followed by a period of postclosure - observation and-maintenance on-the part-ofthe licensee, in-which the licensee's

monitoring'and maintenance programs would continue. -

This period is expected to last about 5:years and.will help assure that-the

disposal site is.in a stable condition..so'that-only minor care,.surveillance,

and monitoring by, the custodial agency are required.': When the disposal site has

reached.a stable condition, thelicensee may prepare and submit 'an application.

for transfer of the license. -A public-hearing would be 'offered.: Among other.>.

things,-the licensee must provide-reasonable.-assurance-that the site meets-all

performance objectives under. Subpart C, and the Commiission -must find? that'the :

state or. federal agency responsible for postclosure care of the site is prepared

to assume.these responsibilities. As.-a condition for assuming these responsibilities, astatermay-require.the licensee;to comply.with requirements of its

own, as long as the state's requirements are not inconsistent with the requirements-of the Commission.. Upon a satisfactory-finding, the license will-be -

transferred to the federal or state custodial agency.to cover their. activities

during :the active institutional control -period (Section 61.30).
48

Institutional Control Period

During the institutional control period, which for purposes of Part 61 the

Commission assumes to be not more than 100 years, the custodial agency carries

out a program of monitoring and physical surveillance to assure continued

satisfactory site performance, as well as other minor custodial activities.

As a part of the license termination requirements, the licensee is required to

place records of the disposal facility with local, state, and federal agencies.

These records along with restrictions on the property deed and trench markers

should help minimize disturbance of the disposal site. These latter mechanisms

are those that would continue after the active institutional control period.

At the end of the necessary institutional control period, the custodial agency

license may be terminated (Section 61.31).

7.2 Financial Assurance Requirements

Financial assurance requirements for low-level waste disposal facilities are

needed to help ensure the long-term protection of public health and safety and

the environment. A review by the staff of the operating experiences at both

hazardous waste and LLW disposal sites reveals that operators of both types of

sites did not adequately plan for closure and long-term care activities. With

respect to LLW sites, the state and federal governments recognized the need to

care for the sites over the long term. The sites had to be located on land owned

by the federal or state government and funds were collected for long-term care

activities. In most cases, however, the funds collected for long-term care

activities (e.g., the Maxey Flats, Kentucky site) were not adequate and there was

essentially no financial planning for contingencies that might occur (e.g., the

need to pump trenches 'and treat trench leachate). In addition, until recently

little planning or financial assurance was provided for funding final closure

and stabilization of the existing sites. This has led to a situation where

financial responsibility for the continued assurance of protection of the public

health and safety at several of the existing closed sites already has or could':

become a responsibility of the state or federal government. Closure, postclosure,

and active institutional control costs are generally incurred after the site

operator is no longer receiving revenues from waste generators. Thus, proper

planning during the operating phase when revenues can be accrued is essential.

Based on these considerations, there is a strong need for regulatory requirements

to ensure that: (1) the licensee has sufficient financial resources to construct

and operate the facility and to provide for final closure and postclosure'care

of the site and (2) the licensee provides financial assurance for the active

institutional control period after the site is closed and stabilized. The staff

believes these closure and active institutional care costs should be identified

early and should be provided for as part of the necessary costs of operating a

site. Financial assurance mechanisms to provide for these costs should be

established during the active operating period of the site, when revenues are

still being received by the licensee and he has access to financial resources.

The need for stringent financial requirements to ensure that the licensee is

financially responsible has been voiced by a number of sources, including the

U.S. General Accounting Office and the National Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors. Financial assurance requirements are set out in Subpart E

of the proposed Part 61 rule.
49

7.2.1 Requirements for Short-Term Financial Assurances for-Operations, Closure,

and Postclosure Observation and Maintenance

Given the past history at some of the existing disposal sites, one of the requirements in the Part 61 rule,-is assurance of.adequate financial qualification on-the

part of the applicant to construct and operate the disposal facility and to

provide adequate financial provisions -for disposal site closure and postoperational activities.

Short-term financial assurance mechanisms refer to arrangements intended to

ensure that the licensee is financially responsible for undertaking:required

closure, stabilization, and postclosure activities at a low-level waste site,

and would be particularly based ona specific site closure and stabilization-.

plan. The amount of financial assurance required would be based on cost

estimates submitted by-the licensee in an approved plan for disposal site

closure and'stabilization. In the proposed rule, the applicant must submit a

cost estimate for disposal site closure that includes consideration of

inflation, increases in the amount of disturbed land, and the closure and

stabilization activities that have already occurred at the disposal site. As

used in the Part 61.rule, the concept of financial.assurances does;not include . any requirements for third party.liability coverage for damages to people or..

property resulting from-operation of the' facilities.

The proposed rule requires applicants to provide proof of financial qualifications

prior to the commencement of construction of the disposal facility. Proof of the

financial qualifications of applicants is not currently required by Parts 30 and 40.

Requiring such financial qualification, in.the Part,61 rule will help assurethat.

resources-are-not expended on projects without-adequate backing and should minimize

the potential for earlydefault~or the abandonment of the site by the operator.

The NRC has received strong public interest concerning the issue of financial

responsibility for-closure of a disposal site.--Numerous written comments were

made on this'portion of the preliminary draft regulation,.,and-the issue was

also raised at all four workshops held to review this regulation. Many

commenters felt that the licensee should be held responsible for the full costs

of closure of a disposal site, andthat~the license should not be terminated

and -the land returned to custodial government authority until the licensee has

completed-satisfactory closure..- - .

There are a variety of short-term financial assurance mechanisms that could be

used by a low-level waste disposal facility operator to assure that sufficient-,

funds are available for closure and.postclosure care. -Short-term financial..-.

assurance mechanisms considered by-the staff included the following:

1. Surety bonds, obtained from a'surety company; ' ;

2. Escrow arrangements between a".bank,.the government,- and the licensee;

3. Trust funds, arranged between the government, a financial institution,

and the licensee;
II me.

50

4. Certificates of deposit to a state or federal agency;

5. Cash deposits to a state or federal agency;

6. Deposits of securities to a state or federal agency;

7. Secured interests in the disposal operator's assets;

8. Letters of Credit from a financial institution;

9. Self-insurance by the low-level waste disposal facility operator;

10. Financial tests of the operator or his holding company;

11. Development of a sinking fund based on receipts from surcharges

on received wastes; and

12. Development of a closure assurance pool.

These types of financial assurances are standard commercial law arrangements

currently being used by state and federal government agencies for the chemical

waste disposal, uranium milling, low-level waste disposal, and surface coal

mining industries. The staff considers these to be reasonable alternatives

for consideration in this EIS.

The primary criterion considered by the staff in evaluating these alternative

financial mechanisms was the degree of assurance provided by each method to

ensure that funds are available to close the disposal site and to provide for

all necessary activities to protect the public's health and safety. Other

criteria considered by the staff included the following:

o The degree of security (or level of difficulty) in obtaining funds

in case of default.

o The administrative time and expense required by the regulatory agency

to implement and monitor the financial assurance mechanisms.

o The cost to the licensee of utilizing the financial assurance mechanism.

Conclusions

Based on the review of the alternative financial assurance mechanisms, the

staff concluded that a number of financial assurance mechanisms exist that will

provide adequate public protection to ensure that funds for closure and

postclosure exist in the event that the site operator defaults or unforeseen

site conditions require early closure of the site. The alternatives that the

staff finds generically acceptable for a disposal facility licensee are:

o surety bonds

o trust funds

o escrow arrangements

o cash deposits
51

o certificates of deposit

o deposits of government securities

o' irrevocable letters of credit'-- -

o combinations of the above -

These alternatives were.all found to be acceptable because they.did not impose.

a significant economic burden'on the license,-they-did not impose an administrative burden on'the staff, and yet they each could be structured to ensureahigh degree of cohfide'nce.that funds would be available-to ensure proper.closure..'

The staff has'also concluded that'approving a range of satisfactory-financial

assurance alternatives allows the-operator flexibility in selecting the:mechanism

that best suits his needs. These requirements are set out in Section 61.62.

While the other financial assurance mechanisms discussed earlier may be

acceptable in certain isolated cases, they are not acceptable to the staff on

a generic basis. Plans for alternative financial assurance'mechanisms-not7 - '

discussed here would be evaluated and-approved by the staff on a case-by-case.

basis. The costs for short-term financial assurances have-been included as

part of the costs for the reference facility. * -. -- , *-. -

7.2.2 Requirements for Long-Term Financial-Assurances for Institutional.Care.'

Based on a review of the operating history at existing LLW disposal sites, the! . staff finds that financial responsibility.for long-term care.(active- institutional

control) should be established prior-to issuance of the-disposal-facility license.-

A review of the history of commercial low-level waste-sites in this country'.-

indicates that there has-been continuing concern by-the public and~by regulatoryauthorities over long-term.financial responsibility for.low-level waste disposal

sites. In addition-to questions over the equity issues of who pays for active -

institutional control over the site,:the government and the public are concerned'-

that funds be readily available for postoperational activities to ensure that

the public's health and safety are continually protected..'. ; -

Financial assurances for active institutional control involve the financing of

any-required activities at a low-level waste-site after.termination of-the :

disposal facility license. These funding assurancies would cover-surveillance,.

monitoring, and any necessary maintenance to assure that the stability andintegrity of -the site is maintained and that there are no disruptive human

activities.at the site for up to 100 years. :The proposed.requirementsido not .:

cover .unanticipated contingencies that may occur at the-site. Based on these-,

considerations,-. the Commission staff concluded that requirements for-financial -

guarantees for active institutional control-should be included in the proposed .

Part 61-regulation. ' .- -: ; . . . - - - I 

A review of the various.financial assurance mechanisms commonly-used in the:--

commercial law area (see Section 9.3.3 of-the main text)-revealed that few,,.--

if any, of these mechanisms are suitable for the long-term nature of a long-term

financial assurance mechanism.-.- The extended time period,(100 years) means that -

few financial -institutions.are willing or able to handle.that.type of long-term ---:

financial-assurance.; There are, however,-several other alternative long-term

financial assurance mechanisms that can be used.for active institutional controlat a disposal site. -Several.criteria were applied in reviewing the adequacy - ^- ...
52

of alternative financial assurance mechanisms for long-term care. The staff

considered that the most important consideration for long-term financial

assurances was the extent to which they were able to provide a guarantee that

the necessary funds would be produced by the responsible parties. Another

necessary consideration was the extent to which enabling authority existed to

allow the Commission staff to require a specific financial assurance mechanism.

Several of the financial assurance mechanisms proposed by various parties would

require enabling legislation that is currently lacking at the federal level.

Financial assurance mechanisms reviewed by the staff included a sinking fund

funded by a surcharge recovered from disposal facility customers, an LLW

disposal "superfund," and a lease or a legally binding arrangement.

Conclusions

The staff has determined that all, low-level waste disposal site operators must

establish evidence of financial responsibility to provide for long-term care

of the site during the active institutional control period. Financial responsibility for long-term care must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of the

facility license, including costs for all required and necessary activities at

the site, including surveillance, monitoring, and required maintenance. States

regulating existing commercial low-level waste disposal sites have traditionally required licensees to establish sinking funds based on surcharges collected from

the disposal facility customers, along with leases between themselves and the

operator specifying financial responsibility for long term care of the site.

The staff is aware of the benefits of requiring disposal operators to require a

surcharge on waste generators which is consequently deposited into a sinking

fund and then invested. Such a cost recovery mechanism directly charges the

benefiting parties (i.e., the waste generators) with the costs of long-term

care. However, this approach cannot be required by the Commission, since the

Commission lacks the legal authority to: (a) require that a long-term care

fund be established and (b) require that the operator impose a surcharge on

waste generators.

Since the Commission lacks the authority to explicitly require that a surcharge

be imposed and a sinking fund be established, the staff considers that the

next best regulatory alternative is to require that the operator be party to'a

binding arrangement such as a lease between himself and the site's landowner

which establishes evidence of financial responsibility. (Current Commission

regulations require the state or federal government to be the site landowner.)

The staff is aware of the shortcomings of such an approach, but considers this

the most viable regulatory alternative based on the current statutory authority

of the Commission. Such regulatory requirements will help to ensure that the

licensee or the site owner is responsible for performing all required long-term

care activities that are necessary to protect the public health and safety and

the environment. These requirements are set out in Section 61.63.

The staff has included the costs for 100 years of active institutional control'

into the cost of the reference facility as well as the alternatives'considered

in the EIS. The actual costs of long-term care, however, will vary depending

upon the level of active maintenance required under varying disposal facility

conditions. Long-term site stability will significantly reduce and possibly

eliminate the need for any major maintenance and cost over the long term.
53

7.3 Manifest Tracking System

Section 20:311 of Part 20 establishes .the-requirements 'for a manifest tracking

system for wastes. The system will address the need for more complete information'

on the classification and characteristics of the waste, for improved accountability:of'wastes, and for'a better data base: The General Accounting Office

(GAO) noted the need for improvements in'these areas in'its'report entitled - "The Problem of Disposing-of'Nuclear'Low-Level Waste: Where Do We Go from Here?"

published March 31, 1980. The GAO recommended'that the-Commission "determine ' who the generators of'low-level waste are in'both the'Agreement and non-Agreement'

States and how much waste each-licensee'is generating" and.'"'establish a method'.

to track waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal." Improving

the data base on waste characteristics will improve the credibility of decisionmakers, enable better planning for inspections and emergencies, enhance projections of future waste generation, and help in site-specific analyses and'planning.

The information on waste classification and characteristics is necessary for

proper handling and disposal at the land disposal facility (e.g., which waste

requires intruder barriers).

Licensees who ship 'under existing regulations are required to'prepare and

forward.shipping manifests that comply:with-DOT regulations. The proposed' ' manifest content requirements in Section 20.311 are somewhat more comprehensive

but compatible with DOT requirements. The waste generator must be specifically

identified. The information requirements concerning the waste itself are :-'

somewhat more extensive and geared to information needed for disposal, not just

transportation and handling. More explicit information on chemical content,

waste composition, and solidification agents is required. Licensees are. f' .:

required to comply with and certify compliance with waste form requirements of

Part 61. This latter requirement stems solely from the technical requirements

for:disposal and is therefore new. The land disposal facility licensee-must,

record data on the' condition of the waste itself and document and certify-'

receipt, handling, repackaging, storage, and disposal.

The use of-the manifests as provided for in Section 20.311 provides a tracking : system that is inspectable. The LLW manifest tracking system is somewhat similar

to the manifest tracking system recently instituted by EPA for nonradioactive

hazardous wastes. Section'20.3fl requires that the shipper precede and-accompany,-

shipments with copies of the manifest and investigate if notification of receipt

or disposal is not received. The responsibility for tracking shipments is with

the shipper.who may-also bethe waste generator, a service-company who collects,

stores-and.delivers the waste,-organ intermediate:processor.- A crosscheck is . provided to'ensure that delayed or-missing shipments are investigated by

requiring -land disposal facility operators to periodically match'advance copiesof manifests.to those for shipments actually received: . -

8. UNMITIGATED IMPACIS . - . -

As part of-.the-EIS, NRC analyzed the-potential unmitigated impacts of..the

proposed Part 61 regulation. In some cases, these unmitigated impacts are

presented as total-estimated.exposures,-.costs, or other.impacts-from LLW management and-disposal. In other cases, particularly when it was more convenient to
54

do so due to lack of data, impacts are presented as incremental impacts to thosewhich could occur without the Part 61 regulation. The unmitigated impacts are

quantified to the extent practicable. Some impacts, however, can only be addressed

in general terms.

Both direct and indirect impacts will occur as a result of the proposed Part 61

rule. Direct impacts are discussed first and, because this EIS is being prepared

for a rulemaking action, the direct effects of the action do not fall upon the

physical and natural environments, but rather upon those segments of the human

environment whose conduct of affairs will be affected by the change in regulatory

requirements. Among the directly affected groups are:

o Waste generators and processors;

o Waste transporters;

o Waste disposal facility operators;

o Federal agencies and the states; and

o The public.

Potential indirect impacts are addressed secondly. To estimate these impacts

the performance objectives and minimal technical criteria established in this

EIS are applied to four reference disposal facilities assumed to be constructed

and operated on the four hypothetical regional sites.

8.1 Environmental Consequences Occurring Directly as a Result of the Proposed

Part 61 Rule

Impacts on Federal Agencies

There are a number of federal agencies which have responsibilities relative to

low-level waste management. These agencies are: NRC, the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the

U.S. Geological Survey.

In general terms, the chief impact of the adoption of 10 CFR Part 61 on NRC

would be to more clearly define to the staff the established policies, licensing

procedures, and performance objectives governing LLW disposal. It would also

help ensure that LLW disposal facilities are treated uniformly in terms of complying with the above regulations and procedures.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with the responsibility

of protection and enhancement of environmental quality and it carries out its

mission through research, monitoring, regulatory, and enforcement functions.

An important EPA role with regard to low-level radioactive waste management is

in the establishment of generally applicable environmental standards for waste

disposal. The agency does not license radioactive waste disposal facilities.

The technical criteria established in the rule will not impact the ongoing EPA

program for establishing overall environmental standards for waste disposal.

Rather, the NRC rulemaking effort may advance EPA's efforts in this regard.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing disposal of low-level

radioactive waste generated by government operations and for conducting research

into various aspects of radioactive waste disposal. Disposal of LLW by DOE is
55

exempted from NRC licensing authority and would remain so under the proposed

Part 61 rule.' One impact of the Part 61 rule on DOE would occur if DOE re'sumed

using'commercial disposal facilities for disposal. of DOE LLW. Under this

situation DOE'would have to ensure that its waste conformed to'applicable'parts

of the new rule. .

Transportation .of radioactive materials''in the',United States'is jointly, regulated

by the Department of Tran'sportation'(DOT) and NRC. DOT, regulites'all radioactive

materials-in interstat'ecommerce while NRC regulates the transportation of

byproduct, source, and special nuclear material., NRC's existing'regulations

for transport reflect the requirements of DOT and the situation will,-remain,

the same under the proposed Part 61 rule.' -As a byp'roduct of the proposed-rule,

the stability requirements for higher activity wastes will 'help improve transportation safety, as will the minimum waste form requirements intended to improve

operational safety at the disposal facility.

Impacts'on the States

Promulgation by NRC of the proposed Part'61 regulation will have impacts on -

the states in addition'to these realized by'industry and federal agencies".

These 'impacts'will'primarily affect those states which have entered into, [

Agreements with NRC for regulation of certain radioactive materials--i.e.,''

the Agreement States. The promulgation of10 CFR Part 61 would mean that the -

Agreement States would'have to modify'their regulations to include-provisions

compatible with the new NRC regulation. This process of modification would

involve, :at'a minimum,' the following steps:

o Preparation of draft regulations to reflect ,the' requirements of

Part 61;

o Review and approval'of proposed regulations by'NRC; and ' ,' -

o Public review and formal incorporation into state code.

Impacts on the Public

Promulgation'of the proposed Part 61 rule by NRC will'iinpact'the public most

significantly ' The'purpose of the rule is to provide'1improved safeguardsfor

protection of'public health' 'and safety and the'environment, but despite these

improvements, the technology of waste disposal is not' risk-free.' Whatever'

risks'remain in the'presence"of the operative rule will be borne by'the public,

as will the:'ultitiate costs 'of implementing the, rule. - -' '

The requirements of the'Partf'61 regulitioni are' expected' to result in'beneficial

impacts to the public in three major'areas. '-First, the implementation and'"

enforcement of performance objectives and uniform minimum technical requirements

will improvethetperformance of LLW disposalfacilities and thereby'reduce the

hazards of LLW disposal'to p'ublic'health'and "safety and environmental quality.

Second, "the-requirements of the'Part'61'rule should assure' that' near-surface'

disposal 'remains' a:safe 'viable -option'for the 'disposal of LLW.' Finally, th'e _-'

Part 61" rle'provides public benefits in the form of more explicit provisions

for participation ;irthe''licensing pr'cessi'for future 11W 'disposal facilities.'
I 4_

56

There will also be adverse impacts. The first of these impacts will be residual

environmental and human health hazards resulting from LLW disposal. Despite the

provisions of the Part 61 rule, the variables and processes involved in LLW

disposal are sufficiently complex that unmitigated impacts cannot be avoided.

Secondly, implementing the requirements of Part 61 will involve costs to the

disposal facility operators, waste transporters, and waste generators. Finally,

implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Part 61 rule will require

the allocation of federal and state resources during the operational and postoperational periods of an LLW disposal facility.

8.2 Environmental Consequences Occurring Indirectly as a Result of the

Proposed Part 61 Rule

This section discusses the indirect impacts of the proposed Part 61 regulation.

To estimate these impacts the performance objectives and minimal technical

criteria established in the EIS are applied to four reference disposal facilities

assumed to be constructed on the four hypothetical regional sites discussed in

Chapter 3 of this summary. The site descriptions include three disposal

facilities located in humid environments (northeast, southeast, and midwest sites)

and one (southwest site) located in a semiarid climate. A wide range of environmental properties are represented.

8.2.1 Assumed Regional Disposal Facility Designs and Waste Source Term

This section provides a description of the disposal facilities assumed to be

situated at the regional sites discussed in the preceding section; as well as

the wastes which are assumed to be disposed in the facilities. The examples are

intended to illustrate an upper bound range of impacts from implementation of the

rule, with the expectation that actual impacts at existing or future disposal

facilities would be less.

Assumed Facility Designs

All cases assume disposal into "regular" shallow land burial trenches as well

as segregated disposal of waste streams containing organic chemicals as well as

low activity unstable waste streams containing compressible material. Layering

is used as an intruder barrier. For the three humid sites (northeast, southeast,

and midwest), a moisture barrier in the form of a thick clay cap is installed and

compacted using standard construction techniques. In the southwest site, however,

the standard "thin" cap-is assumed to be installed. Similar to the humid sites,

however, the disposed waste, backfill, and cap are assumed to be compacted using

improved methods (e.g., a vibratory compactor).

Due to the relatively impervious nature of the soils at the northeast site,

there is a greater chance for a water accumulation problem than at the other

two humid sites. For this case, therefore, and to provide one case for analysis.

of a more extreme engineering design, all waste packages are assumed to-be stacked

into disposal cells and grouted in place. At the other disposal facilities, an

imported sand backfill is assumed to be used to reduce the contact time of

percolating water.
57

All regional facilities are assumed to be operated for 20 years, followed by a

two-year closure period and a five-year observation period prior to license

termination and-transfer of site control to the site owner.

Assumed Waste Forms

In the analysis, the higher activity'waste streams are assumed to-be stabilized:'

To provide a range of costs and impacts for the calculations, two waste spectra'

are considered: waste spectrum 2 and waste spectrum'l modified by use of high---

integrity containers. In waste spectrum 2, all of the LWR process waste streams

are assumed to be solidified. Half are solidified in cement and half in a

synthetic polymer binder. Waste streams for which most of the activity is

principally contained in activated metal are stabilized using improved packages'

(e.g.,-filling void spaces within the package with a-noncompressible material,

use of high integrity containers, etc'.). All compressible waste streams are'

compacted. In modified waste spectrum 1, LWR process waste streams except for

solidified concentrated liquids are packaged in high-integrity containers.

Concentrated liquids are assumed to be solidified. High-integrity containers

are also used for packaging two waste streams containing large quantities of

tritium. The other higher activity waste streams are again assumed to be:

stabilized thrcough improved packaging techniques or high-integrity containers.

Compressible waste streams are not compacted.

In the-analysis, the volumes of waste projected to be generated.in each region

over a'20-year'period are processed according to the'waste spectra'considered .

and delivered to.the disposal facility. This results in a range in projectedwaste volume (in i3) for each region as follows:"

Waste Spectrum Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

Modified spectrum 1 9.92E+5 1.07E+6 7.56E+5 7.26E+5

Spectrum 2 6.85E+5 7.51E+5 5.29E+5 4.91E+5

As shown, the largest volumes are projected for .the southeast region.

8.2.2 Results of the Regional Analysis

This section presents a discussion of the indirect unmitigated impacts of implementation of.:the'Part 61 rule'based on analysis-of the above regional cases.

The section is divided into three subsections as follows: long-term radiological

impacts, costs and short-term radiological impacts, and other impacts.

Long-Tein Radiological Impacts -

A range of long-term radiological impacts for the regional case study are'summarized on Table S.8. - ' -'
Table S.8 Summary of Long-Term Environmental Impacts from Regional Case Study

Modified Waste Spectrum 1 Waste Spectrum 2

Impact Measures Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

Maximum individual

intruder impacts:

rem/yr to bone)

100 years 3.80E+0 2.32E+1 2.73E+1 2.09E+1 5.23E+0 2.97E+1 3.50E+1 2.86E+1

500 years 4.83E-1 5.OOE+O 6.19E+0 3.15E+1 6.54E-1 6.84E+0 8.50E+0 4.63E+1

Maximum p ulation

intruder impacts:

-Airborne (manmrem/yr to bone) 1.70E+5 1.93E+4 3.22E+4 1.87E+2 1.02E+5 1.66E+4 2.80E+4 1.67E+2

Waterborne

(mrem/yr to bone) 8.29E-3 3.17E-3 4.82E-3 4.36E-3 1.09E-2 4.04E-3 6.05E-3 5.78E-3

u1

Maximum erosion

iffacts:

Airborne (manmrem/yr to bone) 3.12E+2 1.49Et2 1.42E+2 6.11E+O 3.11E+2 1.49E+2 1.42E+2 6.11E+0

Waterborne (mrem/yr

to thyroid) 9.77E-1 1.18E+0 9.47E-1 5.90E-1 9.77E-1 1.18E+0 9.47E-1 5.90E-1

Maximum ground-water

impacts: (mrem/yr

to thyroid)

Intruder well 6.43E+0 5.62E+0 6.84E+O 2.53E-2 7.25E-1 6.36E-1 6.73E-1 1.45E-2

Boundary well 6.02E+0 5.62E+0 6.84E+O 2.45E-2 6.52E-1 6.36E-1 6.73E-1 2.91E-3

Population well <10 9 1.78E+0 3.26E-1 9.40E-4 <10 9 2.01E-1 3.20E-2 1.11E-4

Surface stream <10i9 8.09E-2 <10i9 * <10i9 9.14E-3 <109 *

*Impacts at the surface stream are not calculated for the southwest site due to the intermittent nature of the

nearest stream to the site and the extreme depth to ground water.
59

Maximum 'individual intruder impacts are summarized on'Table S.8 at time periods

equal to 100 and 500 years' following disposal facility license termination. - Maximum population intruder impacts are also summarized as -estimated at 100 years

following license termination. Airborne impacts are presented 'as total exposures

(in man-mrem/yr) to persons living within-50 miles of the-disposal facility. -

Waterborne -impacts-are'presented for an individual who is-assumed to use water

from a surface stream contaminated from overland-flow of material released from--

the facility by the intruder. Maximum potential erosional impacts (to the bone)

are also shown as impacts to populations for airborne releases and as impacts

to an individual for waterborne releases.- -

In the analysis,-thetassumed'useof grouting to stabilize'the northeast site

resultsUin reduced intruderexposures relative to the:southeist and midwest '

sites. For these'latter-two sites,-inadvertent intruder-exposures averaged

over the total-waste volume disposed at:the sites range -from about 15 to35 mrem/yr-at l007years but; drop'to a few (4:to.9)-mrem/yrlat 500 years. The

increased volume'reduction associated with'waste spectrum 2-results in higher--

overall radionuclide concentrations then for modified spectrum 1, with resulting

slightly higher estimated impacts. In the analysis, no credit has been taken

for improved waste'forms to reduce dispersion and plant root uptake. This '

improved waste form would tend to' reduce intruder exposures for waste spectrum

2, particularly at-the southwest-site., ' ; . : ~r -.8 - ,, . . ,

The highest individual intruder exposures are estimated to occur at the southwest

site. These exposures run at about 46 mrem/yr to bone but are still a factor

-of-lO less-than-the 500 mrem/yr limit. The increased exposure-is'due to the'

increased silt content'of the site soils as well as'the-increased-wind speeds'''

relative to the-other three-sites. -These impacts are believed-to be very

conservative,:since the great depth-to the-water-table allows disposal at much

greater depths than at-the other three sites--further reducing the potential

.for:inadvertent intrusion into 'the. more highly active waste- streams. -'

Both types of scenarios--inadvertent intrusion and erosion--should be interpreted

as hypothetical events. In particular, the erosional impacts are'included as '

an upper bound of such impacts if significant large scale -erosion'did occur.; -

Disposal facilities-licensed under-the.Part;61 regulation would be sited to -

avoid such potential.. problems'with erosion. ' ' ' - - ' '- --

As shown in Table S.8 the highest exposures due to ground-water migration are

to the thyroid, although in all-cases-the performance objectives for inadvertent'

intrusion and ground-water migration are met. The estimated impacts reflectthe differing volumes of waste streams and corresponding radionuclide inventories

within each regional facility, as well as the differing environmental characteristics of- each regional'site.';Of the three- humid regional sites,:the southeast '

is assumed to experience the, largest-percolation -component- (PERC) las wel I as

the quickest ground-water travel times to human accesslocations. In-addition,

the-midwest and southeast site soils-are-assumed to have moderate retardation -

capabilities while the retardation capability of the northeast-site soil is '-

higher. '- - - - ; - ; - -

The southwest site -is located in a semiarid area and a water balance calculation

for the site indicated that essentially no'precipitation falling upon the site
I -~ l ~ -_ l--

60

reaches the underlying aquifer. For completeness in the analysis, however, a

percolation coefficient of 1 mm was conservatively assumed for the site. The

resulting estimated exposures are a few orders of magnitude less than those for

the other three sites at the intruder, boundary, and population wells. The

surface water body exposures are not presented for the southwest site, however.

The closest water body down-gradient of the site is an intermittent stream, and

in any case, the water table is located on the order of 80 meters below ground

surface.

Costs and Short-Term Radiological Impacts

Costs and short-term radiological impacts are summarized in Table S.9. Included

in this table are (1) potential impacts to populations (in man-mrem) from

transporting waste to the regional facilities, (2) potential occupational

impacts (in man-mrem) associated with processing, transporting, and disposing

of waste within the region, and (3) costs. Impacts and costs are shown as

total impacts and costs over the 20-year operating life of the disposal

facility.

As shown, transportation impacts over 20 years range from about 420 to 1,100

man-rems, or about 21 to 55 man-rems per year. The higher estimated impacts

for the southwest site are due to the greater transportation distance for the

western region as compared to the other three regions (1,000 miles vs 300 to

600 miles).

Occupational impacts are listed as total impacts over 20 years for waste processing,

transportation to the disposal facility, and waste disposal. Waste processing

occupational exposures are presented as additional exposures to those associated

with waste spectrum 1. These exposures are believed to be conservatively high,

due to the conservative nature of the analysis as well as the fact that many

waste generators are already compacting waste or stabilizing high activity streams

to comply with existing license conditions at LLW waste disposal facilities.

Also included are the occupational exposures that are estimated to be associated with operation of a regional processing center.- For waste spectrum 2,

waste processing is assumed to consist of compaction of compressible waste

streams by large compactor/shredders. This is not likely a cost effective

operation but has been included for completeness.

As expected, the largest occupational exposures for waste disposal are those

estimated for the northeast site. This is due to the assumed additional operational practices carried out at the northeast site.

Costs, including waste processing, transport, and disposal costs are also listed

in Table S.9. Costs due to processing the waste by the waste generator are

presented as additional costs to those associated with waste spectrum 1. For

the modified spectrum 1 case, these additional costs involve stabilizing highactivity waste streams at an estimated cost of $450 per m3 of waste so stabilized,

which is the approximate cost of placing the waste streams into high-integrity

containers. It is expected that some of the waste streams may be stabilized

by the less expensive means; however, using the high-integrity container costs
Table S.9 Summary of Costs and Short-Term Radiological Impacts for the Regional Case Study

Modified Waste Spectrum 1 Waste Spectrum-@2

Impact Measures* Northeast' Southeast Midwest Southwest Northeast Southeast "Midwest Southwest

Tran~nnntt at s:on

Qopuatii Rlnacts:'-

(man-mrem) : 4.161

Occupational

Impacts,

man-mrem) , t ,

Waste Process --

By Generators -

RegionalCenter O'

Transportation .5.541

Waste Disposal -. 5.101

Waste Processin ,

C os ts V $- - -

,+5. 6.02E+5 6.54E+5 1. 10E+6 4. 02E+5 5.97E+5 6.52E+5

. . f

- 0.

:+6, 6.92E*6'

* ,2.96E46

+.'89E+7 *97 

0

5.04E+6

2.03E+6

+6. 63E+7

0 '

0

4.89E+6

2.80E+6

+5.22E+7 ! 0

+1. 70E+6

,1. 81E+5

5. 21E+6

-4.78E+6 -

. I

+3.47E+8

+5. 29E+7

1. 32E+8

Waste Generator

Regional Center'

Waste Transportation Costs:

Waste Dis osal "

Costs: $

Design &'Op.

Post operational

Total

Unit ($/m3)

+7.281 A -

1.45E+8-'

I

2. 75E+8

1. 26E+7

'2.88E+8

290

.0 -

. 2.43E+8

2. 10E+8

1.91E+7

2. 29E+8

214

1:

. .

+1. 98E+6

7. 15E+4

6.43E+6

2.81E+6

+3.'95E+8

+2. 07E+7

2. 18E+8

2.'01E+8

1. 26E+7

2.14E+8

: 285

*1`.`SOE+6

,,1.08E+5'

4.C79E+6 1'

.1I;96E+6.

+2. 92E+8

+3. 14E+7+

.2. 22E+8.

1. 08E+6

+9. OOE+5

9.02E+4

4.54E+6

1.68E+6

+1. 91E+8

+2. 63E+7

3. 08E+8

0Ct -a8

2.40E+8 *3.41E+8

2.01E+8 1.89E+8

'1.91E+7 ''1.26E+7

2.20E+8 2.02E+8

I291- -, 278, :- . I . I

'2.53E+8

- 1.26E+7

'2. 66E+8

:388

' 1.

,. 1.

-2 ..

39

94E+8 1.86E+8

26E+7 1.26E+7

07E+8 - :1.99E+8

1, - 405 "

*Costs and impacts (except 'for unit disposal costs) are

operating. life of the disposal facility.

shown as total costs and impacts ove'r the 20-year
62

provides an upper bound. For waste spectrum 2, stability of many of the waste

streams--particularly LWR process waste streams--is provided through solidification. Costs for stabilization of other waste streams is again represented

by the estimated costs for high-integrity containers. Finally, in waste spectrum 2,

additional costs are incurred through compaction of compressible waste streams,

both by waste generators and at a regional center.

Of these costs, the only additional waste processing costs that would be incurred

through implementation of the Part 61 regulation would be through stabilization

of the higher activity streams. For waste spectrum 2, these are conservatively

estimated as follows:

Waste Spectrum 2 Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

$(x108) 2.82 3.58 2.70 1.64

$/m3 1363 1310 1390 1158

Thus, the requirement that higher activity wastes be stabilized would appear

to involve additional processing costs in the following range.

Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

Low ($x107) 7.3 9.9 6.6 5.2

High ($x107) 28.2 35.8 27.0 16.4

This range is believed to be conservatively high, however. In addition, much

of the above costs would be expended in any case to comply with license conditions already implemented by the states at existing disposal facilities.

Waste transportation costs range from about $130 to $240 million, depending

upon the waste spectra and the region considered. The largest costs are for

the southwest region, for which the reduced volume of waste relative to the

other three regions is counterbalanced by the longer transportation distances.

Waste disposal costs are set out into design and operational costs and postoperational costs, where postoperatlonal costs include costs to waste customers

(over 20 years of operation) for providing for: (1) facility closure, (2) a

5-year observation and maintenance period, and (3) 100 years of institutional

control. Also shown are total disposal costs as well as unit ($/M3) costs.

As shown, the most significant design and operational costs are for the northeast site, due to the assumed use of grouting to assure stabilization of wastes.

The design and operational costs for the other three sites are clustered within

a relatively small range.
63

Unit costs are'seen to vary widely depending upon the assumed design and operating

practices carried out at'the particular'disposal facility as well.as-the volumes

of waste delivered to the facility. For example, the design and operation of.

the southeast site is essentially the same as the midwest facility. However,

the volume of waste 'delivered to the' midwest:facility is-much less than thesoutheast'facility, while'the design and operational costs are-only slightly - less. This is'because capital costs to construct the disposal'facilityaare

much less -dependent upon the volumes-of waste delivered to-the facility than,

the operating costs. Many of the same'expenses to design, build, and operate,

the facility would be incurred whether a high or a low volume-of waste was.

received.

Other Impacts -'-

This section discusses indirect impacts associated with the proposed Part 61

regulation 'other than radiological impacts or costs. The impacts-are broken

down into-the following subsections: Air quality (nonradiological), biota

(ecology), land use, energy use, and social impacts.

Air Quality. Nonradiological impacts to air quality due to LLW management and

disposal would principally arise from two sources: combustion of fossil fuels .-;.,-

during processing, -transporting,.and disposing of waste and'(2) particulate

matter (dust) released into the air due-to earth moving activities-at the . . disposal facility. Typical combustion products would include suspended partic-:

ulates, sulphur dioxide, C02, CO, various hydrocarbons, and-various nitrogen.

oxides.

It is believed that implementation of-the Part 61 regulation would have a - relatively slightfeffect upon overall air quality. For example,'-increased - waste processing such as'compaction and.solidification would probably result...

in increased combustion of fossil fuels,;with correspondingly increased release

of combustion-products into the air. However,-.many waste generatorss.are already

performing such waste processing activities to reduce transportation costs or

to comply with-existing-license conditions-at disposal,-facilities.: Moreover,

waste processing activities that reduce waste volumes would tend to reduce,

releases of fossil fuel-combustion products during transportation. :

At the disposal -facility, local impacts to air,.quality result .from combustion--. * of fossil fuels by vehicles delivering waste-to the facility,-by vehicles owned -

by facility personnel, and by heavy equipment operated at the facility. Dust

could be. raised by excavating, backfilling, and:grading activities., However,.>

similar types of impacts can and would.be raised by many other types of small 7

industrial' concerns. . - - *.- - -

.i - .. S . . . - . ¢ . . . .F . ; -

Since the-Part 61 regulation emphasizes increased disposal facility stability,.

somewhat additional air, quality impacts could result duringthe:operating life,-.

of the disposal.facility.. However,.such additional impacts would be felt-only .

during the time-the-facility.was-operating..---In addition, if the facility was -

left in an unstable condition after operation, increased longer-term air quality.

impacts could result due to operating machinery to repair holes in disposal

cell covers, potential operation of a leachate evaporator, and so forth. Placing
64

the facility in a more stable condition during site operations reduces the maintenance that would be required after facility closure, thus lowering longer

term nonradiological air quality impacts.

Biota. The operation of a disposal facility would involve acquiring and fencing

in up to a few hundred acres of land. Existing vegetation would be mostly cleared,

and after waste disposal, the disposal cells would be regraded, recontoured,

and probably reseeded with short-rooted local vegetation. During this process,

impacts to biota could result from destruction of habitat. Similar types of

impacts would result from other uses of the land which involve heavy construction.

Implementation of the Part 61 rule is expected to have little effect on the

potential for impacts to biota. There are already existing federal and state

laws and regulations governing protection of endangered or unique flora and

fauna.

Land Use. In most cases, the operation of a licensed nuclear facility by a

licensee does not result in the land being permanently committed to that activity.

At an LLW disposal facility, however, possible future use of the facility after

it has closed is greatly influenced by the presence of the disposed waste. This

does not mean that land used for LIW disposal is permanently excluded from

productive use. Rather, as long as care was taken to restrict activities to

those which would not involve excavating into the disposed waste or bringing

contamination to the surface, there may be a number of useful purposes the

facility surface may be-put to. These could possibly include use of the facility

for golf courses, recreational areas, or light industry.

It is difficult to assess the influence of the Part 61 regulation on land use.

Depending upon the design and operation of the disposal facility and the

manner in which higher activity wastes are stabilized, land use could be lower

or potentially higher than without the regulation. ;A range in land use may-be

estimated, however, using the regional analysis as a guide. In the analysis

land use ranges from about 160,000 n

2 (39 acres) to 370,000 m2 (92 acres) at

the regional sites, depending upon the volume of waste disposed and the disposal

technology implemented. For modified spectrum 1, the total amount of land

committed to LLW disposal over 20 years is estimated to be 1.1 million M2, or

about 276 acres. For waste spectrum 2, for which increased use is made of volume

reduction, this land use is reduced to 775,000 m2 or 192 acres. This includes

an assumed 3-meter spacing between disposal cells but does not include other

land such as administrative areas, buffer zones, onsite roads, and so forth.

Energy Use. One way in which the effects of a proposed action can be quantified

is to estimate the total energy requirements associated with that action. In

the analysis, incremental energy use ranged from -270,000 gal to +8,970,000 gal

per region. It should be realized that there are large uncertainties in these

calculations. Much of the projected-increase in energy use is due to activities

such as increased disposal stability or increased waste processing which by

and large are already being carried out. In general, the overall tendency of

the Part 61 regulation would be to increase short-term energy use but reduce

long-term energy use.
65

Social Impacts. In general, social impacts due to promulgation of the Part 61

regulation are difficult to address. These impacts are very site-specific and

would include such aspects as the effect of bringing a labor force into an area

on local utilities, schools, and'other services. These'types-of impactslare

typically of most concern during the siting, construction, and operation of large

facilities such as a large nuclear power plant. A low-level waste disposal

facility is by comparison a very small operation, and the proposed Part 61

regulation is not expected to result in any significant incremental changes in

social impacts associated with operation of LLW disposal facilities.
I -

66

ATTACHMENT A. Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing Requirements for land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste
Federal Register

I .1

I Vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. -July 24. 1981 , eToposed Rules 38W1

Feea eitr Vl 6 o 4 rdy uy2.18 'ooe ue 88

i

I

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COYMISSION

10 CFR Parts; 219,20,21,30,40,51.

61, 70,73 and 170

LUenshg Rquirements for Land.

Disposal of Radioactive Waste

AOEM' Nuclear Regulatory . -

Commission.

ACT000ProposedRule.

I:UMART This notice invites public,

commnent on proposed amendments to

hte Commission'. rules to provide

pecifc requirements for licening the'

land disposal of radioactve wastes. The

proposed amnendments set forth..

performance objectives for disposal.

general requirements for land disposal

orradioactivewaste, technical

requirements for disposal Of radioactive

waste into near-surface disposal

facilities. requirements for submitting

applications for licenses authorizing - such activities and procedures which the

Commission will follow in the issuance

of such licenses. The rile does not deal

with disposal by individual licensees by

burial of their own wastes. The

proposed amendments also set forth

provisions for consultation and

participation In license reviews by State

governments and Indian tribes. Further

amendments are proposed governing the

transfer of licirised material for

disposaL The proposed requirements

respond to the needs and requests of the

public. Congres5. industry, the states.

the Commission. and other Federal - - agencies for codification of regulations

for the dispoal of low-level radioactive

waste. -

DATE Comment period expires October

'. 2981. Comments received after

ciober 22.1981 will be considered if It

i practical to do so. but assurance of

consideration cannot be given except as

to comments received on or before this

date.

aDo5tEss All interested persons who

desire to submit written comments in

connection with the proposed

amendments should send them to the

Secretary of the Commission, US.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington. D.C.; 20555, Attention

Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of

comments received on the proposed

amendments may be examined In the

Commission's Public Document Room at

1717 H Street NW.. Washington. D.C.:

,FOM FURThER INFORMATON CONTACT

R. Dale Smith. Chief. Low-Level Waste

Licensing Branch. Division of Waste

Management. Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission. Washington.

D.C. 20555. telephone (301) 427-4433.

SUPLEMENTARY 'INFORMA T' '

1. Description of the Proposed Action

TheUS NuclearRegulatory

Commission proposes to add to its rules

in10CFRanewParteltoprovide -

licensing procedures. performance '

objectives and technical criteria for.

licensing facilities for the land disposal

of radioactive waste. Specifically, the -

regulations would establish performance

objectives for land disposal of waste:

technical requirements for the siting.

design. operations and closure activities

for a near surface disposal facility,. - technical requirements concerning thewaste form that waste generators must'

meet for the land disposal of waste;

classification of waste; institutional

requirements; and administrative and

procedural requirements for licensing a

disposal facility. Amendments to other

parts of 10 CFR are proposed to governi

the certification and use of shipping ' ' - manifests to track waste shipments and

clarify., but not substantially modify, the

requirements of existing regulations.

Specific requirements for licensing

facilities for the disposal of radioactive

wastes by alternative land disposal

methods will bg proposed for Part el in'

subsequent rulemakings. Disposal of

radioactive wastes by an individual

licensee will continue to be governed by

o CFR Part 2 - Part e1 defines which wastes are

acceptable for disposal by near-surface

disposal methods (and which wastes are

not acceptable and must be disposed of

by other methods). It also sets out the

administrative and procedural'

requirements for licensing a facility for

the land disposal of waste.

n. Need for the Proposed Action

Current general regulations for

licensing materials do not contain any

technical standards or criteria for the

disposal of licensed materials.'However.

the need for comprehensive. national.

standards and technical criteria for the

disposal of radioactive waste is well

documented. The Commission has

undertaken a program to establish such

standards and criteria through this

proposed rulemaking action.

HIl. Background - -

The Cornmission has had a program underway for several years to develop

regulations and other guidance for the

management and disposal of low-level'

waste (LLW). On October 25. 197. the

Commission published an Advance"-- - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (43 FR

49811) regarding the development of

specific regulations for the disposal of

LLW. The development of these '' regulations was in response to needs

and requests expressed by the public.''

the Congress, industry, the States, the

Commission,- and other Federal agencies for codification of regulations for the

disposal of LLW. To provide guidance-.'

and support for developing the new

regulation. 10 CFR Part 01, the.-'--

Commission has prepared a draft

environmental impact statement (EIS)

NUREG-0782. 1 The statement is not a

generic EIS on the disposal of LLW; - Rather, it is a decision document that

has been prepared to provide a basis for

decisions on the performance objectives and technical and fiancial criteria set

out in Part M1.As part of the process to

scope the form and content of the EIS

and the proposed regulationr the

advance notice asked for advice.

recommendations, and comments on the

scope and content of the EIS and the'

regulation. As a part of this advance

notice, the Commission announced its

Intention to:

* Develop technical criteria and ' 'standards for the disposal of LLW by

shallow land burial and alternative

disposal nethods.

Prepare a supporting EIS for the

regulation.

* Coordinate'development of technical

criteria and standards for shallow '.

land burial and alternative disposal.

methods with requirements for the' .

''classification of waste (Define the

concentrations and quantities of

waste acceptable for disposal by

various disposal methods).

'Sinag copies of ths port will be avaidable

upon publication to the extent of supply and may be

obtained by written requt to the Director. Divisio

erTedwical Ifomstion and Document Control.

wahnton. DA 2:5 Copies wi also be made

available for spection or copy fora fee at the

NRC Public Document Room. 1717 H Street NW.

Washinston. D.C
------------------ L I

38082 Federal Register tiol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24, 1981 v Proposed Rules

The Commission received a total of 38

responses from the public on the

advance notice. These comments have

been docketed (Docket No. PR-81J and

may be examined in the Commission's

Public Document Room located at 1717

H Street NW.. Washington. D.C. A

detailed analysis by the Commission of

the public responses received may also

be examined in the Public Document

Room. The respondents to the advance

notice strongly supported the

Commission's development of specific

criteria and standards for the disposal of

low-level waste. There was also support

among the commenters that an overall

EIS should be prepared to provide an

essential part of the informational and

decisional base for the development of

the criteria and standards for the

rulemaking action. However. the

commenters were divided on the form

and structure of the criteria and

standards. Some commenters stated that

the criteria and standards should be

minimal and basic and should

emphasize the performance objectives

to be met by low-level waste disposal

facilities. Others suggested the criteria

and standards should be specific and

detailed. Many commenters also stated

that as part of the development of LLW

disposal standards and criteria a system

was needed for classifying or

segregating the waste based on hazard.

A number of comments were received

on the Coimmission's questions

regarding alternative disposal methods

to shallow land buriaL Although the

comments in this area were mixed, the

most often expressed opinion was that

primary consideration should be given

to developing requirements for shallow

land burial and emplacement of waste

into mined cavities Disposal of wastes

in ocean waters was given the lowest

priority. Four commenters felt there was

no need to establish a priority list of the

alternative disposal methods to shallow

land burial. The most often expressed.

disadvantage of any alternative method

was the potential for increased cost.

Approximately 60 percent of the

respondents suggested other potentially

viable methods for low-level waste

treatment and/or disposal. The methods

most frequently mentioned were volume

reduction and other advanced

processing techniques.

The comments received by the,

Commission on the advance notice were

used by the Commission in scoping the

form and content of the EIS and the

regulation. For this scoping process, the

Commission also considered a numbr of

other sources. including.

* The results of program studies and

other technical data on LLW

management and disposal:

* Licensing experience with current

LLW disposal sites and current LLW

management techniques:

* Programs by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to develop

criteria and standards for LLW

management and regulations for

disposal of nonradioactive solid and

chemically hazardous wastes:

* Recommendations of the Interagency

Review Group on Nuclear Waste

Management;

* Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) Petition for Rulemaking IPRM

20-7);

* Discussions with industry and public

interest groups. State and Federal

agencies, and others;

* Recommendations from the State

Planning Council: and

* Public Law 96-573, 'Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Act.'

On February 28.1980 the Commission

also published a Notice of Availability

of a preliminary draft regulation. dated

November .1979. announcing

availability of the draft for public review

and comment to help ensure wide

distribution and early public review and

comment (45 FR 13104). Copies of this

draft regulation were distributed to all

of the States. The comments received in

response have been docketed (Docket

No. PR1-1) and may be examined in the

Commission's Public Document Room

located at 1717 H Street NW.

Washington. D.C.

During the summer and fall of 1980

the Commission also sponsored 4

regional workshops to provide an

opportunity for open dialogue among

representatives of the States, public

interest groups, the industry. and others

on the Issues to be addressed through

the Part 81 rulemaking. One workshop

was conducted by the Southern States

Energy Board for the southeast region a

second by the Western States Energy

Board for the west a third by the

Midwestern Regional Omce of the

Council of State Governments for the

central region and midwest. and a fourth

by the New England Regional

Commission for the northeast. These

workshops were particularly useful in

formulating our positions on the more

judgmental aspects of the rule and

underlying assumptions (such as the

length of time we should assume that

active governmental controls could

reasonably be relied on). A copy of the

full transcript for each meeting and a

summary report documenting the

collective views of the participants has

been placed in the docket for this

rulemaking (Docket No PR-6l) and may

be examined at the Commission's Public

Document Room located at 1717 H

Street NW.. Washington. D.C

IV. Purpose and Scope of Part 61

It is the purpose of Part 61 to establish

technical criteria and procedures for

licensing facilities for the land disposal of radioactive wastes. Part 61 will not

apply to alternative disposal methods

such as deep space or ocean disposal It

is not practicable to develop one

regulation dealing with such a wide

variety in disposal technologies.

Requirements for ocean disposal are a

responsibility of the EPA. Space

disposal, although technically feasible.

is not developed to the point of routine.

economic application.

The recently enacted Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Pub. L

96-573) sets forth a traditional definition

of "low-level radioactive waste." ie.

radioactive waste not classified either

as high-level radioactive waste.

transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or

uranium mill tailings (byproduct

material as defined in section 11 e.(2) of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954). While

Part 61 is intended to deal with the

disposal of most wastes included in this

definition, the waste classification

scheme that forms the basis for Part 61

has identified some "low level

radioactive wastes' that are not suitable

for disposal by the means that Part 61

provides, and alternative methods will

have to be used. Therefore, the term

"low-level radioactive waste" is not

used in Part 61. Reference is made to

"waste" and "radioactive wastes"s

which, within the context of Part 61.

refers to those wastes that are

acceptable for disposal under the

provisions of Part 01.

This proposed regulation Includes

overall performance objectives expected

in any type of land disposal and

technical requirements for the disposal

of waste near the surface. The technical

requirements for'disposal are set forth

for disposal site characteristics. disposal

site design and near-surface disposal

facility operations, classification and

characteristics of wastes, and

institutional control and surveillance.

V. Summary of Rule

The following sections provide a

discussion of the major provisions of

Part 61.

A. Performance Objectives Versus

Prescriptive Requirements

In developing Part 61. the Commission

has considered two basic approaches: a

performance objective approach and a
.. .D..9 L.d I U-,1 -AR - ?Mn IA9 I TMIAnvt hiT, 9A_ ligh. , Proposed Rules- 38083 Z'WuIUA~ '5 c 1.WI bus ~. '.* *-u. *' = c.-. j. " .. A_-

prescriptve approach. A regulation the public health and safety without the from disposal facilities. After examining oriented toward performance objectives need for continued active care and other existing standards, the -

would establish the overall objectives to maintenance. Commission does not anticipate that the

be achieved in waste disposal and Assuring safety over the long term ,- standard will be much higher than the

would leave flexibility as to how the involves three considerations: (1) standards already established for

objectives would be achieved. - protection of individuals from releases to the environment from fuel

In the latter approach. specific - inadvertent intrusion into the site and cycle facilities set out in 40 CFR Part 190'

detailed requirements for design and - coming in contact with the waste at ! (25 mrem/yr whole-body exposure). operation of a land disposal facility - some point in the future: (2) protection of Also. the standard will probably not be

would be set out in the regulations. the general public from potential . any lower than the limits established in

Prescriptive standards would specify the- releases to the envlronment and (3) 40 CFR Part 141 for concentrations of

particular practices, designs, or methqds stability of the disposed waste and the, radioactivity in drinking water (4 mren/

to be employed-for example, the .. ,- site to eliminate the need for ongoing yr whole body exposure). As a part of

thichness of the cover material (the cap) maintenance of the site following the EiS for Part 81. the Commission

over a land disposal trench, or the C closure. i - - - , analyzed a range of limits from 1 rmrem/

maximum slope of the trench walls. Safety During Operations. The sbort " -yr to 25 rnrem/yr applied at various

Setting of prescriptive standards term performance objective included in locations at and in the vicinity of a

requires a considerable amount of Subpart C of Part 81 will be to assure disposal facility. Based on the numerical

detailed knowledge about potential that the disposal facility will be , ' limits already set for existing standards

designs, techniques. and procedures for operated in conformance with the s*ame and this analysis, the Commission has

disposing of wastes in order to prescribe Commission standards for radiation ; selected an objective that requires that

which designs, techniques, and protection set out in 10 CFR Part 20 that any movement of radioactivity not result

procedures are among the best and , are applied to all Commission licensees in calculated doses exceeding 25 mreln

would assume that the state of art in -'' for protection of workers (See I 61A3.) yr to an individual at the site boundary

waste disposal is developed to the point Protection ofthelnadvertentIntruder,. or cause the EPA Drinking Water

where there are'clear choices to be The Commission believes that I ; - Standards (40 CFR Part 1411 to be

made among all the potential - intentional intrusion into the land - exceeded at the nearest public drining approaches. disposal facility (e g an archaeologist - - water supply a t See n 1Art When EPAd i

A combination of approaches has reclaiming artifacts) cannot reasonably standards are effective, licensees wi

been chosen for Part a1. Overall. be protected against. However, after the have to comply with them. Because

performance objectives'are stated and land disposal facility closes, and after - e r s

the applicant has flexibility in choosing active institutional control and'. " ' ispostaloards are specific to landr

design features and operating practices surveillance over the disposal site have dlsposadef radioactive waster they are1 F'

to achieve these objectives. There are been removed, one or a few individuals include in Par al rather than 1 CFR

some prescriptive requirements that could inadvertently disturb waste in the

have been judged necessary in light of - disposal site through activities such as' : C Mintimun Technical fequirments

past operating experience with disposal construction of a house or by farming. To help assure that the performance facilities. To the extent practicable. Actual intrusion into the waste may objective will be met, minimum

these requirements are stated as - never occur. but, for purposes of Part 6. requirements will be t

minimum criteria to afford some it has been assumed that intrusion could

flexibility in meeting them. - occur. in which case the one or few such vaous pars of an overall disposal "system'. B. Development of Prformance , individualsshldtnot receiveanT The principal part of an overall

Objectives , ,, , - ' - sunacceptable radiation exposure. The disposal system that are readily

WitA respect to the performance Cmmissi isdapplyin a 500 re lmt .o identifiable'and will be addressed in the objectives, the Commission's overall mai individual exposure limit for minimum technical requirements are: Ithis unusual case. This limit is'bsdo. goal Is to assure protection of the public recommendations for dose -IP limits '* The characteristics of the disposal site

health and safety. In considering to individuals and is a level that is Lo into which the waste is placed.

radioactive waste disposal, attainment 'recognized as providing adequate * The method by which the disposal site'

of this goal would appear to fall into two protection. Since only one, or at most a is designed, the land disposal facility time frames: the short-term operational few, persons would be involved, it is not constructed. the waste emplaced, and

phase and the long term after operations necessary to consider a population dose. the disposal site dosed;

cease. This limit is then used to determine the * The characteristics of the waste; and

In the short term, the concern is for allowable concentrations of nuclides in ' The degree and length of institutional

protection of workers auid the general - each class of waste. (See 61t.42.) - control, surveillance. and monitoring,

population during operation of a , - Protection of the £nvironmenL Tbe . of the disposal site after closure.

disposal facility. primary long-term pathway of release of Disposal Site Suitability Protection of the public health and radioactivity from near-surface disposal 'Requirements. A wide range of locations

safety over the long term is most involves radionuclide contamination of are potentially available for use as a

important and long-term performance of and transport through the ground water. ''near-surface disposal facility ranging the land disposal facility after " Presently there exists no specific 'from the humid east to the arid west.

operations cease should be given greater. numerical standard for protection of the The approach the Commission has

emphasis than short-term considerations', ground water. Te Environmental ' followed in establishing the disposal ite

and conveniences. It is therefore at the' Protection Ajency (EPA), under its suitability requirements has been to

time of the land disposal facility closure generally applicable environmental establish a common-sense base of

that greatest reliance will be placed on standards-setting authority, has 'disposal site evaluation factors that can

the disposal site characteristics and responsibility to prepare a standard that .be consistently applied throughout the

design as well as the waste - will set limits for releases of . - country. The requirements would

characteristics to assure protection of radioactivity to the general environment essentially eliminate certain limited
38MB Federal Register / . .4. 46, No. 142 / Friday, July 24. 1981 / rzoposed Rules

areas from Consideration because of

undesirable characteristics but would

leave large areas In each region where

acceptable sites could be found (see I 61.50). The requirements are Intended

to eliminate. to the extent practicable. those areas with certain characteristics

that are known to lead to or have high potential to lead to problems over the

long term (eg.. flooding or rapid erosion

of the site). These disposal site

characteristics include:

(1) Complexity-The disposal site

must be capable of being investigated and analyzed. If the disposal site cannot

be characterized. prediction of potential long-term impacts is not possible.

(2) Potential Land and Resource UseThe disposal site should not have any extensive natural resources beneath It

or have such high potential for other

subsequent uses of the land that

immediate intrusion into the disposal site after active institutional controls are

removed is likely. (3) Surface Water-Areas with large surface water sources or high potential for flooding should be avoided to reduce

the greater potential for migration that

large quantities of water present. (4) Ground water-Ground water

intrusion into the disposal units should

be avoided to reduce the potential for

leaching of waste and subsequent migration. (5) Stability-Stability of the disposal site over the long term is important in

helping assure continued site integrity and in reducing the potential for

migration and transport of waste to

offsite areas.

Disposal Site Design. Land Disposal Facility Operation, and Disposal Site

Closure Requirements. The specific requirements for design operation, and

closure of a near-surface disposal facility are directed at achieving longterm stability of the disposed waste and

the disposal site so that, after closure.

the need for ongoing active maintenance

is eliminated and only minor custodial

care. surveillance, and monitoring are

required. (See 1 61.51.) Other

requirements are directed at enhancing natural disposal site characteristics by directing surface water away from

disposal units, reducing infiltration of

precipitation into disposal units, and

reducing the potential for erosion.

leading to an acceptable condition for

disposal site closure.

Specific design requirements are set

out relating to assuring protection of an

Inadvertent intruder from exposure to

higher concentration wastes. Such

wastes, defined by 1 61.55 must be

disposed of at greater depths i.e.t a

minimum 5 meters below grade) or with

equivalent natural or engineering

barriers to reduce radiation exposure and further minimize the potential that

an Individual might Inadvertently come

in contact with the waste. In addition, a

specific provision requires segregation of the lower activity compressible waste

from the higher activity wastes and

separate disposaL Higher activity

wastes are subject to the structural

stability requirements of I 5155(b).

Requirements are also established on

environmental monitoring (1 81.53).

Waste Characteristics and

Classification. A cornerstone of the

system to control the migration of

radionuclides offsite Is stabillty~- stability of the waste and of the disposal site so that once emplaced and covered.

the access of water to the waste can be

eliminated or minimized. Thus, a basic

requirement on waste is that it should

be stable. that Is. It should maintain Its

configuration and consistency under the

conditions If would be exposed to after

disposaL This stability should last long enough for the radioisotopes to decay to

levels where they are no longer of

concern from the migration standpoint While stability is a necessary characteristic for waste that has a

potential for migration, studies have

shown that much of the waste being disposed of does not contain sufficient

amounts of radionuclides to be of

concern from the migration standpoint However. these same wastes, such as

ordinary trash-type wastes tend to be

unstable. It Is obvious that if these

wastes were disposed of with higher activity waste, their deterioration could

lead to failure of the system and permit

water to penetrate the disposal site and

cause problems with the higher activity

wastes. The choice. then. is either to

require these less hazardous wastes to

meet stability requirements or to

segregate them from the more hazardous

waste. Since stability requirements for

low activity wastes would probably require expensive processing. segregation appears to have a cost/

benefit advantage in spite of possible increased costs of disposal site

stabilization.

A simple waste classification scheme

has been devised and incorporated into

Part 61 The scheme is based on the role

that the waste plays In the assurance

that the performance objectives of

protecting persons from radiation from

waste will be met.

The first categorization of waste is to

Identify those wastes that do not have to

meet the stability requirements and that

will be segregated at the disposal site.

These wastes. called Class A segregated

wastes. are defined in 1 81.55 in terms of

the maximum allowable concentration

of certain isotopes and certain minimum

requirements on waste form that are

necessary for safe handling. The second

category is for waste that requires stability. Class B stable waste, and is

defined in terms of allowable

concentrations of isotopes and

requirements for a stable waste form as

well as the minimum handling requirements.

There are concentrations of certain

Isotopes that will require protection against inadvertent intrusion after

institutional controls have lapsed. These

concentrations have been determined by analysis of the exposure to humans from

the postulated Intrusion of an individual

after the 100 year period of institutional

control Any waste with concentrations.

of these Isotopes that would cause an

exposure greater than 500 millirem must

be protected from intrusion by deeper burial or some other barrier. Wastes

requiring such protection are identified

as Class C intruder wastes.

The waste classification section also

places upper limits on concentrations of

isotopes in any class of waste. Wastes

containing higher concentrations are

generally excluded from near-surface

disposal Part 81 provides for special consideration by the Commission of

proposed disposal methods on a caseby-case basis for wastes that exceed

these values

For most of the alpha emitting transuranic nuclides. the maximum

allowable concentrations were

calculated to be In the range of l1

nanocuries per gram currently Imposed by disposal facilities. These calculations

were conservatively based. in that they did not allow credit for dilution by other.

wastes If this factor were changed, the

values would increase somewhat A" *

decision was made not to recalculate in

order to come up with higher values.

Thbis decision is based on two factors.

First, In the spirit of the ALARA (as Low

as Reasonably Achievable) concept. the

lower value of 10 nCi/g has been

demonstrated as an achievable - concentration to control the disposal of

transuranic nuclides. This value has

been Imposed by the Department of

Energy for some eleven years and by

most of the commercial disposal site

operators for nearly that long. The last

commercial site imposed the 10 nCI/g restriction in 18M. Thus. there is no

need to increase the limit from the

standpoint of achievability. Second.

there is a tendency toward a more

conservative assessment of the hazard

of certain transuranic nuclides (Ref.

ICRP 30) and it does not seem prudent at

this time to use the higher calculated

values. A value of 350 nCi/g was

established for plutonium -241. since
VA -' ID.3.:C. I ~1..1 AR WJn IA9 /ri.rlnij LOW -OAQ: i 7 ProDosed Rules - Ss= 8 5

this concentration of short lived beta.- or treatment of certain chemicaL ; governmental institutions should be

emitting Isotope decays to a 10 nCi/g physical and biological forms of waste '-, relied on to carry out active controls.)

concentration of americium-241. a I The Commission recognizes the need A monitoring program to check on

longer lived alpha-emitter. At present. for a "de mininis" classification of r continued disposal site integrity would

wastes containing transuranic nuclides wastes, wastes that would be exempt also be carried out. Control and

in concentrations greater than 10 nCi/g; .- from Part 81 and would be considered of surveillance of the disposal site by the

are not being generaged in significant no regulatory concern. The Commission State or Federal land owner/custodial

volumes. -, believes, however. as the Federal agency is needed to prevent an intruder

Based on the values In Table 1. and Radiation Policy Council has from excavating, drilling wells, or

the Isotopic content of various waste r-ecommended, that such exemptions performing other actvites that would

streams analyzed in the Environmental should be determined on a specific expose that individual or lead to

Impact Statement. the following waste waste basis. In this regard. a recent possible increased migration offslte.

streams would generally fall into the ,: rulemaking (46 FR 16230) established Actve controls would eventually be

waste classes Indicated.. such an exemption In a new 520.30 for removed and replaced by more passive

Class A--Sqragtad Wa t, certain levels of tritium and carbon-14 controls (eg.. government land

PW o xhneRsn~containedin liquid scintillation and ownership and records) which will be

PWR Concentrated Uquids now activity) ,animal carcss waste. Othernwastes - an inexpensive means of ensuring that

PWR Filter Sludges (low activity) myasredllndtmevsto knowledge of the disposal facility will

PWR Falter Cartridges (low activity) treatment in this manner. Tbe -be retained.

PWR Compactible Contaminated Trash Commission will be working over the

BWR Compactible Contaminated Trash next 2 years to define these wastes and F. Financial Assurances -

Fuel Fabrication Compactible Trash provide for additional exemptions as, Given the past history at some of the

Fuel Fabrication Noncompactible Trash appropriate. Thus. Part 61 will not existing disposal sites, one of the key

nstitetional Tradshs , M-; establish a generic ",de minim -concerns is assurance of adequate

Industrial Sealed Source Manufacturing category for waste. financial qualification on the part of the

Contaminated Trash

Industrial Low Activity Trash D. Land Ownership of Near-surface applicant to construct and operate the

Fuel Fabrication Process Waste Disposal Facilities ' disposal facility and to provide

UF& Process Waste aeutfnnilrvsoso

Nuclear Medicine Waiste Federal or State government adequate financial provisions for

Biomedical Research Radiotracer Waste ownership of land for disposal of waste dspoa site closure and

Diowastes. and Contaminated Trash at a land disposal facility has been a postoperational activities.

Academic Institution Radioactive requirement in the Commission's Subpart E requires tha tthe applicant

Radiotracer Wastes. Diowastes, nid regulations (10 CFR 20.302) since the. be fiancially qualified to conduct all

Contaminated Trash inception of commercial disposal - licensed activities during the

Class 8-Stable Waste operations. This requirement is being' construction and operational phases of

PWR Ion Exchange Resins - continued to assure adequate control of the land disposal facility. Proof of the

PWR Concentrated Uquld the disposal site after closure and to financial qualifications of applicants is

PWR Filter Sludges . reduce the potential for inadvertent not currently required by Parts 30 and '

PWR Falter Cartridges Intrusion. (See I 61.9.) - 40. This new requirement will help

BWR Ion Exchange Resins Although ownership by a State or the assure that resources are not expended

BWR Concentrated Uquids Federal Government is required before on projects without adequate backing. BWR Filter Sludges the Commission will issue a license, the This requirement should minimize the

PWR Noncompactible Trash tnilfrelydautoth

BWR Noncompactible Trash Commission will consider an application potential for early default or the

LWR 'Nonfuel Reactor C when the site is privately owned if the abandonment of the site by the operator.

LWR 'Decontamin tion Resins ' applicant provides evidence that Secton 6152 of the Part 61 requires

Tritium Production and Processing Waste' arrangements have been made with a the applicant to provide an acceptable

Accelerator Targets State or the Federal government to form of financial surety to ensure that

High Specific Activity Industrial Waste ' assume ownership before the license is funds are available to perform closure

Class C-intruder Waste issued. i The details of the arrangement': and stabilization and observation until

Waste' from Isotope Production Facilities. may include whatever provisions the the license is transferred to the custodial

Sealed "Sources State or Federal agency considers . agency for institutional control or

Note-More recent data Indicate that appropriate as long as they are not terminated. The Commission has

power reactor operation and waste t inconsistent with requirements of the received evidence of a great deal of

processing characteristics are tending to Commission. - -public interest concerning the issue of

move LWR wastes into higherclsses. financial responsibility for closure of a

d opal: unstituiofnal Control . disposal site. Numerous written

The Commission has ntdvlpda Control of access'to the disposal site comments were made on this portion of

classification of waste based on total and use of the land following closure of -the draft regulation, and the issue was

hazard The classification is based on the site is required to keep people from also raised at all four workshops held to

radiation protection considerations. - having contact with the waste and review this regulation. Many

Th omsin oee.haaffecting the integrity of the disposal commenters felt that the licensee should

addressed other potential hazards ite. Active institutional controls -beheldresponsibleforthefulcostsof

presented by other associated .. involving periodic surveillance by the .closure of a disposal site and that the

components of waste (e~g..chemical nd c-custodial agency and controlled acces license should not be terminated and the

biological hazards) through te exclusion , {(e8g.. maintaining a fence) cannot be , land returned to the custodial

- relied upon indefinitely ( 61.6n will not government authority until the licensee

cCetate Wonofer;ain hotop s that will nquar- allow reliance on active institutional has completed satisfactory closure.

special ssssmn and Cossio approval for controls for more than 100 years since The amount of surety liability.

near-surface disposal . this is judged to be maximum time that required is based on cost estimates
I

38085 Federal Register / j. 46. No. 14Z / Friday, July 24. 11 / .. ,posed Rules

submitted by the licensee in an

approved plan for disposal site closure

and stabilization. The applicant must

submit a cost estimate for disposal site

closure that includes consideration of

inflation, increases in the amount of

disturbed land. and the closure and

stabilization activities that have already occurred at the disposal site. The

Commission expects that the closure

costs will be minimal when compared to

the other life cycle costs of the disposal site because the regulation requires the

licensee to perform the majority of

closure and stabilization activities as an

integral part of normal disposal site

procedures during the operating period.

The types of surety arrangements

being considered in Part G1 are similar

to the Commission's recently enacted

uranium mill tailings requirements (45

FR 65521). In their evaluation of various

surety mechanisms. the Commission

used the following criteria: (1) degree of

security in obtaining funds in case the

licensee defaults; (2) amount of

administrative time and expense

required to Implement and monitor the

surety (3) problems of asset valuation

posed by the mechanism: and (4) the

cost of the surety mechanism. Based on

this review. the Commission found the

following types of surety mechanisms to

be acceptable- surety bonds, cash

deposits, trust funds, deposits of

govenment securities. escrows. letters

or lines of credit, and a combination of

these mechanisms or such other types of

arrangements as may be approved by

the Commission. The Commission found

that self-insurance for a private sector

applicant was not an acceptable surety mechanism.

Section 81.3 requires the applicant to

provide evidence to the Commission

that a legally binding arrangement. such

as a lease. exists between the applicant and the party holding title to the

disposal site. Such a binding

arrangement would delineate financial

responsibility for the active Institutional

control period, which is not expected to

exceed 100 years. The Commission feels

that this regulatory approach Is required

so that all necessary activities following

licensing transfer. such as surveillance.

monitoring, and custodial activities, will

be performed promptly and in a manner

that will protect the public health and

safety.

Currently the Commission lacks

authority to require land disposal facility licensees to provide financial

responsibility for activities occurring after the original licensee's

responsibilities have ceased and the

license has been transferred to another

party. The Commission is considering

legislation proposals that would give the

Commission the authority to require financial assurances of land disposal facility licensees for the active

institutional control period. In the

meantime. the Commission feels that the

most appropriate regulatory approach is

to require an applicant to submit

evidence of a binding arrangement.

Manifest Tracking System. Section

20.311 of Part 20 establishes the

requirements for a manifest tracking

system for wastes. The system will

address the need for more complete information on the classification and

characteristics of the waste, for

improved accountability of wastes, and

for a better data base. The EPA has

recently instituted a manifest tracking

system for hazardous wastes. The

General Accounting Office (GAO) noted

the need for Improvements in these two

areas in Its report entitled "The Problem

of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level

Waste: Where Do We Go from Here?.

published March 31. 1980 The GAO

recommended that the Commission

"Determine who the generators of lowlevel are in both the Agreement and

non-Agreement States and how much

waste each licensee is generating" and

Establish a method to track waste from

the point of generation to the point of

disposal" Improving the data base on

waste will improve the credibility of

decisionmakers. enable better planning for inspections and emergencies. enhance projection of future waste

generation. and help in site specific analyses and planning The information

on waste classification and

characteristics is necessary for proper handling and disposal at the land

disposal facility (eg.. which waste

requires intruder barriers)

Ucensees who ship under existing regulations are required to prepare and

forward shipping manifests that comply with DOT regulations. The proposed manifest content requirements in

1 20.311 are somewhat more

comprehensive but compatible with

DOT requirements. The waste generator Imust be specifically Identified. The

information requirements concerning the

waste Itself are somewhat more

extensive and geared to information

needed for disposal not just transportation and handling. More

explicit information on chemical content

and composition and solidification

agents is required. Licensees are

required to comply with and certify compliance with waste form

requirements of Part 61. This latter

requirement stems solely from the

technical requirements for disposal and

is therefore new. The land disposal

facility licensee must record data on the

condition of the waste itself and

document and certify receipt. handling.

repackaging. storage, and disposal.

The use of the manifests as provided

In I 20.311 provides a tracking system that is inspectable. Section 20311

requires the shipper to provide copies of

the manifest to precede and accompany shipments and Investigation if

notification of receipt or disposal is not

received. The responsibility for tracking

shipments Is with the shipper who may be the generator, a service company

who collects, stores, and delivers the

waste, or an intermediate processor. A

crosscheck Is provided to ensure that

delayed or missing shipments are

Investigated by requiring land disposal facility operators to periodically match

advance copies of manifests to those for

shipments actually received.

G. Life Cycle of a Typical Land

Disposal Facility

The life of a typical facility can be

broken into 5 phases: preoperational, operational. closure. postclosure

observation. and institutional control

The following discussion considers each

phase separately. The applicant's activities and procedural requirements

as established by this proposed rulemaking are included.

Preoperotional Phase. The

preoperational phase consists of two

parts disposal site selection and

characterization and licensing. The

disposal site selection and

characterization fall into the data

gathering and planning phase. This Is

the phase in which the applicant selects

a region of interest and searches for a

number of possible disposal sites (a slate of candidate disposal sites), using reconnaissance-level information. The

applicant then narrows the possible

disposal sites down to one. After a

proposed disposal site has been

selected. based upon reconnaissancelevel information, the applicant begins a

detailed investigation (geology, depth to

ground-water table. amount of rainfall

etc.) of the proposed disposal site. The

applicant also Initiates the

preoperational monitoring program.

The applicant prepares an application for the land disposal facility following Subpart B. The applicant also prepares in environmental report. Of particular importance to this application are the

performance objectives and technical

requirements discussed earlier and the

preliminary site closure plan.

arrangements concerning landownership and associated

responsibilities. and financial assurance.
Wergin~i Reoaightf Vol- 4R. No. 142 / Friday. lulv 24. lg~l'i ?.roDOSed Rules 388 3}878- . -- a - - - - - -- - - - - - - , - - - - . , - - - - - - . . . 7

Licensing activities begin when' the '"' Issuance in the Federal Register in : about 5 years to help assure that the applicant files the application. The ' 'accordance with I 2.100. and the - disposal site Is in a stable condition so application Is reviewed for Director takes final action to issue or that only minor custodial care. - completeness and acceptability in' deny the license. surveillance. and monitoring by the' accordance with new Paragraph : State and Indian tribes may custodial agency are required. When the 2.1O1(b)(2). prior to docketing. Notice of participate in the Commission's license disposal site has reached a stable. receipt of the tendered application is to - review process toraid the Commission in condition, the licensee may prepare and be published in the Federal Register.- Its I review. Subpart F of the proposed i.- submit an application for transfer of the -

Mhe Commission notifies state. local and 'Part 61 addresses such participation. license. A public hearing would be tribal officials and begins to coordinate . which is in addition to participation as . offered. Among other things. the" with these officials.'Once docketed.the already provided in Parts 2 and 51. licensee must provide reasonable' application is again noticed in the - - - Examples of the forms that State and assurance that the site meets all Federal Register and the application'and.' Tribal participation may take include: performance objectives under Subpart environmental report widely distributed. - ' (I) Development of technical data. C. and the Commission must find that

An opportunity for interested parties to including. but not limited to the State or Federal agency responsible request a hearing is provided pursuant - socioeconomic. hydrological. geological 'for postclosure care of the site Is

to 10 CFR 2.105. Application fees are * environmental, or land use data for prepared to assume these paid in accordance with 10 CFR Part incorporation into the Commission s responsibilities. As a condition for 170. - ' - environmental impact statement on the assuming these responsibilities., a State The regulatory review period follows. -- a pplication or other analyses. may require the' licensee to comply with The applicant continues any disposal (2) Development of public requirements of its own, as long as - * " site studies and the preoperational * participation mechanisms to be included State's requirements are not inconsistent observation and monitoring. The in the licensing process. ' with the requirements of the'' applicant also responds to informlonal (3) Provision of a technical data base Commission. Upon a satisfactory

requests. Section 61.3 requires tat to provide verification to th'e d i finding, the license will be transferred to construction not begin until a decision is Comlssion or materals presente n the Federal or State custodial agency to ' made to issue the license. The the license application.' . . - cover their activities during the active application and environmental reor p staff (4xhne fSaead omsin institutional control period (I Maso). for cooperative review. ' ' t i

are updated if necessary. the ' ' Operational phase, After issuance of :nstitutional ControlBoard. Durng

The Commission reviewsthe " -a license by the Commission the land the institutional control period. which

application and the accompanying disposal facility is constructed and' for purposes of Part 61 the Commission

environmental report. The Commission - waste receipt and disposal operations assumes to be not more than 100 years.

requests additional information if .' start At intervals specified in the : the custodial agency carries out a

necessary. The Commission prepares a license. (the normal term for materials. program of monitoring to assure'

traft environmental Impact statement - licenses is currently 5 years) the ' continued satisfctory site performance *DEIS). If hearings are requested. an licensee would be required to submit a - and physical surveillance to keep people Atomic Safety and Licensing Board license renewal application (J 61.27. At ' off the site and carries out minor

(ASLB) is appointed. After the ' this time the disposal site closure plan custodial activities at the site. As a part

Commission's review is completed and and funding requirements would be of the license terminaton, the licensee is

documented and the EIS and any.- updated and financial arrangements for required to place records of the disposal

hearings completed. and the '' assurance of adequate funding 'facility with local State. and Federal

Commissioners have approved. the 'eviewed.'A " public hearing would be agencies. These records along with Director issues the license or denies the offered. The licensee may also apply for restrictions on the property deed andapplication in accordance with the: amendments to the license (I 61.W). 'trench markers should help minimize

criteria in J 61.23 and any decision - Disposal Site Closure Phase. As the disturbance of the disposal site. These rendered by the Licensing or Appeals disposal site becomes filled, time for latter mechanisms are those that would

Board. Hearings, if any, would be held ' disposal site closure approaches. Prior continue after the Institutional control

in accordance with existing rules in 10 to closure.'the licensee would submit a period. At the end of the necessary CFR Part 2. An Atomic Safety and - final closure plan for review and ' institutional control period the icense

Licensing Appeal Board and/or the - approval (I 6128). A public hearing - ' may be terminated (1 61.31).

Commission may review the findings of. would be offered.-Upon approval, the H. Other Considerations the ASLB or the ASL3 findings may be . licensee implements the plan. This

appealed to these next levels and to the would consist of decontamination and Application to Existing Sites. Many of

courts. Upon resolution of the hearings. dismantlement. as appropriate. of - the operational provisions and waste

reviews. and appeals. and the 'buildings. Final disposal site contouring'' characteristics requirements proposed in

Commissioners have approved. the and preparation is performed. The . this rulemaking are in effect at the':

Director takes final action to Issue or. licensee should work toward closure : existing disposal facilities. Although deny and publishes a notice in the during the entire operational phase so nearly all disposal at existing facilities

Federal Register. If the ownership of the that disposal site closure would not is carried out under State licenses, it

land has not been transferred to the - involve a major task.' -' -- - would be the Commission's intent that

State or Federal government. transfer' Postclosur* Observation and -- In the future all disposal would be,. would now take place. If the license is Maintenance. Implementation of the r expected to comply with the provisions issued. It is subject to the general license closure plan would be followed by a ofPart 61. Existing disposal facilities condition in 1 61.24 and to specific' _ period of postclosure observation and' should have no difficulty in complying Conditions as required. ' . maintenance on the part of the licensee. with the waste classification and

If no hearings have been requested. in which the licensee's monitoring and * ' characteristics, manifest requirements. .nd the Commissioners approve, the ' maintenance programs would continue:* and the minimum requirements dealing Commission publishes a notice of the. (I 6129). This period is expected to last with design and operations,
-

04saft.. enE~O EA-1.. 10-9stmV, lr A- ?4n_ 1A2 I V,'rfav- Ttilv 24- 1981n - 2roDosed Rules aOCuN I -UIc a -s 5 .. _. U,- -- - ** * * --- w

environmental monitoring closure. postclosure observation. and institutional

controL Where existing operating sites

have difficulty meeting any of the

criteria, the Commission will consider

the matter on a case by case basis.

Naturally Occurring andAcceleratorProduced Radionuclides in Waste..

Although the Commission has no direct

statutory authority over naturally

occurring and accelerator-produced radionuclides the evaluation of any

specific disposal site will include

consideration of the total Impacts from

all waste disposed of at the disposal

site. including byproduct, source, special

nuclear material, and naturally

occurring and accelerator-produced

material. Specific concentration limits

for the disposal of important naturally

occurring and accelerator-produced nuclides will be included in the planned

regulatory guide on the classification of

waste.

Paperwork Reduction AcL As

required by Pub. L 96-511. this proposed rule will be submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for clearance

of the reportingfrecordkeeping/

application requirements.

Rgulatory Flexibility Act. Based

upon the information available at this

stage of this rulemaking proceeding and

in accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 198. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

the Commission hereby certifies that

this rulemaking will not. If promulgated.

have a significant economic impact upon

a substantial number of small entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public

Law 96-345) was signed into law in

September 1980. The Act's principal

objective is to make certain that Federal

agencies try, where possible, to fit

regulatory requirements to the scale of

the affected activity. Significant

economic impacts on a substantial

number of small entities is a major

concern. The proposed Part 61 and

accompanying rule changes will

potentially impact a significant number

of persons licensed by the Commission

and the Agreement States. The following

discussion addresses the analyses

required by the Act and briefly

describes the Impacts and how the

interests of the small entities were

considered in developing this proposed

rule. The draft EiS for Part 61 provides

additional background information and

analysis of the impacts of this

rulemaking action.

The need for standards to govern the

disposal of radioactive wastes and new

regulations to implement these

standards is discussed in detail in the

draft EIS.

Some provisions of the proposed rulemaking will apply to all Commission

licensees who transfer radioactive

waste for disposal on land. The

Commission has approximately 9.000

licensees. All but a few hundred are

small entities. Types of small entities

that may be impacted include

physicians. hospitals, medical and

clinical laboratories, colleges and

universities. waste collection

companies. small Industrial operations.

and waste disposal site operators. Exact

numbers of impacted entities are not

available. Based on a 1979 survey of

Commission licensees, less than one

quarter of the licensees should be

affected on a regular basis.

The reporting. recordkeeping. and

other requirements with which licensees

must comply in the proposed rule

impose only a minor incremental burden

and will result in better accountability'

of wastes and improvements in disposal

of wastes. The reporting requirements

are directed primarily at disposal site

operators. Currently only two firms hold

this type of license. In the foreseeable

future it is not anticipated that the

number of this type of licensee will

reach ten. The requirements are

comparable to existing requirements or

requirements that would be imposed in

specific licenses for site operation. All

licensees transferring waste would be

required to investigate and file reports if

shipments are lost. (See proposed

§ 20.311 of 10 CFR Part 20.) Existing

regulations have similar but more

specific reporting requirements for lost

radioactive materials. AU licensees..

transferring waste are also required to

prepare complete shipping manifests.

The user and radiation safety personnel

currently preparing wastes for shipment

will have to spend some additional time

preparing manifests and tracking

shipments. Licensees are already

required to keep records of transfers and

certain disposals

Compliance with the waste

classification and characteristics

requirements is required of all licensees

who transfer waste for land disposaL

The need for and impacts of compliance

with waste criteria are addressed in the

draft EIS, The types of impacts that the

rule changes may have include

additional waste treatment and

processing. use of containers to meet

waste form requirements, new labels for

packages. and higher disposal costs in

some cases to cover, for example, the

addition of intruder barriers when

required. Based on the analysis in the

Draft EIS. it appears that very few small

entities generate radioactive waste that

would be subject to these requirements

Federal rules that overlap the

proposed rule are primarily those of the

Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission is not aware of any rules that duplicate or conflict with the

proposed rule except that reports to the

Environment Protection Agency on

effluent releases and broker activities

required byYSuperfund" registration

may be duplicative. The Commission

would particularly welcome comments

on how to minimize duplication with

"Superfund" requirements. The

Commission and DOT have an

established working relationship implemented through a formal

Memorandum of Understanding. The

rule itself acknowledges the need to

comply with DOT rules. and the

Commission currently inspects licensees

for compliance with DOT requirements.

The manifest required by this

rulemaking is consistent with DOT

requirements. and the same document

will be used to meet requirements of

both agencies. The waste form and

packaging requirements are in addition

to and compatible with DOT rules.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act also

requires discussion of alternatives to the

proposed rule. The recordkeepl and

reporting requirements impose such a

minor incremental burden that no relief

or exemption was considered. They are.

in fact, minor modifications of existing rules and practices. Further. since the

small entities account for a significant

percentage of the volume of waste

generated. it is important that all

licensees participate in the manifest

tracking system The waste -- classification and characteristics portion

of the rule does provide some relief from

compliance for waste produced by the

small entities. Where radiological

hazard permits. segregated disposal has

been provided as an option to complying with more restrictive waste acceptance requirements. The rule Is a combination

of performance and prescriptive requirements, as discussed earlier.

Exemption from coverage is feasible

when the radiological hazard of the

wastes permits. The exemption of les

hazardous wastes on a specific waste

basis by separate rulentaking efforts

was discussed previously. (See de

minimis discussion in Section VC.)

The economic costs of the rule to

small entities have not been quantified. The incremental burdens are Judged small and have been addressed

qualitatively in this summary and in the

ElS. The rulemaking should not affect

economic factors such as employment.

business viability. or ability for affected

entities to compete.

The requirements In waste disposal practices are judged to significantly outweigh the small economic impact on
--- -r J . -' -

Federal Register ] Vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday, July 24. 198i i Proposed Rules 38089

small entities. However; the Sec. radioactive waste, the procedures and

Commission is seeking comments and el629 Post-closure observation and criteria for the issuance, and terms and'

suggested modifications because of the maintenance. conditions upon which the Commission

widely differing conditions under which 6130 Transfer of licenses. for the disposal for

s entities maall small O"'~te'alai. operate Cfltitie5 t Termination orlicense. . others ~u5lcne.frtedsoa of radioactive wastes containing o

Any small entity subject to this Subpar C nee Ob) byproduct. source and special nuclear

regulation who determines that because 6i General requirement material. Disposal of waste by an

of its size. It is likely to bear -61At Protection of the general population individual licensee Is set forth In Part 20

disproportionate adverse economic from releases of radioactivity. of this chapter.

impact should apprise the Commission e ,142 Protection of Individuals from lb) Except as provided in § 61.6

in a comment that indicates: - e indvrtentintinsivi dExempflons" and in Part 150 of this

(1) The size of their business and how' operotions f u chapter. the regulations in this part the proposed regulations woutld result in DM44 Stability of the sile after closure. apply to all persons in the United States.

a significant economic burden upon Subpart D-Toeilcal Re etuients or The regulations in this part do not apply

them as compareed to larger - iNsposal Facities - to the disposal of high-level waste as

organizations in the same business d1.w Dirpos l site suitability requirements provided for in Part 60 of this chapter or

comnmunity - for land disposal. byproduct material (as defined in

(2) How the proposed regulations cii5 Disposal site design for land disposal. I 40.4(a-4)) as provided for in Part 40 of

could be modified to take into account 61,52 Land disposal facility operation and this chapter and licensed material as

their differing needs or capabilities; disposal site closure. provided for in Part 20.-

(3) The benefits that would accrue. or 61.53 Environmental monitoring. the detriments that would be avoided. j 61.54 Alternative requirements for design s t thederimnt tht oud b aoidd.if and operations. -12 -rilo the proposed regulations were modified 61.55 Waste claasficaion .As used in this part

as suggested by the comnenter. and - 61.5 Waste characteristics. "Active mnaintenance" means any (4) How the proposed regulations, as 61.5 Labeling. s rs mentforw uir st sgiiatrmda signifcant remediaflactivity ciiynee neeldedt

modified, would still adequately protect 611.58 ~Altemnaiive requirements for waste' during the peidointuina nrl

the public health and safety. ',classification and characteristics. to mant iod of inastuionallsuac cotrol Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of . nuttutIonal reto m tainreasonblei a nc t to '.the performnance objectives In i I AI

1954 as anended, the Energy Stubpwt E- l A s and 61A2 are met. Such active

Reorganization Act of 1974. as amended. 616 Applicant qualifications and maintenance includes ongoing activities

and section 553 of title 5 of the United aitace.-sch as the pumping and treatment of

States Code, notice is hereby given that 61e Funding for disposal site closure and water from a disposal unit or one-time

adoption of a new I0 CFR Part 61 and stabilization. wtrfo ipslui roetm

the following amendments to 10 CFR e163 Finacial assurances for institutional measures su as replacement of a

Parts 2.19. 20. 21. 30. 40. 51. 70. 73 and ctrois. disposal unit cover. Active maintenance

170 s cotemlate. Sbpar F- paun ~does not include custodial activities

17icntmpatd. -meSL* F- ts ~ipation Tby. suhaSrpitooecigtepitr A new Part 61 is added to 10 CFR to 5 wA bx Tbu such as repair'f fencing epair or readas fllow: . 61.7 Scoe -replacement of monitoring equipment. read6as1folSowst Scope T revegatation. minor additions to soil

PART 61IUCENSING consultation, cover. minor repair of disposal unit

REOUIREMENTS FOR LAND ei.72 Filing of proposals for State and Tribal covers, and general disposal site upkeep

DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE participation. such as mowing grass. A l - - 6b7 1.73 CommIssion approval otproposals. - "Buffer zone' is a portion of the

8 t r rRos P Subpart Rports Tst end disposal site that is 'controlled by the

Sec : -- tscios - licensee and that lies between the

61. 1- Purpose and e.ope - 80 Maintenance of records. reports and disposal units and the boundary of the

61.2 Definitions. transfers- site.

61.4 Communicaton. cs 6131 Tests at land disposal facilities. "Chelating agent" means a chemical'

61. 5 Interpretations. 6182 C isson spectin of lnd comnpound which can be attached to a

61 6 Exempt ns. . disposaltK -1. ic metal ion by at least two bonds In such

61.7 Concepts.b 61.8 i o ltaWoneS., a way as to form a ring structure. It is

Authority. Secas. 53 57d.o 6ta2in.ta3mih eqete Subpart D-tjc~~~iaes . L. a. 182.183. Pub. 1.33-703. as aedd sdt euse ea osta ih

61.10 Content of application. . *rStLdedt42.93 3 2 a 2, benvironabent a r

61.11 General Information.. UUdd42USC.33.,i 93, evronnt

61.12 SpecIfic technical information. 2095.21112201. 2232. 2233 Secs. L200. Commencement of construction

61.13 Technical analyses. Pub. L 93-438 as Sta 1244. 246 (42 U.S.C. means any clearing of land. excavation.

61.14 Institutional information. 58423848) Sec. 14. Pub. L 9s501(42 US.C or other substantial action that woild

6.5 Fhnanciali For the purposes of Sec. =3. 68 Stat. adversely affect the environment of a 61.16 Otheria information 958. as amended. 42 U 1.C. 2273. Table 5.nn 61.20 Other infond tion ofa o. . el56 sued under Sec. 1b. ea stat 'land disposal facility. The term does not

e12o Flinm ndadistibutionooffrppliction. P4 I 613. 61.10 through 61.17.81.24.61. 61 mean disposal site exploration.

12M Updating of application and through 6.3. and 11.80 issued under Sec. necessary roads for dirposal site 1610.: 68 Stat. 90 as amended (42 US.C. exploration. borings to determine

environmental report 2f01) . foundation conditions, or other

61.23 Standards for Issuanceofa alicense. -

61.24 Conditions of licenses. subpart u A-GMnIon Provilonf- preconstruction monitoring or testing to

61.25 Chnges. establish background information

el.2 Amendment of license., 161.1 PurpoW and 5cope. related to the suitability of the disposal 61.27. Application for renewal or closure. (a) The regulations in this part. site or the protection of environmental

6i.2 Contentsofapplicationforclosure. establishforlanddisposalof. values.
----

38090 Federal Register / ..1. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24. 1981 / proposed Rules

"Commission" means the Nuclear

Regulatory Commissfon or its duly

authorized representatives "Director" means the Director. Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

"Disposal" means the isolation of

radioactive wastes from the biosphere

by emplacement in a land disposal

facility.

'Engineered barrier" means a manmade structure or device that is

intended to protect an intruder from

inadvertent exposure to radiation from

certain wastes.

'Disposal site" means that portion of.

a land disposal facility which is used for

disposal of waste. It consists of disposal

units and a buffer zone.

'Disposal unit" means a discrete

portion of the disposal site into which

waste is placed for disposal. For nearsurface disposal the unit Is usually a

trench.

"Government agency" means any

executive department. commission.

independent establishment. corporation. wholly or partly owned by the United

States of America which is an

instrumentality of the United States, or

any board, bureau. division. service.

office, officer, authority, administration.

or other establishment in the executive

branch of the government. "Inadvertent intruder" means a

person who might occupy the disposal site unknowingly after closure and

engage in normal activities, such as

agriculture, dwelling construction. and

other pursuits in which the person might be exposed unknowingly to radiation

from the waste.

'Indian Tribe" means an Indian tribe

as defined in the Indian Self.

Determination and Education

Assistance Act (25 USC 450).

"Intruder barrier" means a sufficient

depth of cover over the waste that

inhibits contact with waste and helps to

assure that radiation exposures to an

inadvertent intruder will meet the

performance objectives set forth in this

part, or engineered structures that

provide equivalent protection to the

inadvertent intruder.

"Hydrogeologic unit" means any soil

or rock unit or zone which by virtue of

its porosity or permeability, or lack

thereof, has a distinct influence on the

storage or movement of groundwater.

'Land disposal facility' means the

land. building and equipment which is

intended to be used for the dsposal of

radioactive wastes Into the subsurface

of the land. For purposes of this chapter.

a geologic repository as defined in Part

00 is not considered a land disposal

facility.

"License" means a license issued

under the regulations In Parts 30 through

35. 40. 50, 61, or 70 of this chapter,

including licenses to operate a

production or utilization facility

pursuant io Part 50 of this chapter.

"Licensee' means the holder of such a

license.

"Monitoring" means observing and

making measurements to provide data to

evaluate the performance and

characteristics of the disposal site.

"Near-surface disposal facility"

means land disposal facility in which

radioactive waste is disposed of in or

within the upper 15-20 meters of the

earth's surface.

"Person" means (1) any individual,

corporation, partnership, firm.

association, trust, estate, public or

private institution. group. government

agency other than the Commission or

the Department of Energy. except that

the Department of Energy is considered

a person within the meaning of the

regulations in this part to the extent that

is facilities and activities are subject to

the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to

section 202 of the Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 124)), any State or

any political subdivision of or any

political entity within a State, any

foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such

government or nation. or other entity; and (2) any legal successor,

representative, agent, or agency of the

foregoing.

'Site closure and stabilization" means

those actions that are taken upon

completion of operations that prepare the disposal site for custodial care and

that assure that the disposal site remain

stable and will not need ongoing active

maintenance.

"State" means any State. Territory, or

possession of the United States, the.

Canal Zone. Puerto Rico, and the

District of Columbia.

"Surveillance" means observation of

the disposal site forpurposes of visual

detection of need for maintenance,

custodial care, evidence of intrusion.

and compliance with other license and

regulatory requirements. 'Tribal Governing Body" means a

Tribal organization as defined in the

Indian Self-Determination and

Education Assistance Act (25 U&C.

450).

"Waste', for purposes of this part.

means those low-level radioactive

wastes containing source. special

nuclear, or byproduct material that are

acceptable for disposal in a land

disposal facility. For the purposes of this

definition. low-level waste has the same

meaning as in the Low-Level Waste

Policy Act, that is radioactive waste not

classified as high-level radioactive

waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear

fuel, or byproduct material as defined in

section lie.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.

61.3 Uocna requird.

(a) No person may receive, possess,

and dispose of radioactive waste

containing source, special nuclear, or

byproduct material at a land disposal

facility unless authorized by a license

issued by the Commission pursuant to

this part.

lb) Each person shall file an

application with the Commission and

obtain a license as provided in this part

before commencing construction of a.

land disposal facility. Failure to comply

with this requirement may be grounds

for denial of a license.

Except where otherwise specified. all

communications and reports concerning

the regulations in this part and

applications filed under them should be

addressed to the Director. Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington. D.C 20555.

Communications reports, and

applications may be delivered in person

at the Commission's offices at 1717 H

Street NW. Washington. DrC or 791S

Eastern Avenue. Silver Spring.

Maryland.

I16.s bympretanons.

Except as specifically authorized by

the Commission. in writing no

interpretation of the meaning of the

regulations in this part by any officer or

employee of the Commission other than

a written interpretation by the General

Counsel will be considered binding upon the Commission.

$lii Exeptons.

The Commission may. upon

application by an interested person. or

upon its own initiative, grant any

exemption from the requirements of the

regulations in this part as it determines

is authorized by law, will not endanger

life or property or the common defense

and security, and is otherwise in the

public interest

161.7 Concepts.

(a) The Disposal facility. (1) Part e1 Is

intended to apply to land disposal of

radioactive waste and not to other

methods such as sea or extraterrestrial

disposal In its present form Part 61

contains procedural requirements and

performance objectives applicable to

any method of land disposal. It contains

specific technical requirements for near-
- Federal Register'/'Vol.8. 'No. 142 / Friday, July 24. 198 '/ Proposed Rules I3381

surface disposal of radioactive waste

which involves disposal in the

ppermost 15 to 20 meters of the earth.

.echnical requirements for alternative

methods will be added in the future.

(2] Near-surface disposal of

radioactive waste takes place at a nearsurface disposalfacility. which includes

all of the land and buildings necessary

to'carry out the disposal. The disposal

site is that portion of the facility which

is used for disposal of waste and

consists of disposal units and a buffer

zone. A disposol unit is a discrete

portion of the disposal site into which

waste is placed for disposal. For nearsurface disposal, the disposal unit is

usually a trench.A buffer zone is a

portion of the disposal site that is

controlled by the licensee and that lies

between the boundary of the disposal

site and any disposal unit. It provides

controlled space to establish monitoring

locations which are intended to provide

an early warning of radionuclide

movement, and to take mitigative

measures if needed.

lb) Waste Classification andNeorSurface Disposal (1) Disposal of

radioactive waste in near-surface

disposal facilities has two primary

safety objectives:prevention of -

migration of radionuclides. primarily

rough groundwater and prevention of

posure to inadvertent intruders.

(2) A cornerstone of the system to

control the migration of radionuclides

offsite is stability-stability of the waste

and the disposal site so that once - - emplaced and covered, the access of

water to the waste can be eliminated or

minimized. While stability is a -

necessary characteristic for waste that

has a potential for migration, much

radioactive waste does not contain

sufficient amounts of radionuclides to be

of concern from this standpoint. this

waste, however, tends to be unstable.

such as ordinary trash type wastes. If

mixed with the higher'ictivity waste.

their deterioration could lead to failure

of the system and permit water to ' ' penetrate the disposal unit and cause

problems with the higher activity waste.

Therefore, in order to avoid placing requirements fora stable waste form on

relatively innocuous waste, these

wastes have been classed as Closs A

segregated waste. Even though the Class

A segregated waste is unstable, It

decays to acceptable levels during the

period when the site is occupied and ' active maintenance can control water

infiltration. Those higher activity wastes

it should be stable for proper disposal s classed as Class B stable waste. The

;l'ass A segregated waste will be

disposed of in separate disposal units at

the disposal sit. For certain isotopes, a

maximum disposal site inventory will be

established based on the characteristics

of the disposal site. -(3) It is possible but unlikely that

persons might occupy the site in the

future and engage in normal pursuits

without knowing that they were

receiving radiation exposure. These

persons are referred to as inadvertent

intruders. Protection of such intruders

can involve two principal controls:

institutional control over the site after

operations by the site owner to assure

that no such occupation or improper use

of the site'occurs: or. designating which

waste would present an unacceptable

risk to an intruder, and disposing of this.

waste in a manner that provides some

form of intruder barrier that Is intended

to prevent contact with the waste. This

regulation incorporates both types of.

protective controls.

(4) Institutional control is relied on for

periods up to 100years to control access

to the closed site. This permits the

disposal of Class A segregated and

Class B stable waste without special

provisions for intrusion protection, since

these classes of waste contain types and

quantities of radioisotopes that will

decay during the 100-year period to

levels that do not pose a danger to

public health and safety. (5) Waste that will not decay to such

levels within 1o0 years is designated as

Class C intruder waste. This waste is

disposed of at a greater depth than the

other classes of waste so that

subsequent surface activities by an

intruder will not disturb the waste.

Where site conditions prevent deeper

disposaL engineered barriers such as

concrete covers may be used. The

assumed effective life of these intruder

barriers is 500 years. A maximum

concentration of radionuclides is

specified for all wastes so that at the

end of the 500 year period. remaining -'

radioactivity is at i level that does not

pose a danger to public health and

safety Waste with concentrations ' above these limits is generally

unacceptable for near-surface disposal

Some provisions are made for ' -'

exceptions'on a case by-case basis.'.'

Class C intruder waste must also be

stable, since stability contributes to

intruder protection by providing a

recognizable and nondispersible waste'

form.

(c) The Ucensing Process. (1) During

the preoperotionalphase. the potential applicant goes through a process of

disposal site selection by selecting a

region of interest and examining a ' number of possible disposal siles and

narrowing the choice to the proposed.

site. Through a detailed investigation of

the disposal site characteristics the

potential applicant obtains data on

which to base an analysis of the

disposal site's suitability. Along with

these data and analyses. the applicant

submits other more general information'

to the Commission in the form of an

application for a license for land ' ' disposal.'The Commission's review of

the application is in accordance with,

established administrative procedures and may involve participation by.

affected Stategovernments or Indian

tribes. While the proposed disposal site

must be owned by a State or the Federal

government before the Commission will

issue a license it may be privately

owned during the preoperational phase

if suitable arrangements have been,

made with a State'or the Federal

government to take ownership in'fee of

the land before the license is issued.

(2) During the operationalphase, the

licensee carries out disposal activities in

accordance with the requirements of

this regulation and any conditions on

the license. Periodically. the authority to

conduct the above surface operations

and receive waste will be subject to a

license renewal at which time the

operating history will be reviewed and a

decision made to 'permit or deny continued operation. When disposal

operations are to cease, the licensee

applies for an amendment to his license

to permit site closure. After final review

of the licensee's site dosure and

stabilization plan, the Commission may

approve the final activities necessary td

prepare the disposal site for the period

of institutional control, without the need

for ongoing active maintenance of thea

site. .- . . .. ..

(3) During the period when the site

closure and stabilization activities are

being carried out the licensee is-in a

disposal site closure phase. Following

that. for a period of at least 5 years, the

licensee must remain at the disposal site

for a period of postclosure obseivation

and maintenance to assure that the

disposal site is stable and ready for

institutional control. At the end of this

period. the licensee applies for a license

transfer to the disposal site owner.

(4) After a finding of satisfactory

disposal site closure, the Commission

will transfer the license to the State or

Federal agency that owns the disposal

site. If the Department of Energy is the

Federal agency the license will be

terminated. Under the conditions of the

transferred license, the owner will carry

out a program of monitoring to assure

continued satisfactory disposal site'

performance, physical surveillance to

restrict access to the site and carry out

minor custodial activities. At the end of
I MM_

Federal Register / vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24, 1981 / Proposed Rules 38093

performed by the natural disposal site

characteristics and design features In

isolating and segregating the wastes.

The analyses must dearly demonstrate

that there is reasonable assurance that

the exposures to humans from the

migration of radioactivity will not

exceed the limits set forth in 81.41.

(b) Analyses of the protection of

individuals from Inadvertent intrusion

must Include demonstration that the

waste classification and segregation

requirements will be met and that

adequate barriers to inadvertent

intrusion will be provided.

(c) Analyses of the protection of

individuals during operations must

include assessments of expected

exposures due to routine operations and

likely accidents during handling

storage, and disposal of waste. The

analyses must provide reasonable

assurance that exposure will be

controlled to meet the requirements of

Part 20 of this chapter.

(d) Analyses of the long-term stability of the disposal site and the need for

ongoing active maintenance after

closure must be based upon analyses of

active natural processes such as erosion.

mass wasting, slope failure, settlement

of wastes and backfill infiltration

through covers over disposal areas and

adjacent soils and surface drainage of

the disposal site. The analyses must

provide reasonable assurance that there

will not be a need for ongoing active

maintenance of the disposal site

following closure.

S 61.14 Institutional informatiot.

The institutional information must

include

(a) A certification by the Federal or

State government agency which owns

the disposal site that the agency is

prepared to accept transfer of the

license when the provisions of I 61.30

are met, and will assume responsibility

for custodial care after site closure and

post closure observation and

maintenance.

(b) Where the proposed disposal site

is on land not owned by the Federal or a

State government, the applicant must

submit evidence that arrangements have

been made for assumption of ownership

in fees by the Federal or a State

government before the Commission

issues a license.

* IllS Financial Information.

The financial information must be

sufficient to demonstrate that the

financial qualifications of the applicant

are adequate to carry out the activities

for which the license Is sought and meet

other financial assurance requirements

as specified in Subpart E of this part.

I 61.11 Outer Information.

Depending upon the nature of the

wastes to be disposed of. and the design

and proposed operation of the land

disposal facility. additional information

may be requested by the Commission

including the following:

(a) Physical security measures. If

appropriate. Any application to receive

and possess special nuclear material in

quantities subject to the requirements of

Part 73 of this chapter shall demonstrate

how the physical security requirements

of Part 73 will be met. In determining

whether receipt and possession will be

subject to the requirements of Part 73.

the applicant does not need to consider

materials after disposaL

(b) Information concerning criticality,

if appropriate.

(1) Any applicant to receive and

possess special nuclear material in

quantities that would be subject to the

requirements of I 7024. "Criticality

accident requirements" of Part 70 of this

chapter shall demonstrate how the

requirements of this section will be met.

In determining whether receipt and

possession would be subject to the

requirements of ! 70.24. the applicant does not need to consider the quantity

of special nuclear material that has been

disposed.

(2) Any application to receive and

possess special nuclear material shall

describe procedures and provisions for

criticality control which address both

storage of special nuclear material prior

to dispo al and waste emplacement for

disposal

61.2 F§Mi and distribution at

(a) An application for a license under

this part. and any amendments thereto.

shall be filed with the Director, must be

signed by the applicant or the

applicant's authorized representative.

under oath and must consist of I signed original and 2 copies.

(b) Another 65 copies of the

application and environmental report

must be retained by the applicant for

distribution In accordance with written

instructions from the Director or

designee.

(c) Fees. Application. amendment and

inspection fees applicable to a license

covering the receipt and disposal of

radioactive wastes in a land disposal

facility are required by Part 170 of this

chapter.

161.21 Edination of repetition.

In its application or environmental

report, the applicant may incorporate by

reference information contained in

previous applications, statements, or

reports filed with the Commission if

these references are clear and specific.

561.22 Updating of appilcation and

n l report

(a) The application and environmental

report must be as complete as possible

in the light of information that is

available at the time of submittal.

(b) The applicant shall supplement its

application or environmental report in a

timely manner, as necessary, to permit

the Commission to review, prior to

issuance of a license. any changes in the

activities proposed to be carried out or

new information regarding the proposed

activities.

i 61.23 Standards for issuance of a

A license for the receipt, possession.

and disposal of waste containing or

contaminated with source. special

nuclear, or byproduct material will be

issued by the Commission upon finding

that the issuance of the license will not

be inimical to the common defense and

security and will not constitute an

unreasonable risk to the health and

safety of the public. and

(a) The applicant is qualified by

reason of training and experience to

carry out the disposal operations

requested In a manner that protects

health and minimizes danger to life or

property.

(b) The applicants proposed disposal

site, disposal design. land disposal facility operations (including equipment

facilities, and procedures), disposal site

closure. and postclosure institutional

care are adequate to protect the public

health and safety in that they provide

reasonable assurance that the general population will be protected from

releases of radioactivity as specified In

the performance objective in I 61.41.

(c) The applcant's proposed disposal

site, disposal site design, land disposal facility operations (including equipment.

facilities, and procedures). disposal site

closure, and postclosure institutional

care are adequate to protect the public

health and safety in that they provide reasonable assurance that doses to

individual inadvertent intruders should

not exceed the dose limits established in

the performance objective in I 61.42.

(d) The applicant's proposed land

disposal facility operations, including

equipment. facilities, and procedures,

are adequate to protect the public health

and safety in that they provide

reasonable assurance that the standards

for radiation protection set out in Part 20

of this chapter will be met.

(e) The applicant's proposed disposal

site, disposal site design, land disposal
380 9 3Fodral.RegisterI Vol.46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24.1981 1 ProPosed Rules

the prescribed period of institutional (2) Tbe general chara cter of the ' g) A description of the disposal site

control. the license will be terminated proposed activities: closure plan. including those design

by the Commission' (3) The types and quantities of features which are intended to facilitate

- radioactive waste to be received, disposal site closure and to eliminate

Subpart 1B¶4J' ' possessed. and disposed of: the need for ongoing active

61.10 Contentf o.,f . (4) Plans for use of the land disposal maintenance.'

facility for purposes other than disposal (h) An identification of the natural

(a) An application to receive from of radioactive wastes, and resources at the disposal site, the

others, possess, use and dispose of.. -(5) The proposed facilities and exploitation of which could result in

wastes containing or contaminated with - equipment. - Inadvertent intrusion into the low-level

source, byproduct or special nuclear (d) Proposed schedules for ' wastes after removal of active

material by land burial must consist of construction. receipt of waste, and first institutional control.

general information.specific technical emplacement of waste at the proposed (I) A description of the kind, amount.

information. institutional information. land disposal facility. -classification and specifications of theand financial information as set forth in

118.1truh8.6 n-161.12 Speciftct~c.Jd k~nOn O-' ,radioactive material proposed to be

environmental report prepared in The specific technical information treceived, disse sed,fandldisposedofat

accordance with Part S1 of this chapter must include the following information e an disposal fa cilty.

must accompany the application. needed for demonstration that the ' - ) A descripton of the quality

performance objectives of Subpart C of assurance program for the determination

61.1 1 OaflMSI kfiirt l . this part and the applicable technical of natural disposal site characteristics

The general information must include requirements of Subpart D of this part and for quality assurance during the

each of the foliowing i will be mee design. construction, and operation of

(a) Identity of the applicant including:' (a) A description of the natural the land disposal facility and the

(1) The full name, address, telephone 'disposal site characteristics as receipt. handling. and emplacement of

number and description of the business' - determined by disposal site secton waste. Audits and managerial controls

or occupation of the applicant ' and characterization activities. The must be included. --

(2) If the applicant is a partnership, description must include geologic. (k) A description of the radiation

the name, and address of each partner technical hydrologic. meteorologic, safety program for control and

and the principal location where the climatologic, and biotic features of the monitoring radioactive'eMuents and

partnership does business: - disposal ste and vicinity ; occupational radiation exposure to

(3) If the applicant Is a corporation or - (b) A description of the design demonstrate compliance with the

an unincorporated association. (i) the features of the land disposal facility and requirements of Part 20 of this chapter

state where it is Incorporated or: - ' the disposal units. For near-surface and to control contamination of

rganized and the principal location disposaL the description must include . personnel, vehicles, equipment.

Ahere it does business, and (Ii) the' 'those design features related to buildings. and the disposal site. Both'

names and addresses of its directors infiltration of water; integrity of covers routine operations and accidents must

and principal officers: and . for disposal units; structural stability of be addressed. The program description

(4) If the applicant is acting as an backfill, wastes, and covers: contact of must Include procedures,

agent or representative of another wastes with standing water. disposal instrumentation. facilities. and'

person in filing the application. all site drainage; disposal site closure and 'equipment.

Information required under this , stabilization: elimination of long-term (1) A description of the environmental

paragraph must be supplied with respect disposal site maintenance inadvertent monitoring program to provide data to

to the other person. - intrusion: occupational exposures; and evaluate potential health and

(b) Qualifications of the applicant: disposal site monitoring., environmental impacts and the plan for

(1) The organizational structure of the -(c) A description of the principal ' . taking corrective measures if migration

applicant both offalte and onsite, design criteria and their relationship to of radionuclides is indicated.

including a description of lines of - the performance objectives. -(m) A description of the

authority and assignments of ' (d) A description of the design basis 'administrative procedures that the

responsibilities, whether in the form of natural events or phenomena and their 'applicant will apply to control activities

administrative directives, contract, relationship to the principal design at the land disposal facility.

provisions, or otherwise: . criteria.

(2) The technical qualifications ' (e) A description of codes and 61.13 Temc al snatyse

including training and experience, of the 'standards which the applicant has The specific technical information

applicant and members of the - applied to the design and which will must also include the following analyses

applicant's staff to engage in the 'apply to construction of the land needed to demonstrate that the'

proposed activities and minimum' disposal facilities., performance objectives of Subpart C of

training and experience requirements for (I) A description of the construction this part will be met.'

personnel filling key positions described.- and operation of the land disposal (a) Pathways-analyzed in

in I 81.11(b)(1), ' facility. The description must include demonstrating protection of the general

(3) A description of the applicant's' the methods of construction: waste population from releases of radioactivity

personnel training program: and emplacement: the procedures for and - including air, soil groundwater, surface

(4) The plan to maintain an adequate areas of waste segregation-types of water, plant uptake,'and exhumation by

complement of trained personnel to ! - intruder barriers onsite traffic and burrowing animals. For near-surface

carry out waste receipt. handling. and' drainage systems; survey control disposal, the groundwater pathway will

sposal operations. in a safe manner. program; methods and areas of waste ' generally be the most significant in - '-

(c) A description of: storage; and methods to control surface terms of releases of radioactivity. The

(1 The location of the proposed ' water and groundwater access to the migration analyses must clearly identify

disposal site: 7 wastes. and differentiate between the roles
38094 Federal Rester . Vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24. 198i , Proposed Rules

facility operations. disposal site closure

and postclosure institutional care are

adequate to protect the public health

and safety in that they provide

reasonable assurance of long-term stability of the disposed waste and the

disposal site and should eliminate the

need for ongoing active maintenance of

the disposal site following closure.

(f) There is adequate demonstration

that the applicable technical

requirements of Subpart D of ths part

will be met

(SI Institutional care Is assured for the

length of time found necessary to assure

the findings in paragraphs (bHe) of this

section and that the institutional care

meets the requirements of 51n.59 and

61.60.

(h) The information on financial

assurances meets the requirements of

subpart E of this part (I) The applicant has demonstrated

compliance with the requirements of

Part 73 of this chapter. insofar as they

are applicable to special nuclear

material to be possessed under the

license.

U) The applicant has demonstrated

compliance with the requirements of

5 70.24 of Part 70 of this chapter. insofar

as they are applicable to special nuclear

material to be possessed under the

license.

(k) Any additional information

submitted as requested by the

Commission pursuant to I 8L1. Is

adequate.

(I) The requirements of Part 51 of this

chapter have been met.

1 61.24 Condition of tleean.

(a) A license Issued under this part, or

any right thereunder. may be

transferred assigned, or in any manner

disposed of. either voluntarily, directly

or indirectly, through transfer of control

of the license to any person, only if the

Commission finds, after securing full

information. that the transfer Is in

accordance with the provisions of the

Atomic Energy Act and gives its consent

in writing in the form of a license

amendment

(b) The licensee shall submit written

statements under oath upon request of

the Commission, at any time before

termination of the license, to enable the

Commission to determine whether or

not the license should be modified.

suspended or revoked.

(cl The license will be terminated only

on the full Implementation of the final

closure plan as approved by the

Commission, including postclosure

observation and maintenance.--

(d) The licensee shall be subject to the

provisions of the Atomic Energy Act

now or hereafter in effect, and to all

rules, regulations, and orders of the

Commission. The terms and conditions

of the license are subject to amendment.

revision, or modification, by reason of

amendments to. or by reason of rules.

regulations. and orders issued in

accordance with the terms of the Atomic

Energy Act.

(e) Any license may be revoked.

suspended or modified in whole or in

part for any material false statement in

the application or any statement of fact

required under Section 182 of the Act or

because of conditions revealed by any

application or statement of fact or any

report. record, or inspection or other

means which would warrant the

Commission to refuse to grant a license

to the original application, or for failure

to operate the facility in accordance

with the terms of the license, or for any

violation of, or failure to observe any of

the terms and conditions of the Act. or

any regulation, license or order of the

Commission.

(I) Each person licensed by the

Commission pursuant to the regulations

in this part shall confine possession and

use of materials to the locations and

purposes authorized in the license.

(gS No radioactive waste may be

disposed of until the Commission has

inspected the land disposal facility and

has found it to be in conformance with

the description, design, and construction

described in the application for a

license.

(h) The Commission may incorporate

in any license at the time of issuance, or

thereafter, by appropriate rule.

regulation or order, additional

requirements and conditions with

respect to the licensee's receipt. possession, and disposal of source,

special nuclear or byproduct material as

It deems appropriate or necessary in

order to

(1) Promote the common defense and

security;

(2) Protect health or to minimize

danger to life or property;

(3) Require such reports and the

keeping of records, and to provide for

such inspections of activities under the

license that may be necessary or

appropriate to effectuate the purposes of

the Act and regulations thereunder.

(i) Any licensee who receives and

possesses special nuclear material

under this part in quantities that would

be subject to the requirements of I 70.24

of Part 70 of this chapter shall comply with the requirements of that section.

The licenseedoes not need to consider

the quantity of materials which it has

disposed.

61.25 C anges.

(a) Except as provided for in specific

license conditions. the licensee shall not

make changes in the land disposal

facility or procedures described in the

license application. The license will

include conditions restricting

subsequent changes to the facility and -

the procedures authorized. These

restrictions will fall Into three categories

of descending importance to public

health and safety as follows: (l} those

features and procedures which may not

be changed without (1) 60 days prior

notice to the Commission, (i) 30 days

notice of opportunity for a prior hearing. and (i11) prior Commission approval; (2)

those features and procedures which

may not be changed without (1) 60 days prior notice to the Commission, and ([) prior Commission approval; and (3) those features and procedures which

may not be changed without 00 days, prior notice to the Commission. Features

and procedures falling in paragraph (a)(3) of this section may not be changed without prior Commission approval if

the Commission, after having received

the required notice, so orders,

(b) Amendments authorizing license

renewal, site closure, licen e transfer, or

license termination shall be included in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

16126 Amendment of flem

(a) An application for amendment of a

license must be filed in accordance with

I 81.20 and shall fully describe the

changes desired.

(b) In detelmining whether an

amendment to a license will be

approved, the Commission will apply the criteria set forth in § 6123.

16127 Appcation for nww orclosu.

(a) Any expiration date on a license

applies only to the above ground activities and to the authority to dispose of waste. Failure to renew the license in

no way relieves the licensee of

responsibility for carrying out site

closure. postclosure observation and

transfer of the license to th e owner.

An application for renewal or an

application for closure under 16128

must be filed at least 30 days prior to

license expiration.

(b) Applications for renewal of a

license must be filed in accordance with

I 61.10 through 61.18 and 6120

Applications for closure must be filed in

accordance with If 6120 and 61.28

Information contained in previous applications, statements or reports filed

with the Commission under the license

may be incorporated by reference if the

references are clear and specific.
- -

Federal Registar I vol. 4. No. 142 / Friday. July 24.,91 I aroposed Rules m8095 . - ---- ---- . - - - - - . ____ - I 

(c) In ny case in which a licensee has

timely filed an application for renewal

a license, the license for continued

oeipt and disposal ot licensed

materials does not expire until the

Commission has taken final action on

the application for renewal.

(d) In determining whether a license

will ble renewed, the Commission will

apply the criteria set forth in I 1.23.'

61.25 . Content of apiaton fo cldosur.

(a) Prior to final closure of the

disposal site, or as otherwise directed

by the Commission, the applicant shall

submit an application to amend the

license for closure. This closure

application must include a final revision

and specific details of the disposal site

closure plan included as part of the

license application submitted under -

* 61.12tg) that includes each of the

following - (1) Any additional geologic,

hydrologic, or other disposal site data

pertinent to the long-term containment

of emplaced radioactive wastes

obtained during the operational period.

(2) The results of tests, experiments

or any other analyses relating to backfill

of excavated areas, closure and sealing.

waste migration and interaction with

emplacement media. or any other tests,

periments. or analysis'pertinent to the , -term containment of emplaced

Aste within the disposal site. '.

(3) Any proposed revision of plans for

(I) Decontamination and/or

dismantlement of surface facilities;

(li) Backfilling of excavated areas; or

(iii) Stabilization of the disposal site

for post-closure care,

(4) Any significant new information

regarding the environmental impact of

closure activities and long-term performance of the disposal site.

(b) Upon review and consideration of

an application to amend the license for

'closure submitted in ccordance sith

paragraph (a) of this section, the -

Commision shall Issue an amendment

authorizing closure if there is reasonable

assurance that the long-term

performance objectives of Subpart C of

this part will be met.

I Sim3 .Post-cosure observation and

Following completion of closure

authorized in I BL8. the icensee shall

observe, monitor, and carry out

necessary maintenance and repairs at

the disposal site until the site closure Is

complete and the license Is transferred

the Commission in accordance with

.30. Responsibility for the disposal

..e must be maintained by the licensee

for a minimum of 5 years.

§6130 TranotsIor lic .

(a) Following closure and the period

of post-closure observation and '' maintenance, the licensee may apply for

an amendment to transfer the license to

the disposal site owner. The license

shall be tranuferretk when the' -

Commission finds:

(1) That the closure of the disposal

site has been made in conformance with

the licensee's disposal site closure plan,

as amended and approved as part of the

license;

(2) That reasonable assurance has

been provided by the licensee that the

performance objectives of Subpart C of

this part are met

(3) That any funds and necessary

records for care will be transferred to

the disposal site owner;

(4) That the post-closure monitoring

program is operational for

implementation by the disposal site.

ownerand

(5) That the Federal or State ' government agency which will assume

responsibility for custodial care of the

disposal site is prepared to assume

responsibility and assure that the

institutional requirements found

necessary underJ 5B.3(g) will be met.

56131 Terminaton of Ne

(a) Following any period of custodial

care needed to meet the requirements

found necessary under S123, thelicensee may apply for an amendment to

terminate the license. ' (b) This application must be filed, and

will be reviewed. in accordance with the

provision of 61.20 and of this section.

(c) A license is terminated only when

the Commission fmds '-

(1) That the institutional care

requirements found necessary under

61.23(g) have been met and

(2) That any additional requireinents

resulting from new information

developed during the custodial period

have been met. - -

Subpart C-Pernrmance Objectives

561A4 Genera .requirenwt.

Land disposal facilities must be sited.

designed, operated, closed. and

controlled after closure so that

reasonable assurance exists that

exposures to humans are within the

limits extablished in the performance

objectives in I 61.41 through BIM.

161A1 Protectionohsgs9errl population from releases of radoectftt.

Concentrations of radioactive

material which may be released to the

general environment in ground water.

surface water, air, soil. plants. or

animals must not result in an annual

dose exceeding an equivalent of 25

millirems to the whole body, 75

millirems to the thyroid. and 25

millirems to any other organ of any

member of the public. In addition.,' .concentrations of ratloactive material in

groundwater must not exceed the

*maximum contaminant levels

established in the National Primary

Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR Part

141) at the nearest public drinking water

supply (a limit of 10 pCi/1 above I

background must be used for uranium

and thorium).

5 1.42 Protection of Individuals from

Invertent ntn - - ..

Design operation and closure of the

land disposal facility must not result in

conditions where any lidividual

Inadvertently intruding into the disposal

site and occupying the site or contacting

the waste after active institutional

controls over the disposal site are

removed, could receive a dose to the

whole body In excess of 500 millirem per

year.

5 6143' Protection of Indivdual during operatone.'*

Operations atthe land disposal

facility must be conducted in -

compllance with the standards for

radiation protection set out In Part 20 of

this chapter.

561A4 Stabto tsd ls ft

The disposal facility must be

designed. used 'operated. and closed to

achieve long-term stability of the.'

disposed waste and the disposal site

and to eliminate the need for ongoing

active maintenance of the disposal site

following closure so that only;.

surveillance. monitoring, or minor

custodial care are required.

Subpart D-Technlcal Requirarents

for Land Disposal Facllts

561.s0 _isposa t

requirements for land dsposL

(a) Disposal site suitability for nearsurface disposal.

(1) The purpose of this section is to

specify the minimum characteristics a

disposal site must have to be acceptable

for use as a near-surface disposal site.

The primary emphasis in disposal site

suitability is given to isolation of

wastes, a matter having long-term

impacts. and to disposal site features

that assure that the long-term

performance objectives of Subpart C of

this part are met. as opposed to shortterm convenience or benefits.
g V l 4 4 F Jly 2 8 -p R lsggrian Fedoraji Regiatet I VoL. 48, No. 142 / Friday. July 24,19881 -Proposed Rules

(2) The disposal site shall be capable t

of being characterized. modeled.

analyzed and monitored.

(3).Within the region or state where

the facility is to be located. a disposal

site should be selected so that projected population growth and future

developments are not Ilikely to affect the

ability of the disposal facility to meet

the performance objectives of Subpart C

of thi paL (4) Areas must be avoided having economically significant natural

resources which, if exploited. would

result in failure to meet the performance objectives of Subpart C of this parLt

(5) The disposal site must be generally well drained and free of areas of

flooding or frequent ponding. Waste

dispo sal'shall not take place In a 100-

year flood plain, coastal high-hazard

area or wetland.

(6) Upstream drainage areas must be

minimized to decrease the amount of

runoff which could erode or innundate

waste disposal units.

(7) The disposal site must provide Sufficient depth to the water table that

ground water intrusion, perennial or

otherwise. Into the waste will not occr.

The Commission will consider

exceptions to this requirement if it can

be conclusively shown that disposal site

characteristics will result in diffusion

being the predominant means of

radionuclide movement and the rate of

movement will result in the performance objectives of Subpart C of this part being met.

(8) Any groundwater discharge to the

surface within the disposal site must not

originate within the hydrogeologic unit

used for disposaL (9) Areas must be avoided where

tectonic processes such as faulting. folding, seismic activity, or vulcanism

may occur with such frequency and

extent to significantly affect the ability of the disposal mite to meet the

performance objectives of Subpart C. of

this part or may preclude defensible

modeinxg and prediction of long-term impacts.

(10) Areas must be avoided where

surface geologic processes such as mass

wasting. erosion, slumping. landaliding.

or weathering occur with such frequency and extent to significantly affect the

ability of the disposal site to meet the

performance objectives of Subpart C. of

this part or may preclude defensible

modeling and prediction of long-term Impacts.

(l11 The disposal site must not be

located where nearby facilities or

activities could adversely impact the

ability of the site to meet the

performance objectives of Subpart C of

his part or significantly mask the

environmental monitoring program. lb) Disposal site suitability requirements for land disposal other

han near-surface (reserved).

I 61.51 Dbposalsft desW o d

SOsat.

(a) Disposal site design for nearsurface disposal. (1) Site design features must be

directed toward long-term Isolation and

avoidance of the need for continuing

active maintenaice.

(2) The disposal site design and

operation must be compatible with the

disposal site closure and stabilization

plan and lead to disposal site closure

that provides reasonable assurance that

the performance objectives of Subpart C

of this part will be met.

(3) The disposal site must be designed

to complement and improve the ability

of the disposal site's natural

characteristics to assure that the

performance objectives of Subpart C of

this part will be mt.

(4) Covers must be designed to

prevent water infiltration. to direct

precolating or surface water away from

the buried waste. and to resist

degradation by surface geologic

processes and biotic activity.

(5) Surface features must direct

surface water drainage away from

disposal units at velocities and

gradients which will not result in

erosion that will require ongoing active

maintenance in the future-

(6) The disposal site must be designed

to eliminate the contact of water with

waste during storage. the contact of

standing water with waste during disposal. and the contact of percolating

or standing water with wastes after disposal. (7) The disposal site shall be used

exclusively for the disposal of

radioactive wastes

(b) Disposal site design for other than

near-surface disposal [reserved).

I1S52 L A ddbposd facty operton

wd digposd *te dowxs.

(a) Nearsurface disposal facility

operation and disposal site closur

(1) Wastes designated as Class A

segregated. pursuant to I 11.5 must be

segregated from other wastes by placing

in disposal units which ae sufficiently

separated from other units so that there

is no interaction between them.

(2) Wastes designated as Class 9

stable. pursuant to i at1.5 shall be

disposed of in accordance with the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)

through (10) of this section.

(3) Wastes designated as Class C

intruder. pursuant to I61.5 must be

lisposed of so that the top of the waste

.s a minimumn of 5 meters below the

surface of the cover or must be disposed

of with natural or engineered barriers

that are designed to protect against an

inadvertent intrusion for at least 500

years. (4) Wastes must be emplaced In an

orderly manner that maintains the

package integrity during emplacement

and disposaL (5) Void spaces between waste

packages must be filled with earth or

other material to reduce future

subsidence within the fill

(6) Waste must be placed and covered in a manner that limits the gamma

radiation at the surface of the cover to

levels that are within a few percent above the natural background levels of

the site.

(7) The boundaries and locations of

each disposal unit (e.g. trenches) must

be accurately located and mapped by

means of a land survey. Near-surface

disposal units must be marked in such a

way that the boundaries of each unit

can be easily defined. Three permanent

suwey marker control points, referenced

to United States Geological Survey

(USGS) or National Geodetic Survey (NGS) survey control stations. must be

established on the site to facilitate

surveys. The USGS or NGS control

stations must provide horizontal and

vertical controls as checked against USGS or NGS record files.

(8) A buffcrzone of land must be maintained between any buried waste and the disposal site boundary. The buffer zone r~sha extend at least 100 feet

outward from the outermost waste

disposal units.

(9) Adequate closure and stabilization

measures must be carried out as each

disposal unit (e g each trench) is filled

and covered. (10) Active waste disposal operations must not iave an adverse effect on completed closure and stabilization

measures.

(b) Facility operations and disposal site closure for land disposal facilities

other than near-surface (reserved).

I61.0 Env1roMea montoiw

(a) At the time a license application Is

submitted. the applicant shall have

conducted a preoperational monitoring

program to provide basic environmental

data on the disposal site characteristics.

The applicant shall obtain information

about the ecology, meteorology, climate.

hydrology, geology, and seismology of

the disposal site. For those

characteristics that are subject to

seasonal variation, data must cover at

least a twelve month period.
. . I ,.i AA i I 'Vp"rloA, T111 9A_ IQtl il . bnosed Rules807 t 3897 IEvucinu ZO~WDO& I *.-- __ .- - 1.. J-*J - - , - - -- - -

(b) During the land disposal facility

site construction and operation, the

"censee shall maintain a monitoring

ogram. Measurements and -

ibservations must be made and

recorded to provide data to evaluate the

potential health and environmental

impacts during both the construction

and the operation of the facility and

enable the evaluation of long-term

effects and the need for mitigative

measures.,

(c) After the disposal site is closed.

the licensee responsible for post- operational surveillance of the disposal

site shall maintain a monitoring system

based on the operating history and the

closure and stabilization of the disposal

site. The monitoring system must be

capable of providing early warning of

migration of radionuclides from the

disposal site..

(d) The licensee must have plans for

taking corrective measures if migration

of radionuclides would incidate that the

performance objectives of Subpart C

would not be met

§ 61.4 Atsnatlv Equmnts for

de n and operaftora

The Commission may, upon request or

on its own initiative. authorize

provisions other than those set fh

i I Ei.l5 through 61.53 for the

segregation and disposal of wast

for the design and operation of a

disposal facility on a specific bai

finds reasonable assurance of

compliance with the performance

objectives of Subpart C of this pi

§ 61.55 Waith classficaton

Radioactive wastes are definei

within one of the following categ

(a) Class A segregated waste ii

that is segregated at the disposal

and disposed of with only minim

requirements on waste form and

characteristics and has the folloi

properties:- - (1) the radioisotope concentrat

does not exceed the values show

Column 1. Table L of this section

(2) the physical form and

characteristics must meet the ml,

requirements set forth in J 6I56(

(b) Class B stable waste is wai

must meet more rigorous requirei

on waste form to assure stability

disposal and has the following

properties:

(1) the radioisotope concentrat

exceeds the concentrations sbow

Column 1; and.

.. ab. .l

orth in

e and

land

sis. if it

irt.

d to fall

ories:

s waste

site

urn

exceed those shown in Column 2: and

(2) The physical form and

characteristics meet the minimum and

stability requirements set forth in

i 6156 of this part.

Id) Waste that has a radioisotope

concentration that exceeds the values

shown in Column 3. Table I of this

section is not generally acceptable for

near-surface disposal and shall not be

disposed of without specific Commission approval pursuant to

I 61.58 of this part.

*6s56 Waste harsctorwtc,

TOMIR I . 1 -

Ubw CObMM * 1'I 2' . . , cAkom 3 a

Ao 40ss Vw 5 s ...................- 700 7000 T N f ' U . ..................................... 4 0 W t0e W WU _hW W ffpE, i

C 1 Co0.........;...........-22 .............................. ..... ;.....----s....... 0e 7 220 08 22....POOEcs g Fpdce

1O60... .......... -5 .... ooo80 7................................0............... s ThOWNO 70 e

TcJ .. ;-O-0 ... 0S 0a' A.................. ........................ eon s a DM cas

C010 At4 0................................'............. 4 ' TCrt8 .................... .......... 03 3:0-

E U" .........:..................... - .. coa cow O0t O CA-We-8 0 0 84............................................ 84 el

CA-37.................. ..... ...... to 44 t0rO 7 Putt ~~~~.............. .- -. :......---- s ~ eo

Enm4.dthwdUawm..-........... '"0 04 00-4 004

hat&W orDsphtadwwim................005 C0s 005

* 11mM .n 1I h br OmA ao *d Im ba Abhoet gmn. Cm S swo p/aO OCmncftamwsam' whd, smwuug ut -s~ cmc .1i' -"Upciam' ' Mammon ewmmm br " wasw cm Hoe ia

* kdauftm mspow bys wN be bXmwd l a6pedlend e wr v bm g oaft Ti lmay Ad he a to Wm . as Od " be p Ad rgel, by VW UW.1m.1m to gm ThO tab-y gWo _ mum uam in *m43 pompa of wabwo be wo on Nw in4U a two6 520211 Of I

For4~s waim udi wo% a UKo P-0inun had On WAM S m 0.mIu mu VWis V S mumed by a bdhr ON 6n. O h.1,4 U deb~ WMnIu whh Cm be VW mine Ipt -y For inolpme W4 Wedg SW5. me mu bhm for st-saOhrum bowe O"Ma 6tpe UM we. or .0 OsM I

mhp SOW to it..<m: t Wmamf o w ar Q437 Wie Om boau P bomm Wm .& ge m" 01 . . Wm : _r1 1 _s , r -: .seMu . or .. tWgel -. fa a

VW canewmn

Po wams of mu dr bhapueV mu of OO Oa of an bo"O mu in s tomu .1bi U" tot eiMed Om hr "r W&. ulan

Counm.1hW m~y be mwgs A ow vm. of t peabaep Por a 55 90auu mO mu am.eaea 200.00 to asn'- By OW rAd. m.1S06.s . .d .3 of t. U or WM6. to .. 4333n.on 5 .W .e . a by mu Cwww ui C8060m OM be used M ca=qmu h Fnw-Suam dp~oh

(2) The physical form and requirements on waste form to a

characteristics of the waste must meet stability but also requires specHa

the minimum and stability requirements measures at the disposal facility

Iforth in I 61.B5 protect againit Inadvertent intru

_) Class C intruder waste Is waste. This class has the following pro

..at not only must meet more rigorous (1) The radioisotope concentri

ving (a) The following requirements are

-minimum requirements for all classes of

tion waste and are Intended to facilitate

mn In handling at the disposal site and provide and protection of health and safety.

(1) The waste must be packaged and

una the waste form and packaging must

[) that) meet all applicable transportation. steth requirements of the Commission set

fents forth in 10 CFR Part 71 and of the

after Department of Transportation set forth

in 49 CFR Parts 171-179, as applicable.

ion (2) Wastes must not be packaged for

m in disposal in cardboard or fiberboard boxes.- , - ' I%

(3) Waste containing liquids must be

packaged in sufficient absorbent

material to absorb twice the volume of

the liquid.

[(4) Waste must not be readily capable

of detonation or of explosive

* decomposition or reaction at normal

pressures and temperatures. or of

explosive reaction with water.

(5) Waste must not contain, or be

capable of generating. quantities of toxic

gases, vapors, or fumes harmful to

persons transporting. handling, or

disposing of the waste.

(6) Wastes must not be pyrophoric.

Pyrophoric materials contained in

wastes shall be treated. prepared. and

packaged to be nonflammable.

(7) Wastes in a gaseous form must be

ca epackaged at a pressure that does not

X em2 exceed one atmosphere at 20 C. Total n activity must not exceed 100 curies per

* Z _| container. --

r ad by (8) Wastes containing biological . be a. pathogenic. or infectious material must

be treated to reduce to the maximum

extent practicable the potential hazard.

a mas be (b) The requirements in this section

are intended to provide stability of the

isure waste for at least 150 years. Stability Is - Intended to assure that the waste does

not degrade and promote slumping.

tsio collapse. or other failure of the disposal in. unit and thereby lead to water pertie: infiltration. Stability Is also a factor in

itions limiting exposure to an inadvertent
---- J

Sam Federal Reglsth Vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24. 198. . Proposed Rules

3RMS Federal RezhtVol. 46. No. 142 I Friday. July 24. iga. * Proposed Rules

intruder. since it provides a recognizable

and nondispersible waste.

(1) Waste must have structural

stability. A structurally stable waste

forn will maintain its physical

dimensions within 5% and its form.

under the expected disposal conditions

of compressive load of So psi and

factors such as the presence of moisture.

and microbial activity, and internal

factors such as as radiation effects and

chemical changes. Structural stability

can be provided by the waste form

itself. processing the waste to a stable

form, or placing the waste in a disposal

container or structure that provides

stability after disposaL

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions In

I 61.56(aJ(3). liquid wastes. or wastes

containing liquid. must be converted

into a form that contains as little free

standing noncorrosive liquid as is

reasonably achievable, but in no case

shall the liquid exceed 1% of the volume

of the waste.

(3) Void spaces within the waste and

between the waste and its package must

be reduced to the extent practicable.

5 61.57 Labeling,

Each package of waste must be

clearly labeled to Identify whether it is

Class A segregfped: Class B stable, or

Class C intder, in accordance with

161.55.r

5 61.M Alternaftverequirements for weat

classlfIcation and clhermatettattcs.

The Commission may. upon request or

on its own initiative, authorize other

provisions for the classification and

characteristics of waste on a specific

basis, if. after evaluation, of the specific

characteristics of the waste, disposal

site, and method of disposal. it finds

reasonable assurance of compliance

with the performance objectives in

Subpart C of this part.

*615st.

(a) Land ownerships Disposal of

radioactive waste received from other

persons may be permitted only on land

owned In fee by the Federal or a State

government.

(Ib Institutional control. The land

owner or custodial agency shall carry

out an active institutional control

program to physically control access to

the disposal site following transfer of

control of the disposal site from the

disposal site operator. The active

control program must also include. but

not be limited to, carrying out an

environmental monitoring program at

the disposal site. periodic suveillance.

minor custodial care, and other

requirements as deterrmined by the

Commission and administration of funds

to cover the costs for these activities.

The period of active controls will be

determined by the Commission, but

active controls may not be relied upon

for more than 100 years following

transfer of control of the disposal site to

the owner.

Subpart E-Financa Assurancest

1.61 Appacantquiicetlonand

assuranceS.

Each applicant shall show that it

either possesses the necessary funds or

has reasonable assurance of obtaining

the necessary funds, or by a

combination of the two, to cover the

estimated costs of conducting all

licensed activities over the planned operating life of the project, including

costs of construction and disposaL

56162 Funding for disposal st closure

and stsbUtln.L

(a) The applicant shall provide

assurances prior to the commencement

of operations that sufficient funds will

be available to carry.out disposal site

closure and stabilization, including (1)

decontamination or dismantlement of

land disposal facility structures; and (2)

closure and stabilization of the disposal

site so that following transfer of the

disposal site to the owner, the need for

ongoing active maintenance is

eliminated and only minor custodial

care. surveillance, and monitoring are

required. These assurances shall be

based on Commission approved cost

estimates reflecting the Commission

approved plan for disposal site closure

and stabilization. The applicant's cost

estimates must take into account total

capital costs that would be incurred if

an independent contractor were hired to

perform the closure and stabilization

work.

(b) In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and expense the

Commission will accept financial

sureties that have been consolidated

with earmarked financial or surety

arrangements established to meet

requirements of other Federal or State

agencies and/or local governing bodies

for such decontamination closure and

stabilization. The Commission will

accept this arrangement only if they are

considered adequate to satisfy these

requirements and that the portion of the

surety which covers the closure of the

disposal site Is clearly Identified and

committed for use in accomplishing

these activities.

(cl The licensee's surety mechanism

will be reviewed by the Commission

annually to assure sufficient funds for

completion of the closure plan if the

work has to be performed by an

independent contractor.

(d) The amount of surety liability

should change In accordance with the

predicted cost of future closure and

stabilization Factors affecting closure

and stabilization cost estimates include:

inflation: increases In the amount of

disturbed land. changes in engineering

plans; closure and stabilization that has

already been accomplished and any

other conditions affecting costs. This

will yield a surety that is at least

sufficient at all times to cover the costs

of closure of the disposal units that are

expected to be used before the next

license renewal

(e) The term of the surety mechanism

must be open ended unless it can be

demonstrated that another arrangement would provide an equivalent level of

assurance. This assurance could be

provided with a surety mechanism

which is written for a specified period of

time (e.g. five years) yet which must be

automatically renewed unless the party

who issues the surety notifies the

beneficiary (the Commission) and the

principal (the licensee) not less than 90

days prior to the renewal date of its

intention not to renew. In such a

situation the licensee must submit a

replacement surety within 30 days after

notification of cancellation. If the

licensee fails to provide a replacement

surety acceptable to the Commission.

the Commission will collect on the

original surety.

In Proof of forfeiture must not be

necessary to collect the surety so that In

the event that the licensee could not

provide an acceptable replacement

surety within the required time, the

surety shall be automatically collected

prior to its expiration. The conditions

described above would have to be

clearly stated on any surety instrument

which is not open-ended, and must be

agreed to by all parties. Liability under

the surety mechanism must remain In

effect until the closure and stabilization

program has been completed and

approved by the Commission and the

license has been transferred to the site

owner.

Is) Financial surety arrangements generally acceptable to the Commission

include: surety bonds, cash deposits. certificates of deposit, deposits of

government securities, escrow accounts,

irrevocable letters or lines of credit.

trust funds, and combinations of the

above or such types of arrangements as

may be approved by the Commission.

However, self-insurance, or any

arrangement which essentially

constitutes pledging the assets of the

licensee, will not satisfy the surety
Federal 'Register Sol. 46. No. 142 j Friday. July 24, 1981 roposed Rules i 3809

requirement for private sector g ' following docketinl of an application' (1) The proposed activities are within

applicants since this provides no submitted under £ 81.20. a State or the scope of Commission statutory

idditional assurance other than that- tribal-governing body potentially - responsibility and the type and - i

vhich already exists through license affected a nearsurface disposal facility magnitude of impacts which the State or

requirements. - ttepooe ie may submit to the' tribe may bear are sufficient to justify'

Director a proposal for participation in their participation: and

g ffuin e cotit the review of the license application. A 1(2) The proposed activities will

Prior to the issuance of State or tribal governing body may also contribute productively to the licensing (a) pliat shall ofithe license, submit to the Director a proposal for review.

thet applicat ~shallprovide for participation in the review of any Commission review and approval a Subsequent application for license - (c) The decision of the Director will be cofyo a binding arrangement, such as rnwloamn et.-transmitted in writing to the Governor or

cop les.btenteapiatadte rnwlomnmn.the designated official of the tribal

dispoeal betwee tha t and he P for participation In the governing body. .'

sufficient funds will be varlable to - liensing process must be made in d) Upon the written request of the sufcetfnswllb vial o writing and must be signed by the, Govrno Uor the tribaln official anyth

cover the costs of monitoring, and any Governor of the State or the official deternon of the Dictor any

required maintenance during the oetinay be reviwd ytder this

Institutional control period. The binding b section may be reviewed by the

arrangement will be reviewed -ra a law - Commission. - - -

periodically by the Commission to (c) At a minimum proposals must

ensure that changes In inflation, contain each of the following Items of Sbpart G-Records, Reports, T

technology and disposal facility information and Inspeo -I

operations are reflected in the - (1) A general description of how the

arrangements. .*- ,. ; State or tribe wishes to participate in - £ 6.5 t ot reors rpor

(b) Subsequent changes to the binding the licensing process specifically ; and transfers.

arrangement specified in paragraph (a) identifying those issues it wishes to (a) Each licensee shal maintain any

of this section relevant to institutional - review. records and make any hreports in

control shall be submitted to the, (2) A description of material and connection with the licensed activities'

Commission for approval. - Information which the State or tribe as may be required by the conditions of

-: ,- - -- plans to submit to the Commission for the license or by the rules, regulations.

Subpart F-Participation by State consideration in the licensing process. A and orders of the Commission.

GovernMents and Indian Tribes tentative schedule referencing steps in - '

6. - - - - - - - the review and calendar dates for, - e w a

§ planned submittalslhould be included eations in this Part or by license

This subpart describes mechanisms ' 3)conditions must be maintained for a

trough which the Commission will -State or tribe proposes to perform for peiod specified by the appropriate

iplement a formal request from a State the Commission in support of the regulations in this chapter or by license

or Tribal government to participate In licensing process . condition. If a retention period is not,-

the review of a license application for a ( p otherwise specified. these records must

land disposal facility. Nothing in this plan t facii tate or an be maintained and transferred as a

subpart may be construed to bar the ,' citn participation, condition of license termination unless

State or tribal-governing body from. (5)A prelim at e o t ' the Commission otherwise authorizes

participating in subsequent Commission and extent of impact which the State their disposton.

proceedings concerning the license) Records whichmut ma

applcatin asproidedunde Fedral expects. should be a disposal facility bi c eod hc ms emitie application as provided under Federal located as pursuant to this Part may be the original law and If desired any .reques for or a reproduced copy of microfilm if this

re61c.71 copy or microfilm is capable (seminarso public meetings) or other .f producing a clear'and legible copy.

Upon request of a State or tribal ' - actions from the Coimbsion such as' - (d) If there Is a conflict between the

government body, the Director may -establishment of additional Public Comm;ssion's regulations in this part.

make available Commission staff to 'Document Rooms or exchange of State license condition, or other written

discuss with representatives of the State 'personnel under the Intergovernmental Commission approval or authorization

or tribal governing body Information Personnel Act. pertaming to the retention peiod for the ' submitted by the applicant, applicable -sm yeo eod h ogs Commoission egulatlons.licensing e - I retention period specified takes Cmiso euaon.lenig proposals.,. precedence. procedures:potential schedules. and the' -

type and scope of State activities In the (a) Upon receipt of a proposal ; (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)

license review permitted by' law. In : submitted in accordance with i 81.72, through (d) of this section. copies of. -

addition, staff will be made available t the Director will arrange for a meeting records of the location and the quantity

consult and cooperate with the State or between the representatives of the State ' of radioactive wastes contained in the

trba gvenig od i dveopng : or tribal governing body and the - - disposal site must be transferred upon

proposals for participation in the license Commission staff to discuss the 7 -license termination to the chief

review. - - . proposal and to ensure full and effective executive of the nearest municipality. participation by the State or tribe In the -the chief executive'of the county '' I si.2 FN* of pr i. for State Commission's license review. which the facility is located. the county

tibdt paro . -' (b) If requested by a State or tribal -- zoning board or land development and

'a) Following publication in the governing body. the Director may - - planning agency, the state governor and

Aeral Register of the notice of approve all or any part of a proposal if other State. local and Federal - - ' ' docketing. but no later than 120 days the Director determines tha - - governmental agencies as designated by
38100X Federal Register Vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24. 1981 Piroposed Rules - - -

the Commission at the time of license

termination.

(I) Each licensee shall comply with the

reporting requirements of 1 30.55 of this

chapter. I 40.64 of this chapter. and

1 70.53 and I 70.54 of Part 70 of this

chapter if the quantities or activities of

materials received or transferred exceed

the limits of these sections. Inventory

reports are not required for materials

after disposal.

(g) Each licensee authorized to

dispose of radioactive waste received

from other persons. shall. upon each

issuance of its annual financial report. if

any, including any certified financial

statements, file a copy thereof with the

Commission in order to update the

information base for determining

financial qualifications.

(h)(1) Each licensee authorized 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 of Part 20 of this

chapter. with copies to the Director of

the Office of Inspection and

Enforcement and the Director of the

Division of Waste Management.

USNRC. Washington. D.C. 20555.

Reports shall be submitted by the end of

the first calendar quarter of each year

for the preceding year. (2) the reports

shall include (I) specification of the

quantity of each of the principal

radionuclides released to unrestricted

areas in liquid and In airborne effluents

during the preceding year. (ii) the results

of the environmental monitoring

program. (lii) a summary of licensee

disposal site maintenance activities. (iv)

summary of activities and quantities of

radionuclides disposed of, (v) any

instances in which observed site

characteristics were different from those

described in the application for a

license, and (vi) any other information

the Commission may require If the

quantities of radioactive materials - released during the reporting period.

monitoring results. or maintenance

performed are significantly different

from those expected in the materials

previously reviewed as part of the

licensing action. the report must cover

this specifically. (i) Each licensee shall report in

accordance with the requirements of

I 70.52 of this chapter. (i) Any transfer of byproduct. source.

and special nuclear materials by the

licensee is subject to the requirements in

I 30.41 of Part 30 of this chapter. I 40.51

of Part 40 of this chapter. and I 70.42 of

Part 70 of this chapter. Byproduct.

source and special nuclear material

means materials as defined in these

Parts, respectively.

1 61.1 Tsts at aWd dsposal dfacte

(a) Each licensee shall perform. or

permit the Comriission to perform. any

tests as the Commission deems

appropriateror necessary for the

administration of the regulations in this

Part. Including tests of:

(1) Radioactive wastes and facilities

used for the receipt. storage, treatment.

handling and disposal of radioactive

wastes:

(2) Radiation detection and

monitoring instruments; and

(3) Other equipment and devices used

in connection with the receipt.

possession, handling, treatment, storage.

or disposal of radioactive waste.

61.82 Commison Inspections of land

dpul facltie

(a) Each licensee shall afford to the

Commission at all reasonable times

opportunity to inspect radioactive waste

and the premises. equipment.

operations, and facilities in which

radioactive wastes are received.

possessed. handled. treated, stored, or

disposed. dbo Each licensee shall make available

to the Commission for inspection, upon

reasonable notice, records kept by it

pursuant to the regulations in this

chapter. Authorized repesentatives of

the Commission may copy, for the

Commission's use, any record required

to be kept pursuant to this part.

161.33 Vlotains.

An injunction or other court order

may be obtained prohibiting any

violation of any provision of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954. as amended. or any

regulation or order issued thereunder. A

court order may be obtained for the

payment of a civil penalty Imposed

pursuant to section 234 of the Act for

violation of section 53.57.82 .3.81.82.

101, 103.104. 107. or 109 of the Act. or

section 206 of the Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974. or any rule.

The following amendments are also

made to existing parts of the regulations

in this chapter.

PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE

2. In I 2L101 paragraph (a){2). (b). and

(d) are revised to read as follows

12.101 Flngfdapplcaton.

(a) * (2) Each application for a license for a

facility will be assigned a docket

number. However. to alow a

determination as to whether an

application for a construction permit or

operating license for a production or

utilization facility is complete and

acceptable for docketing. it will be

initially treated as a tendered

application after It is received and a

copy of the tendered application will be

available for public inspection in the

Commission's Public Document Room.

1717 H Street. NW. Washington. D.C.

Generally, that determination will be

made within a period of thirty (30) days. * . . . . .

(b) Each application for a license to

receive radioactive waste from other

persons for disposal under Part 61 of

this chapter and the accompanying

environmental report shall be processed

in accordance with the provisions of this

paragraph.

(1) To allow a determination as to

whether the application or

environmental report is complete and

acceptable for docketing. it will be

initially treated as a tendered document.

and a copy will be available for public

inspection in the Commission's Public

Document Room 1717 H Street. NW.,

Washington. D.C. One original and two

copies shall be filed to enable this

determination to be made.

(i) Upon receipt of a tendered

application. the Commission will publish

in the Federal Register notice of the filed

application and will notify the

governors, legislatures and other

appropriate State, county, and muncipal

officials and tribal governing bodies of

the States and areas containing or

potentially affected by the activities at

the proposed site and the alternative

sites. The Commission will inform these

officials that the Commission staff will

be available for consultation pursuant to

I 81.71 of this chapter. The Federal

Register notice will note the opportunity

for interested persons to submit views

and comments on the tendered

application for consideration by the

Commission and applicant.

(ii) The Commission will also post a

public notice In a newspaper or.

newspapers of general circulation in the

affected States and areas summarizing.-

information contained in the applicant's

tendered application and noting the

opportunity to submit views and

comments.

(iii) When the Director of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards

determines that the tendered document

is complete and acceptable for -

docketing. a docket number will beassigned and the applicant will be;

notified of the determination. If it is

determined that all or any part of the

tendered document is incomplete and

therefore not acceptable for processing.

the applicant will be informed of this

determination and the aspects in which

the document is deficient.

(2) With respect to any tendered

document that is acceptable for
Federal Registet- . Vol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. luly 24. 19BV hroposed Rules 36101

docketing. the applicant will be in the same manner as for the initial (e) The Secretary will give timely requested to ({) submit to the Director of application and environmental report. - notice of the hearing to all parties and to

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (5) The Director of Nuclear Material other persons. if any, entitled by law to

such additional copies as the regulations Safety and Safeguards will cause to be notice. The Secretary will transmit a

in Parts 61 and 51 of this chapter require. published in the Federal Register a #*notice of hearing on an application for a

(ii) serve a copy on the chief executive notice of docketing which identifies the facility license or for a license for

of the municipality In which the waste Is State and location of the proposed receipt of waste radioactive material

to be disposed of or. if the waste Is not waste disposal facility and will give from other persons for the purpose of

to be disposed of within a municipality. notice of docketing to the governor of disposal under Part e1 of this chapter or

serve a copy on the chief executive of that State and other officials listed in for a license to receive and possess the county in which the waste isnto be paragraph (b)(3) of this section and, in a high-level radioactive waste at a

disposed of (iii) make direct distribution reasonable period thereafter, publish in geologic repository operations area

of additional copies to Federal, State. the Federal Register a notice pursuant to pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter to the

Indian Tribe. and local officials in I 2.105 offering opportunity for a hearing governor or other appropriate official of

accordance with the requirements of to the applicant and other affected the State and to the chief executive of

this chapter and written instructions persons. the municipality in which the facility Is

from the Director of Nuclear Material . . . . * to be located or the activity Is to be

Safety and Safeguards and (iv) serve a Id) The Dirctor of Nucear Reactor conducted or. if the facility is not to be

notice of availability of the application Regulation or Director of Nuclear located or the activity conducted within

and environmental report on the chief Material Safety and Safeguards as a municipality to the chief executive of

executives or governing bodies of the appropriate. will give notice of the the county (or to the Tribal organization. municipalities or counties which have of the public health and idocketng if it is to be so located or conducted

been identified in the application and ' safety common defense and security within an Indian reservation).

environmental report as the location of and environmental parts of an S. Section 2.105(a)(2) is revised to read

all or part of the alternative sites if application for a license for a facility to as follows:

copies are not distributed under the Governor or other appropriate paragraph (b)X2)ii) of this section to the official of the State in which the facility o . - : 

executives or bodies. All distributed is to be located or the activity is to be (a) ;

copies shall be completely assembled - conducted and will cause to be (2) A )icense for receipt of waste

documents identified by docket number. -,Pubshed in the Federal Register a radioactive material from other persons - Subsequently distributed amendments. notice of docketing of the application for disposal by the waste disposal. however. may include revised pages to ;which states the purpose of the licensee under Part el of this chapter. previous submittals and, in such cases, !application and specifies the locationat

the recipients will be responsible for which the proposed activity would be - a. Section 2.100 is amended by adding inserting the revised pages In complying conducted. - - a ew paragraph (d) to read as follows:

with the requirements of paragraph (b) . . . . . -:

of this section the applicant shall not

make public distribution of those parts 3. Section 2.103(a) is revised to read as 1 2 106 Notice of Issuance.

of the application subject to I 2.790(d). oowso

(3) The tenee ouetwilb 21-(d) The Director of Nuclear Material formay doketeneed uponrcumeit byll te - rouct, son sp c utari Safety and Safeguards will also cause to form ally upon docketed receipt by the byoc sred rd be published in the Federal Register Director of Nuclear Material Safety and a t No notice of. and will inform the State and

Safeguards of the required additional If the DirectorofNudear Reactor la)ocal officials or tribal governing body copies. Distribution of the additional ;Regulation or the Director of Nuclear specified in I 2.104(e) of any licensing copies shall be deemed to be complete' Material Safety and Safeguards, as' action with respect to a licse to

as of the time the copies are deposited -appropriate rind that an application for receive radioactive waste from other

in the mail or with a carrier prepaid for a byproduct. source'special nuclear epersons for disposal under Part 1 of

delivery to the designated addressees. material, or operator license complies this chapter or the amendment of such aThe date of docketing shall be the date with the requirements of the Act. the license for which a notice of proposed when the required copies are received Energy Reorganization Act and this - action has been previously published. by the Director of Nuclear Material chapter. he will issue a license. If the .7. Section 2.704 is amended by adding -

Safety and Safeguards. Within ten (10) license is for a facility or ilt is toa

days after docketing. the applicant shaU receive and possess high-level

submit to the Director of Nuclear radioactive waste at a geologic paragraphs (a) and (b) to read.

Material Safety and Safeguards a- repository operations area pursuant to I 264 I smeda dettcene clna of 

written statement that distribution of the Partn of this chapter. the Director of De alondteng b nceor arndmnt

additional copies to Federal. State, Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the -of Pistructsonprt orOperat- Indian Tribe, and local officials has - Director of Nuclear Material Safety and ^*n-'

been completed in accordance with.. Safeguards. as appropriate. ill inform 1(a) Etept as provided in pa phs

requirements of this section and written the State. Indian Tribe, and local (c). (d), and (e) of ths section. an initial

instructions furnished to the applicant officials specified in 2.104(e) of the decision directing the issuazice or - - :

by the Director of Nuclear Material - issuance of the license. - amendment of a construction permit. a

Safety and Safeguards. * * * * * construction authorization, or an - ,

(4) Amendments to the application - 4. Section 2.104(e) is revised to read las operating license shall be effective

and environmental report shall be filed - follows: immediately upon Issuance unless the

and distributed and a written statement presiding officer finds that good cause

'.hall be furnished to the Director of f 2.104 Notice OfbWi1 has been shown by a party wythe

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards * * * Initial decision should not become
38102 Federal Rezister . ol. 46. No. 142 / Friday. July 24. 1981 'i . roposed Rules

38102 Federal RefIslet. ol. 46. No. 142 I Friday. July 24. 1981 , - roposed Rules

immediately effective. subject to the

review thereof and further decision by

the Commission upon exceptions filed

by any party pursuant to I Z762 or upon

its own motion.

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs

(c). (d). and (e) of this section. the

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

or Director of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards, as appropriate.

notwithstanding the filing of exceptions. shall issue a construction permit, a

construction authorization, or an

operating license, or amendments

thereto, authorized by an Initial

decision, within ten (10) days from the

date of issuance of the decision.

(e) An initial decision directing the

issuance of a license under Part 61 of

this chapter (relating to land disposal of

radioactive waste) or any amendment to

such a license authorizing actions which

may significantly affect the health and

safety of the public. shall become

effective only upon order of the,

Commission. The Director of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards shall

not issue a license under Part 61 of this

chapter. or any amendment to such a

license which may significantly affect

the health and safety of the public, untilexpressly authorized to do so by the

Commission.

PART 19-NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS,

AND REPORTS TO WORKERS

INSPECTIONS

1 19.2 (Amendedl

8 Section 19.2 is amended by adding

"81." following `40.0."

f 19. 1Amended)

9. In 5 19.3. paragraph (d) is amended

by adding -61 following "40,0.am

PART 20-STANDARDS FOR

PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

I2CL2 lAmended)

10. Section 20.2 is amended by adding

"81.- following -40, SO.

120.3 lAmended)

11. In I 20.3 paragraph (a)(9) Is

amended by adding "61." following -40,

e6."

12. In I 20.301. paragraph (a) is

amended by adding BE1." following -40.

60." and paragraph (b) is revised to read

as follows:

f 0.31 Gen"a requiremrtL * * . . 0

lb) As authorized under § 20.302 or

Part 6e of this chapter. or * *. . 0

*20.302 IAmended

13. In 5 20.302. paragraph (b) Is

removed.

14. A new 5 20.311 is added to read as

follows:

520.311 Transferfor dtposaland

(a) Pupose. The requirements of this

section are designed to control transfers

and establish a manifest tracking system and supplement existing requirements

concerning transfers and recordkeeping.

(b) Each shipment of radioactive

waste to a licensed land disposal facility

must be accompanied by a shipment

manifest that contains the name.

address, and telephone number of the

person generating the waste as well as

the name. address, and telephone

number of the person transporting the

waste to the land disposal facility. The

manifest must also Indicate as

completely as practicable, the type of

waste: the waste volume and mass:

radionuclide identity and concentration:

total radioactivity; and chemical form.

The solidification agent must be

specified. Wastes classified as Class A

segregated, Class B stable, or Class C

intruder in I 61.5 of this part chapter

must be clearly ldenhtfied as such in the

manifest The total quantity of noted

isotopes identified in Table 1. Part S1 of

this chapter must be shown.

(c) Each manifest must include a

certification by the waste generator that

the transported materials are properly

classified, 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, An authorized

representative of the waste generator

shall sign and date the manifest.

(d) Any generating licensee who

transfers radioactive waste to a land

disposal facility or a licensed waste

collector or processor shall

(1) Prepare all wastes so that the

waste is classified according to 5 61.55

and meets the waste characteristics

requirements in I 8658 of this chapter;

(2) Label each package of waste to

identify whatever it s. Class A

segregated. Class B stable, or Class C

intruder waste, in accordance with

I 61.55 of this chapter.

(3) Conduct a quality assurance

program to assure compliance with

if 61.55 and 81.58 of this chapter. the

program must include management

audits;

(4) Prepare shipping manifests to meet

the requirements of 11 20.311 (b) and (c)

of this part:

(5) Forward a copy of the manifest to

the intended recipient, at the time of

shipment:

(6) Include one copy of the manifest

with the shipment:

(7J Retain a copy of the manifest until

receipt of waste is acknowledged: and.

(8) Investigate late or missing

shipments or any part of a shipment in

accordance with paragraph (h) of this

section.

(e) Any waste collector licensee who

handles only prepackaged waste shall:

(1) Acknowledge receipt of the waste

from the generator within one week of

receipt;

(2) Prepare a new manifest to reflect

consolidated shipments: the new

manifest shall serve as a listing or index

for the detailed generator manifests.

Copies of the generator manifests shall

be a part of the new manifest. The

collector licensee shall certify that

nothing has been done to the waste

which would invalidate the generator's

certification;

(3) Forward a copy of the new

manifest to the land disposal facility

operator at the time of shipment:

(4) Include the new manifest with the

shipment to the disposal site;

(5) Retain a copy of the manifest until

receipt of waste is acknowledged: and

(a) Investigate late or missing

shipments or any part of a shipment in

accordance with paragraph (h) of this

section.

(I) Any licensed waste processor who

treats or repackages wastes shall:

(1) Acknowledge receipt of the waste

from the generator within one -week of

receipt:

(2) Prepare a new manifest that meets

the requirements of paragraphs (b) and

(c) of this section. Preparation of the

new manifest reflects that the processor

is responsible for the waste.

(3) Prepare all wastes so that the

waste is classified according to 5 61.55

and meets the waste characteristics

requirements in 5 61.5 of this chapter;

(4) Label each package of waste to

Identify whatever it is. Class A

segregated, Class B stable. or Class C

intruder waste. in accordance with

I 61.5 of this chapter.

(5) A quality assurance program shall

be conducted to assure compliance with

15 61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter. The

program shall include management

audits:

(6) Forward a copy of the new

manifest to the disposal site operator or

waste collector at the time of shipment;

(7) Include the new manifest with the

shipment;
Federal Rezlst.. 'I Vol. 48, No. 142 / Friday. July 24. 1gt - Proposed Rules 38103

(8) Retain copies of original manifests I 20.401 Records of SwvsMdatlon 'Commission deierminei'will

and new manifests until receipt of the r fand dipo s5. significantly affect the quality of the

wastes is acknowledged. and ' * environment shall be filed at least 9

(9) Investigate late or missing (b) Each licensee shall maintain 'months to commencement of

shipments in accordance with paragraph records in the same units used is this 'construction Of the plant or facility in

(h) of this section. ' - part. showing the results of surveys which the activity will be conducted and

(g) The land dispdsal facility operator required by I m0301(b) monitoring shall be accompanied by any shall: -- - ,- -- - required by 125(b) and 2020(c) -Environmental Report required pursuant (1) Acknowledge to the shipper - and disposals made under I 20.302 to Part 51 of this chapter.

receipt of the waste within one week of 2o.o deleted 1 20304.'and Part 81 of 22. In' 30.33 paragraph (a)(5) is

receipt The shipper to be notified Is the - this chapter. revised to read as follows:

licensee who last possessed the waste (c)

and transferred the waste to the (3) Records of disposal Of licensed . 1 30 33 General requkimamts for _ssuane

operator. ' ' materials made pursuant to If 20 302 at of spef aicenses-.

(2) Following receipt and acceptance 20.303, deleted 1 20304 1: and Part 61 of

of a shipment of radioactive waste this chapter are to be maintained until (a)

accompanied by a manifest, record on the Commission authorizes their (5) In the case of an application for a the t dae hipmnt o mnlist disositon.license for the conduct of any activity, the shipment manifest the date of disposion - which the Commission determines will

receipt of the waste, the date of disposal ~,0 0 0significantly affect the quality of the

of the waste, the location in the disposal 16. Section 20.408 Is amended by environment, the Director of Nuclear

site, the condition of the waste packages adding a new paragraph (a)(S) to read as. Material Safety and Safeguards or his

as received, and any evidence of leaking follOw , designee. before commencement of

or damaged packages or radiation or - 20 -Rpork of p rfn nel Dorq ' construction of the plant or facility in

contamination levels in excess of limits on teo n of ork, which the activity will be conducted, oi'nnpoyment 

specified in DOT and Commission the basi Of information Wed and

regulationsc Tbe licensee shall ao (5) Receve radioactive waste from evaluations made pursuant to Part 51 Of

breoy describe any repackaging pother persons for disposal under part 51 this chapter. has concluded, after

operations of any of the waste packages of this chapter. weighing the environmentaL economic

included in the shipment, plus any other . . . . . technicaL and other benefits against Information required by the Commission environmental costs and considering

as a license condition: - - PART 21-REPORTING OF DEFECTS available alternatives. that the action

(3) Sign. date. and certify that the AND ONCOMPLINMCE called for is the Issuance of the ; transported materials have been proposed license.-with any appropriate

received, classified, handled, stored, and 121.2 lAmeNd conditions to protect environmental

disposed of in compliance with 17. Section 212 is amended by values. Commencement of construction

Commission regulations and all license inserting A1. after "40. GM' in the third prior to such conclusion shall be

conditions: , -line, and after '-A W' in the final line.' grounds for denial of a license to receive

(4) Maintain copies of all completed and possess byproduct material in such

manifests until the Commission 12123 (Amendedl

authorizes their disposition at transfer. 18 In 121.3. p aragraps (a)(3). (a) a- Pplantr facility A us inths r . . 2(I~ a) a-1(2).and(k)are mened. paragraph the term -COMmnencement of~ ad)1)(a a)(and nd()aeaedd construction" means'any clearing of

(5) Notify the shipper (Ie., the by adding "81," afte S V land, excavation. or other substantial

generator, the collector. or processor) 1 21.21 [Amended] action that would adversely affect the

and the Director of the nearest 1.Scon221Iam deby 'environment of a site. The term' does not

Commission Inspection and 9Setn2M saeddb easieepotoncsarras

Enforcement Regional Office listed In afn annes site exploration, toad s Appendix this prt Dof when aparagraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)flI): o ieepoato.brnst AppedixD a ofthi panwhe determine foundation conditions, or'

shipment has not arrived within 60 days PARTS 30-RULES OF GENERAL other preconstruction monitoring or ;

after the advance manifest was APPLICABILITY TO LICENSING OF testing to establish background

received. -YPRODUCT MATERIAL Information related to the suitability of

(h) Late or missing shipments must- the site or the protectionof- (1) Be investigated by the shipper if 20. Section 30.11(c) is revised to read environmental values of

the shipper has not received notification as follows:

of receipt within 20 days after transfer. 3a1 exas -orn

and *, PART 40-LICENSING OF SOURCE

12) Be traced and reported.he th(c) Exce'pt as s.ipeificallyprovided in MATERIAL - - investigation shall icuetaigte Pr lo hsCatr n iesei

shipment and filing a report with the exempt from the reCuarements Of this - . In 40.14. pragraph (c) is revised

nearest Commission Inspection and eart to the exent that Itsactivities are to read as follows:

Enforcement Regional Office listed in subject to the requiremeints of Partso 6040.14 Specifticxemptions.

Appendix D of this part. Each licensee and 6e of this chapter. who conducts a trace Investigation shall .21 In I 33Z paragraph (13) is

file a written report with the nearest amended to rad as follows (c) Except as specifically provided in

Commission's Regional office within 2 -Part 61 of this chapter any licensee is

weeks of completion of the 5 3032 APPICAtiofi or sPeefO 1Scens exempt from the requirements of this;

investigation. - * * * * part to the extent that its activities are

15. In I 20.401. paragraphs (b) and (f) An application for a license for the subject to the requirements of Parts 60

(c)(3) are revised to read as follows: conduct of any activity which the and 81 of this chapter.
_^. tl~vl D - .^. 11 AA vrn ii, I Prielsv- hitly 2. 19si i. .jposed Rules J usrudet-aa 10*12tlU I -1 .-.. ,. J-4 ,. -

24. In 5 40.31. paragraph (1Oi revised

to read as follows:

140.3 Applcations for specifICckenses. * . . . a

(I) An application for a license to

possess and use source material for

uranium milling, production of uranium

hexafluoride. or for the conduct of any

other activity which the Commission

determines will significantly affect the

quality of the environment shall be filed

at least 9 months prior to

commencement of construction of the

plant or facility in which the activity

will be conducted and shall be

accompanied by any Environmental

Report required pursuant to Part 51 of

this chapter. * . . * a

25. In 140.3Z paragraph (e) is revised

to read as follows:

5 40.3 General requirenfts for iossuance

of specifi cnhew s. * . * a

(e) In the case of an application for a

license to possess and use source and

byproduct material for uranium milling.

production of uranium hexafluoride. or

for the conduct of any other activity

which the Commission determines will

significantly affect the quality of the

environment the Director of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards or his

designee. before commencement of

construction of the plant or facility in

which the activity will be conducted. on

the basis of informstion filed and

evaluations made pursuant to Part 51 of

this chapter. has concluded. after

weighing the environmental, economic.

technical and other benefits against environmental costs and considering

available alternatives. that the action

called for is the issuance of the

proposed license, with any appropriate

conditions to protect environmental

values Commencement of construction

prior to such a conclusion shall be

grounds for denial of a license to

possess and use source and byproduct

material in such plant or facility. As

used in this paragraph the term

'commencement of construction" means

ny clearing of land. excavation. or

)ther substantial action that would

idversely affect the environment of a

tie. The term does not mean site

!xploration. necessary roads for site

:xploration. borings to determine

oundation conditions, or other

reconstruction monitoring or testing to

*stqblish background information

elated to the suitability of the site or

he protection of environmental values. a * . *

PART 51I-UCENSING AND

REGULATORY POLICY AND

PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

25. In I 51.5, paragraphs (a)(6) and

(b)(4HMiii are revised, paragraph (b)(8) is

amended by inserting "a1 following

"50. e0.. and (d)(3) is amended by inserting "el" following "50. 60" The

revised paragraphs read as follows.

I51.5 Actlons requiring preparation of

snvtonenwital knpact state-m.ns negativ -a ipact _ent 

appreisals; actions excluided

(a) * * (6) Issuance of a license authorizing receipt and disposal of radioactive

waste from other persons under Part 61

of this chapter.

fb) . . .

(4) * * - (Il) Authoriisng receipt and disposal of radioactive waste from other persons under Part 61 of this chapter.

5 51X70 (AntedI

27. In £ 51.40. paragraph (c) is

amended by inserting 'A2" after "3040.

PART 70-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF

SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

28. In 5 70.14. paragraph (c) is

amended to read as follows;

170.14 Specflc exemplIons. * * * * *

(c) Except as specifically provided in

Part 61 of this chapter. any licensee Is

exempt from the requirements of the

regulations in this part to the extent that

its activities are subject to the

requirements of Parts 60 and e1 of this

chapter.

29. In I 70.2 paragraph (f) Is revised

to read as follows:

170.31 FD * * * *

(in An application for a license to

possess and use special nuclear material

for processing and fuel fabrication.

scrap recovery or conversion of uranium

hexafluoride, or for the conduct of any other activity which the Commission

determines will significantly affect the

quality of the environment shall be filed

at least 9 months prior to

commencement of constrution of the

plant or facility in which the activity will be conducted. and shall be

accompanied by an Environmental

Report required under Part Si of

this chapter. * * . * *

30. In 1 70.23 paragraph (a)(7) Is

revised to read as follows:

70.23 Reuoirnt for the approval of

(a)

(7) Where the proposed activity Is

processing and fuel fabrication, scrap

recovery, conversion of uranium

hexafluoride. or any other activity. which the Commission determines will

significantly affect the quality of the

environment the Director of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards or his

designee. before commencemeot of

construction of the plant or facility in

which the activity will be conducted. on

the basis of information filed and

evaluations made pursuant to Part 51 of

this chapter. has concluded, after

weighing the environmentaL economics

technical and other benefits against environmental costs and considering. available alternatives, that the action

called for Is the issuance of the

proposed license with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental

values. Commencement of construction

prior to such conclusions shall be

grounds for denial to possess and use

special nuclear material in such plant or

facility. As used In this paragraph the

term "commencement of construction"

means any clearing of land. excavation.

or other substantial action that would

adversely affect the environment of a

site. The term does not mean site

exploration. necessary roads for site

exploration. borings to determine

foundation conditions, or other

preconstruction monitoring or testing to

establish background information

related to the suitability of the site or

the protection of environmental values.

PART 73-lHYSICAL PROTECTION OF

PLANTS AND MATERIALS

31. In 5 73.1. paragraph (b)(i)(iii) is

revised to read as follows:

573.1 Purpose mnd scope. * * * *

(b)~

(1)

(lii) the physical protection of special nuclear material by any person who.

pursuant to the regulations in parts 61

and 70 of this chapter. possesses or uses

at any site or contiguous sites subject to

the control by the licensee, formula

quantities of strategic special nuclear

material or special nuclear material of

moderate strategic significance or

special nuclear material of low strategic

significance.

* * * * a
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 142 Friday, July 24. 195t I Proposed Rules 3810s

PART 170-FEES FOR FACILITIES

AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND

OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES

UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF

1954, AS AMENDED'

32. Section 170.2 is revised to read as

follows:

I10T" scope

Except for persons who apply for or

hold the permits. licenses, or approvals

exempted in 1170.11. the regulations in

this part apply to a person who is an

applicant for, or holder of. a specific

byproduct material license issued

pursuant to Parts 30 and 32-35 of this

chapter. a specific source material

license issued pursuant to Part 40 of this

chapter. a specific materials license

issued under Part 61 of this chapter, 

a

specific special nuclear material license

Issued pursuant to Part 70 of this

chapter. a specific approval of spent fuel

casks and shipping containers issued

pursuant to Part 71 of this chapter. 

a

specific request for approval of sealed

sources and devices containing

byproduct material, source material, or

special nuclear material, or a production

or utilization facility construction permit

and operating license issued pursuant to

Part 50 of this chapter. to routine safety

and safeguards inspections of a licensed

person. to a person who applies for

approval of a reference standardized

design of a nuclear steam supply system

or balance of plant, for review of a

facility site prior to the submission of an

application for a construction permit, for

review of a standardized spent fuel

facility design, and for a special project

review. which the Commission

completes or makes whether or not in

conjunction with a license application

on file or which may be filed.

No-Amnendments to all prts are issued

pursuant to citations of authority presently

codified or. In the case of10 CFR Part 61. as

set out after the list of sections in the new

Part e1.

Dated at Washington. D.C. this 21st day of

July 1961.

For the US. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Sagmu J. a Cm.

Secretary ofthe Commission.

IlR Doc ss-3n4w rAWn 7-n341: WMS eel

SLIGCODE700n .
NRC i~on& 335 EOTUERxwbWC RC- u3X U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 REPORTNUMBER St.Pbr WC)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0782 Vol. 1

TITLE AND SUBTITLE zo0d Vo~ NMA. if opronam) 2. ILease blank

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61:

'Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive 3 RECIPIENTSACCESSIONNo.

Waste", Summary

7. AUTHOR I) 5 DATE REPORT COMPLETED

NRC taffMONTH IYEAR NRC Staff Sept. 1981

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS Blocku Zip Code) DATE REPORT ISSUED

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Manage- MONTH YEAR

ment, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Sept. 1981

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 6 kLea blank)

a rLe~ae b/ink

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS linchode Z4p Code)

0. PROJECTITASICJwORK UNIT NO

Same as 9. 11 CONTRACT NO

13. TYPE OF REPORT PE`IOD COVERIED lincluawe vaos/

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 (Leav "lanM)

16. ABSTRACT OO worm ev Aen)

The four volume draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is prepared to guide and

support publication of a proposed new regulation, 10 CFR Part 61, for the land disposal of

low-level radioactive waste. The analysis in the DEIS include a systematic analysis of a

broad range of alternatives relating to the form and content of waste, the engineering

design of disposal facilities, the method of operation of the facilities, institutional

controls, financial assurances, and administrative and procedural requirements. From the

analysis, four main performance objectives are established in the proposed regulation relating to (1) minimizing long-term social commitment and costs, (2) minimizing long-term

environmental releases, (3) minimizing long-term impacts to humans potentially inadvertently intruding into disposed waste, and (4) assuring short-term operational safety.

Based upon the analysis and overall performance objectives, a number of technical,

financial, procedural, and administrative requirements are also developed.

17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17 DESCRIPTORS

low-level waste financial assurances

land disposal institutional controls

social commitment radioactive waste

groundwater migration disposal technologies

inadvertent intrusion cost-benefit analysis

10 CFR Part 61

waste form

t7b IDENTIFIERStOPEN-ENDED TERMS

IS AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19 SECURITY CLASS fraosowpoj 21 NO OF PAGES

Unclassified 68

20 SECURITY CLASS fT.spow) 22 PRICE Unlimited Unclassified s

'VNC FORM 33S 7 771