2

• Reprocessing facility considerations

– Storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF)

– Management of high-level waste (HLW)

– Clarify low-level waste (LLW) materials

– Control and monitoring of effluents

• Regulatory goals

– Develop a regulatory framework to license an SNF reprocessing 

facility that is safe and secure

– Resolve high priority technical issues that support rulemaking for 

reprocessing

Topic Overview
3

• Gap 2: Independent Storage of HLW

• Gap 3: Waste Incidental to Reprocessing

• Gap 15: Waste Confidence

• Gap 16: Waste Classification

• Gap 19: Effluent Controls and Monitoring

Gaps Discussed
4

• New regulations needed for storage of commercial HLW from 

reprocessing

• Current regulations allow commercial SNF storage, but not HLW 

storage, at licensed reactors or independent storage installations

• Legacy of monitored retrievable storage program for HLW

Gap 2 Waste Storage: Issue
5

• General license authority similar to nuclear power plants 

(Parts 50 & 72)

• Regulatory requirements parallel those used for SNF storage

– General design criteria (new Part 7x)

– Applicable Part 50, Appendix F (new Part 7x)

– General license (revised Part 72, Subpart K)

– Certified cask (revised Part 72, Subpart L)

Gap 2 Waste Storage: 

Proposal
6

• Incorporate all requirements into new Part 7x

– Part 72 rulemaking still needed

• Concerns

– Ensure waste removed from site

– Ensure safe onsite storage

Gap 2 Waste Storage: 

Alternatives
7

• Need for a government plan to deal with nuclear waste storage and 

disposal

• Concern about adding additional reprocessing waste to current 

waste inventory

Gap 2 Waste Storage: 

Stakeholder Input
8

• What wastes resulting from reprocessing would be considered HLW 

or LLW?

• HLW is “highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of 

spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in 

reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste 

that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations.” (Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended)

Gap 3 Incidental Waste: 

Issue
9

• NRC staff believes reprocessing wastes that are not “highly 

radioactive” can be safely disposed of in a near-surface disposal facility 

if requirements for disposal specified in 10 CFR Part 61 are met.

• Need to develop a practicable approach to distinguish

– Highly radioactive materials that require deep geologic disposal

– Lower activity materials that could be safely disposed in a nearsurface facility that met the radioactive disposal requirements of 

Part 61

Gap 3 Incidental Waste: 

Proposals
10

1. Seek clarification of “highly radioactive” and “in sufficient 

concentrations” from Congress

• Add to NRC proposed legislative agenda

• Timeliness with Part 7x rulemaking?

2. Clarify through rulemaking the terms

• “Highly radioactive”

• “Sufficient concentrations”

3. Take no action

Gap 3 Incidental Waste: 

Proposals
• Include definition of “Waste Incidental to Recycling (WIR)”

– Added to clarify what would not be HLW 

– Derived from Commission decision regarding West Valley 

(67 FR 5003) and National Defense Authorization Act of 2005

11

Gap 3 Incidental Waste: 

Stakeholder Input
12

• NRC has determined that SNF from any reactor can be stored safely 

and without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years 

beyond the licensed life for operation (75 FR 81032)

• Can NRC staff make a generic finding of no significant environmental 

impacts for the long-term storage of HLW from reprocessing?

• Or will applicants need to address these impacts as part of their 

environmental report?

Gap 15 Waste Confidence: 

Issue
13

• Applicant will need to evaluate environmental impacts from HLW 

storage

– Should consider the post-licensed-life timeframe evaluated for 

SNF in the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule: 60 years after 

licensed life

• NRC staff would evaluate the environmental impacts of the long-term 

HLW storage in its environmental assessment or environmental 

impact statement 

Gap 15 Waste Confidence: 

Proposal
14

• Expand the existing Waste Confidence Rule in 10 CFR 51.23

– Confidence a licensed facility can safely manage HLW

– Storage of HLW might be bounded by SNF storage

• Concerns

– 1984 rule preceded by decades of reactor licensing

– Insufficient technical information on HLW storage

– Casks not certified for HLW storage

Gap 15 Waste Confidence: 

Alternative
• A facility license application will address environmental impacts of 

storage of solidified HLW

• Reprocessing increases waste volume (versus not reprocessing) and 

would therefore have implications for waste confidence

15

Gap 15 Waste Confidence: 

Stakeholder Input
16

• Some radionuclides in reprocessing wastes might not be in 10 CFR 

61.55 classification tables

– Examples: krypton-85, certain noble metals, and some isotopes 

from the lanthanide series

• Would default to Class A waste and need not require stabilization, but 

may not be suitable for near-surface disposal at some sites under 

Part 61

Gap 16 Waste Classification: 

Issue
17

• Issue is now part of task for NRC staff to consider a comprehensive 

revision to 10 CFR Part 61

– SECY-10-0165

• Alternatives being considered

– Risk inform Part 61 waste classification framework

– Comprehensive revision to Part 61

– Site-specific waste acceptance criteria

– International alignment

– Rulemaking only for unique waste streams

(SECY-08-0147)

Gap 16 Waste Classification: 

Proposal
• Overall view that treatment of large quantities of radionuclides, which 

were not discussed in the EIS for Part 61, will be needed

• Some views that the rule on low-level waste rule needs to be 

rewritten before a reprocessing plant can be considered

• Support for developing a hazards-based approach to classifying 

waste

18

Gap 16 Waste Classification: 

Stakeholder Input
19

• Regulations needed for effluent monitoring and control for 

reprocessing facilities because of increased source term and greater 

potential for emissions 

• Radionuclides in potentially mobile forms such as liquids and gases

• Isotopes of concern include krypton-85, hydrogen-3 (tritium), 

iodine-129 and carbon-14

Gap 19 Effluents: 

Issue
20

• Use 10 CFR Part 50 regulations as basis for developing 

requirements

• Consider developing criteria similar to those in 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I, which provide numerical guidance in meeting as low as 

reasonably achievable (ALARA) requirements

– Need risk-informed, performance-based approach to determining 

release limits

Gap 19 Effluents: 

Proposal
21

• NEI White Paper: Similar to NRC approach; derive regulations from 

existing Part 50 requirements

• ACNW&M letter to Chairman Klein (ADAMS No. ML072840119): 

Recommended that NRC should hold interagency discussions with 

EPA on whether

– Existing release limits for krypton-85 and iodine-129 need to be 

reexamined to reflect current technology and

– Release limits need to be established for tritium and carbon-14 

• Consider using aged (e.g., greater than 5 years) SNF to reduce 

releases of krypton-85 and tritium

Gap 19 Effluents: 

Alternatives
• Requirements should be up to date with latest radiation protection 

science 

• Applicants would not want fuel aging or siting attributes specified by 

regulatory requirements

• Reasonable to impose limits on certain radionuclides due to 

collective impacts

• Siting important

• Individual radionuclides releases should be considered

22

Gap 19 Effluents: 

Stakeholder Input
23

• Integrated waste management strategy

– Require safe onsite storage of SNF and HLW

– Plan for appropriate disposal pathways

– Establish confidence in longer term waste storage

– Ensure appropriate treatment of low-level wastes

– Develop criteria for effluent monitoring and control

Gap Integration
24

• Should storage of solidified HLW from reprocessing be regulated as 

part of the general license for a potential reprocessing facility (similar 

to a nuclear power plant)?

• Should NRC establish the amount of SNF that could be stored at a 

reprocessing facility?

• What waste disposal options should NRC consider for the 

management of waste generated by a commercial SNF reprocessing 

facility?

Questions
25

• Should potential radionuclides in reprocessing waste be incorporated 

directly into Part 61.55 classification tables?

• Would using site-specific waste acceptance criteria be an 

appropriate approach for disposal of low activity reprocessing 

wastes?

• Should Part 50, Appendix I-type regulations regarding ALARA be 

developed?

• Should NRC, in coordination with EPA, develop release limits for 

carbon-14 and tritium?

Questions