POLICY ISSUE 

INFORMATION 

December 31, 2009 SECY-09-0188

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director of Operations 

SUBJECT: ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE NEED FOR RULEMAKING AND/OR 

 REGULATORY GUIDANCE ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE 

WASTE STORAGE 

PURPOSE: 

This review reaffirms the staff’s previously stated position that rulemaking related to extended 

interim low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) storage is unnecessary. It also serves to inform and 

update the Commission regarding the staff’s efforts to collect information about extended interim 

storage of LLRW; the staff’s continuing efforts to solicit stakeholder input; and the staff’s 

intention to draft updated storage guidance for all licensees if limitations on LLRW disposal 

access continue beyond Calendar Year (CY) 2010. 

SUMMARY: 

As stated in SECY-06-0193, “Annual Review of the Need for Rulemaking and/or Regulatory 

Guidance on Low-Level Waste Storage,” dated September 6, 2006, (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML061730187), staff considers rulemaking to address extended interim storage of LLRW 

unnecessary. The current regulatory framework provides an adequate basis for storing 

radioactive material, including radioactive waste. Staff will continue its efforts, as outlined in last 

year’s annual update, SECY-08-0124, “Annual Review of the Need for Rulemaking and/or 

Regulatory Guidance on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage,” dated August 29, 2008, 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML081970503), to review, update as necessary, and consolidate 

regulatory guidance related to extended interim storage of waste. There have been several 

emerging issues during the past year that reinforce the need for this effort. These issues 

CONTACT: James A. Shaffner, FSME/DWMEP 

 (301) 415-5496 
The Commissioners 2 

include, but are not limited to, the admission of contentions related to the management of LLRW 

in a number of new reactor licensing proceedings and concerns regarding the financial viability 

of some materials licensees with stored radioactive material that has no disposal pathway. 

BACKGROUND: 

In a Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-03-0223, “Rulemaking Plan: Assured Isolation 

Facilities,” dated January 29, 2004, (ADAMS Accession No. ML040290568), the Commission 

directed staff to provide an annual update on the need for regulations or regulatory guidance 

related to extended interim storage of LLRW. In 2005, staff advised the Commission that 

regulations specific to extended interim storage of LLRW were unnecessary and that existing 

guidance was sufficient. In SECY-06-0193, staff maintained its position that the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) regulatory framework was sufficient for regulation of LLRW 

storage. However, the staff informed the Commission of its intention to review and possibly 

update storage guidance. Staff cited the age of the guidance and the increased likelihood that 

storage issues were likely to become more relevant to many licensees due to the likely loss of 

access to the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (LLRWDF) as of July 

2008, as reasons for revisiting NRC’s LLRW guidance. Staff also advised the Commission that 

the initial focus would be on updated guidance for fuel cycle and materials licensees, which may 

be forced to store waste designated Class B, C, or Greater than Class C (GTCC). Staff noted 

that while utility licensees would be dealing with larger volumes of this type of waste, they 

already had the infrastructure and resources in place to manage extended interim storage so 

the need for updated guidance was less acute. Further, the staff was aware of an effort by the 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), to 

develop guidelines for operating interim on-site LLRW storage facilities. 

In its 2007 annual report, SECY-07-0183, “Annual Review of the Need for Rulemaking and/or 

Regulatory Guidance on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage,” dated October 22, 2007, 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072500106), staff outlined its process for reviewing, updating and 

vetting guidance for extended interim storage of LLRW for fuel cycle and materials licensees. 

Additionally in 2007, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste issued a white paper, 

NUREG-1853, “History and Framework of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Management in the United States” (ADAMS Accession No. ML0706006848). The NUREG 

provides a concise history of the genesis of radioactive waste disposal and the issues that are 

still extant. 

In the report last year, SECY-08-0124, staff informed the Commission of the completion and 

dissemination of Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2008-12, “Extended Interim Storage of LowLevel Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle and Materials Licenses” (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML073330725), as well as ongoing efforts to update two Inspection Procedures for fuel 

cycle and materials licensees related to low-level waste storage. These procedures, Inspection 

Procedure (IP) 84850, “Radioactive Waste Management-Inspection of Waste Generator 

Requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 61” (ADAMS Accession No. ML080720528) 

and IP 84900, “Low-Level Waste Storage” (ADAMS Accession No. ML080710243) were revised 

in December 2008. Staff also informed the Commission of continuing dialogue with internal and 

external stakeholders that are interested in the technical and regulatory aspects of extended 
The Commissioners 3 

interim storage of low-level radioactive waste. The purpose of this dialogue is to collect 

information necessary to help update and consolidate guidance related to extended interim 

storage of LLRW. 

DISCUSSION: 

In light of the closure of the Barnwell, South Carolina (SC) LLRWDF to LLRW generators in the 

36 States (plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) that are outside of the Atlantic LLRW 

Compact, nuclear utilities, fuel cycle facilities, and radioactive materials users have had to find 

storage solutions for their Class B and C LLRW. Generators in 11 States that comprise the 

Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts can dispose of Class A, B, and C LLRW at the 

Richland, Washington (WA) LLRWDF. While the loss of access to the Barnwell facility has 

resulted in a gradual increase in the volume of Class B and C LLRW requiring storage, both 

NRC and Agreement State licensees have continued to meet the challenge of safely and 

securely storing waste. The Energy Solutions, Clive, Utah LLRWDF continues to accept 

Class A LLRW from States not served by LLRW Compact facilities in SC and WA. 

Of the 104 operating nuclear power plant units, 14 are located in states within compacts with a 

LLRWDF that will continue to accept Class B and C waste. (This number will increase to 19 

when the newly licensed Waste Control Specialists disposal facility becomes operational to 

serve the Texas LLRW Compact (Texas and Vermont).) Plants that do not have a disposal 

outlet for Class B and C waste are likely to continue to accumulate waste at an annual rate of up 

to 200-250 ft3

/ per unit. This figure may be reduced over time as initiatives to reduce the volume 

of Class B and C waste produced during operations are implemented. 

On December 30, 2008, NRC staff issued RIS 2008-32 “Interim LLRW Storage at Reactor 

Sites,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML082190768), which both summarizes and reaffirms earlier 

guidance related to LLRW storage. The RIS also acknowledges a document prepared by the 

EPRI entitled “Guidelines for Operating an Interim On-Site Low-Level Waste Storage Facility”, 

Final Draft April 2008 (available ADAMS Accession No. ML081580270). The staff found the 

EPRI guidelines to be consistent with other NRC guidance, such as NUREG-0800, “Standard 

Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: Light Water 

Reactor Edition- Chapter 11, Radioactive Waste Management,” March 2007 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML070660036). In RIS 2008-32, the staff states that the EPRI guidelines report 

provides an acceptable method for recordkeeping, determining waste forms and waste 

containers, as well as monitoring and inspecting the extended long-term storage (herein 

referred to as extended interim storage) of LLRW. As noted previously, guidance for fuel cycle 

and materials licensees was issued in RIS 2008-12. 

The lack of disposal access has recently become an issue in the licensing of new reactors. 

Intervenors contend that uncertainties regarding the availability of disposal of Class B and C 

LLRW will require new facilities to provide for storage of LLRW for far longer than anticipated in 

Safety Analyses. Both safety and environmental concerns are cited. In one case, the 

Commission reversed an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board order to admit such a contention 

(i.e., CLI-09-03 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090480541)). But in several recent orders 

(e.g., CLI-09-16 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092120239)), such contentions have been admitted 
The Commissioners 4 

without reversal1, while others have been largely rejected with only narrow scope to those

portions admitted. While it is outside the applicant’s purview to “solve” the LLRW disposal 

issue, it is becoming clear that the applicants' management of Class B and C LLRW for 

significant time periods is an appropriate issue for consideration by the staff and the applicants. 

As the majority of recent combined license applications have no clearly defined disposal 

pathway for Class B and C LLRW, it will be important for the staff to monitor this issue and 

determine if additional guidance may be needed. 

There are approximately 19,600 materials licensees in 37 Agreement States and 3,000 

materials licensees in 13 non-Agreement States and other U.S. territories and possessions 

under NRC jurisdiction. While most of these licensees generate only Class A waste, a 

significant number do generate Class B and C LLRW and will be required to deal with the loss 

of disposal capacity for their Class B and C waste. The most likely waste streams appear to be 

radioactive sealed sources and liquids containing relatively long-lived isotopes resulting from 

radiochemical production. Total annual volumes are approximately 1,000 ft3

. 

It is anticipated that fuel cycle facility and materials licensees can effectively manage extended 

interim storage of Class B and C LLRW for the near-term. Fuel cycle facilities have the 

infrastructure and resources to do this, while materials licensees produce a much smaller 

volume of Class B and C LLRW. But licensees that produce liquid Class B or C waste, 

licensees undergoing decommissioning, or licensees relocating their facilities may have 

difficulties managing their Class B and C LLRW. 

The NRC staff continues to be involved in the discussion of sealed source disposal and security. 

The staff continues to interact with the Group on Recovery and Disposition Options for Disused 

Radioactive Sealed Sources, Activation/Reconstitution of Radiation Source Security Task Force 

and GCC Focus Group on Recovery and Disposition Options for Disused Radioactive Sealed 

Sources. The working groups and task force participation provides an opportunity for the staff 

to be continuously engaged with the issues. Also, the National Nuclear Security Agency is in 

the process of collecting and storing certain radioactive sealed sources as part of its off-site 

source recovery program. This provides an avenue to retrieve sealed sources. 

The NRC staff has prepared a communication plan that discusses some of the challenges and 

cites the guidance associated with the extended interim storage of Class B and C LLRW. The 

plan was provided to all State Radiation Control Program Directors and State Liaison Officers 

on November 19, 2008. 

 

1 In CLI-09-03 the Commission’s decision to reverse the Licensing Board dealt with the contention that focused on 

the regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 that govern LLRW disposal, whereas the contention at issue in CLI-09-6 concerned 

10 CFR Parts 20 and 53. See CLI-09-16, fn.8.
The Commissioners 5 

The staff also developed a work plan which identified several issues (discussed below) related 

to extended interim LLRW storage that may be included in future guidance. The work plan also 

discussed the need for continuing dialogue with both internal and external stakeholders. The 

work plan was distributed to other affected headquarters and regional offices in February 2009. 

On October 7, 2009, the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs (FSME) staff held a meeting to gather stakeholder comments about the effect of the 

loss of LLRW disposal access on radioactive material users in academic and medical research. 

While no one cited the need for additional guidance on aspects of storage, some participants 

did express concerns about the cost and inconvenience of extended interim LLRW storage. 

Some also cited the need to convert facilities earmarked for other, more productive uses into 

LLRW storage facilities. Participants also cited security and worker exposure concerns. A 

summary of the October 7 meeting is available for review (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092880748). 

FSME staff will continue to coordinate with headquarters offices including the Offices of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and New Reactors to ensure the 

identification and dissemination of any common issues associated with extended interim storage 

of LLRW. If security issues are identified, the Office of Nuclear Materials and Incident 

Response will be consulted. Staff will continue to seek input from regional inspection personnel 

regarding LLRW storage issues. 

The staff will continue to interact with Agreement State radiation control program officials to 

remain informed of any incremental problems or concerns arising from extended interim storage 

of LLRW by state radioactive materials licensees. This will be accomplished by participation in 

periodic Agreement State conference calls, as well as interaction with State officials at various 

annual conferences. 

The staff will also maintain a dialogue with representatives from key industry groups, such as 

the Council on Radiological and Radiopharmaceutical Manufacturers, NEI, Campus Radiation 

Safety Officers, and other representatives of medical and academic research interests. 

The staff will continue dialogue with large institutions that have unique storage issues related to 

the production of medical isotopes. 

There will also be a continuing dialogue at public meetings with licensees, industry 

representatives, state radiation control officials, and other stakeholders. The staff anticipates 

holding a number of meetings in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010; staff will also participate in other related 

meetings held by other government agencies and outside organizations. 

Staff Plans for Consolidation of Existing and Development of Supplemental Guidance: 

In the near term, the staff is preparing a vote paper to the Commission on the blending of lowlevel waste. The recommendations from the blending paper could determine a new direction in 

forming guidance or rulemaking on the blending of low-level waste. Addressing the blending 

issue could also lead the staff to update policy statements, such as the Policy Statement on 

Low-Level Waste Volume Reduction and further changes to the overall guidance associated 

with the management of LLRW. 
The Commissioners 6 

The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors has surveyed its member States 

regarding the disposition of radioactive sealed sources. Results of this survey are likely to 

provide some additional insight and perspective related to the need for additional guidance 

related to storage of LLRW.

Officials from several States have expressed the need for the development of centralized LLRW 

storage facilities. These facilities would allow regulatory authorities to store unwanted or 

“orphan” radioactive sources or material that would otherwise not be under regulatory control. It 

is likely that such facilities would be licensed and regulated by Agreement States, with possible 

technical assistance provided by NRC through extended interim storage guidance.

State officials have expressed concern about decommissioning of facilities with LLRW for which 

there is no disposal access. This suggests that a radioactive waste “possession only” license 

may be needed following decommissioning, to provide a means for continued regulatory 

oversight of LLRW requiring extended interim storage.

For licensees that will continue operations, but that possess radioactive material for which future 

use is questionable, it may be necessary to more clearly distinguish between useable 

radioactive material and material for which the licensee has no further use nor identifiable 

disposition pathway. For radioactive sources to which it applies, the National Source Tracking 

System may be helpful in addressing this issue. 

State officials have raised concerns about the capability of some licensees to provide financial 

assurance for end-of-useful-life disposition of their licensed materials. This has been the 

subject of a Financial Assurance Working Group that evolved from the implementation plan for 

the “2006 Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report,” August 2006 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML062190349). While the focus of the working group is on Category 1 and 2 

radioactive sealed sources, it is likely that the results of its efforts could inform guidance related 

to adequacy of financial assurance for other categories of stored LLRW. 

There has been recent anecdotal evidence that a few licensees are encountering financial 

difficulties for reasons other than radioactive waste management. But no matter the reason, 

licensee financial difficulties can create the potential for a licensee to lose control of radioactive 

material. Supplemental guidance may be necessary to train inspectors to recognize and identify 

problems regarding timeliness, overall business viability, and financial capability to manage and 

dispose of LLRW. 

The staff anticipates that continuing dialogue with stakeholders, as discussed above, may lead 

to other issues to be addressed in future LLRW storage guidance.
The Commissioners 7 

COMMITMENTS: 

The staff has committed to the following actions in this paper: 

1. Continue stakeholder interaction regarding any emerging issues that may result from the 

need for extended interim storage of Class B and C low-level radioactive waste. 

2. Continue to develop and compile detailed guidance related to extended interim storage of 

LLRW. This guidance could be integrated into a comprehensive NUREG on extended 

interim storage of LLRW. If the NUREG is deemed necessary, it will contain guidance for 

all licensees in one document. Preparation of the NUREG would be predicated on the 

current challenges related to access to LLRW disposal continuing throughout CY 2010. 

RESOURCES: 

The staff’s commitments in this paper are consistent with SECY-07-0180, “Strategic 

Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program,” dated October 17, 2007, 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML071350299). Staff estimates that approximately 0.3 FTE will be 

required for the effort discussed in this paper; these resources are included in the FY 2010 

budget. If during implementation staff identifies the need for additional resources beyond those 

already budgeted, then the staff will estimate the resources needed and consider them within 

the overall context of the add/shed process. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer has determined that its concurrence is not required. 

 /RA Martin J. Virgilio for/

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 
The Commissioners 7

COMMITMENTS: 

The staff has committed to the following actions in this paper: 

3. Continue stakeholder interaction regarding any emerging issues that may result from the 

need for extended interim storage of Class B and C low-level radioactive waste. 

4. Continue to develop and compile detailed guidance related to extended interim storage of 

LLRW. This guidance could be integrated into a comprehensive NUREG on extended 

interim storage of LLRW. If the NUREG is deemed necessary, it will contain guidance for all 

licensees in one document. Preparation of the NUREG would be predicated on the current 

challenges related to access to LLRW disposal continuing throughout CY 2010. 

RESOURCES: 

The staff’s commitments in this paper are consistent with SECY-07-0180, “Strategic Assessment 

of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program,” dated October 17, 2007, (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML071350299). Staff estimates that approximately 0.3 FTE will be required for the 

effort discussed in this paper; these resources are included in the FY 2010 budget. If during 

implementation staff identifies the need for additional resources beyond those already budgeted, 

then the staff will estimate the resources needed and consider them within the overall context of 

the add/shed process. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer has determined that its concurrence is not required. 

 /RA Martin J. Virgilio for/

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

 ML093200008 WITS200200136/EDATS: SECY-2009-0569 

OFC EPPAD EPPAD:LA EPPAD:BC EPAD:DD DILR DMMSA NMSS 

NAME JShaffner AWalkerSmith GSuber PBubar MThaggard for 

MShaffer 

DWhite 

for 

RLewis 

MTSchiltz 

DATE 11/16/09 11/17/09 11/ 24 /09 12/15/09 12/11/09 12/2/09 12/11/09 

OFC NRR/DIRS NRO/DNRL OGC DWMEP FSME FSME OEDO 

NAME FBrown GTartal BJones 

NLO 

LCamper PTressler for 

CPoland 

CCarpent

er for 

CMiller 

WBorchardt 

(M Virgilio for)

DATE 12/11/09 12/11/09 12/11/09 12/16/09 12/18/09 12/22/09 12/31/09 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY