April 30, 2012 

Mr. Mark Gilbertson 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Site Restoration 

Office of Environmental Management 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

SUBJECT: LETTER OF CONCERN (TYPE IV) REGARDING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY 

Dear Mr. Gilbertson: 

The purpose of this letter is to express the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) 

concern regarding salt waste disposal actions planned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). For reasons described 

below and in the associated Technical Evaluation Report (TER) [available via the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession Number 

ML121020140], the NRC does not have reasonable assurance that salt waste disposal at the 

SDF meets the performance objectives in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Part 61. This conclusion is based on information provided to the NRC by DOE and the NRC 

staff’s independent analysis. Specifically, the NRC staff has reviewed DOE’s proposed action 

and concluded that the performance objective in §61.41 for protection of the general population 

from releasesi

 may be exceeded by DOE’s current proposed disposal activities for salt waste. 

Although the NRC staff cannot conclude that the performance objective in §61.41 is met, the 

potential dose to an off-site member of the public from DOE’s disposal actions is still expected 

to be relatively low (i.e., approximately 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr], the public dose limit in 

§20.1301). 

Section 3116(b) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (NDAA) requires the NRC to monitor certain disposal actions taken by the DOE for the 

purpose of assessing compliance with the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61, 

Subpart C. NRC monitoring activities of the Saltstone facility began following the 2007 
M. Gilbertson 2 

completion of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plan for Monitoring the U.S. Department 

of Energy Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site in Accordance with the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, and have included a range of onsite 

observations, technical reviews, and meetings with DOE related to assessing DOE’s 

compliance with the 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C performance objectives. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 2009 Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal 

Facility at the Savannah River Site (2009 PA) and associated documentation in accordance with 

its monitoring responsibilities under Section 3116(b) of the NDAA. The 2009 PA is an update to 

DOE’s February 2005 Performance Assessment (2005 PA) performed in support of the Draft 

Section 3116 Determination, Salt Waste Disposal, Savannah River Site. In its December 2005 

Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (ML053010225) documenting the NRC’s review of DOE’s 

2005 PA for the SDF, the NRC staff concluded that it had reasonable assurance that salt waste 

disposal at the SDF would meet the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 61 provided certain 

assumptions in DOE’s analyses were verified during monitoring. During the current review, the 

NRC staff carefully evaluated new information related to the assumptions identified in the 

previous review, as well as new factors of importance to the modified disposal plans and revised 

conceptual model. Our conclusion is based on the NRC staff’s review of the 2009 PA, DOE 

responses to the NRC’s requests for additional information (RAI’s), and supporting references 

as well as independent calculations and analyses, as documented in the staff’s April 30, 2012, 

TER (ML121020140). 

DOE concludes that any dose greater than 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) would occur more than 

10,000 years after site closure; however, the staff disagrees with many of the assumptions in 

DOE’s model. The staff expects that any exceedance of the §61.41 limit would occur many 

years after site closure but finds that DOE has not provided a sufficient basis for DOE’s 

conclusion that any exceedances would occur beyond 10,000 years. In accordance with 

NUREG-1854, NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste 

Determinations, the time for which the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) dose limit in §61.41 must be 

met is generallyii 10,000 years. 

The NRC has met with DOE multiple times to discuss the issues that led to this finding. 

Following the NRC’s second RAI (sent to DOE on December 15, 2010), the staff participated in 

two public meetings (ML111950042 and ML111780433) and one closed NRC/DOE 

management meeting (ML111610563) in which details of the NRC staff’s concerns were 

provided to the DOE. 

The NRC is sending this letter of concern to both DOE and the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) so that SC DHEC is kept informed and has an 

opportunity to provide input and comments, and to provide DOE with an opportunity to furnish 

information that demonstrates its disposal actions are in compliance with the performance 

objectives. For example, DOE may present new or additional information or make design 
M. Gilbertson 3 

changes that would enable the NRC to conclude with reasonable assurance that salt waste 

disposal at the SDF meets the Part 61 performance objectives. If the staff determines that, 

based on the information provided, there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the performance 

objectives are met, NRC will send a notification of resolution letter. This letter and the potential 

resolution letter will be made publicly available on NRC's Web site as they formally document 

the NRC’s concern and its resolution. 

If, after having reviewed any additional information received from DOE, the staff determines that 

it still cannot conclude there is reasonable assurance the performance objectives will be met, 

the NRC will issue a noncompliance notification letter to the DOE in accordance with the NDAA. 

Also in accordance with the NDAA, the NRC is required to inform DOE, the covered State, and 

Congress if it considers any of DOE's waste disposal actions to be noncompliant with the 

performance objectives of 10 CFR 61, Subpart C. As stated in NUREG-1854, there are three 

primary reasons that DOE disposal actions could be found noncompliant: (1) if there are 

sufficient indications that the requirements of the performance objectives are currently not being 

met, (2) if there are sufficient indications that there is no longer reasonable assurance that the 

dose limits specified in the performance objectives will be met in the future, or (3) if key aspects 

relied upon to demonstrate compliance with one or more performance objectives are no longer 

supported due to the lack of supporting information obtained during the monitoring period. As 

documented and explained in the TER, the NRC is not stating that releases have occurred from 

the disposal facility that could lead to annual doses that exceed the limits established in §61.41 

(item 1 listed above). The NRC staff is, however, concerned that (i) information collected during 

the monitoring period (e.g., hydraulic conductivity assessments, technetium sorption 

measurements) does not support DOE’s compliance demonstration and (ii) sufficient 

information has not been provided to support many key modeling assumptions relied on for 

performance (items 2 and 3 above). 

In accordance with §2.390 of the NRC’s “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings 

and Issuance of Orders,” a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection 

in the NRC Public Document Room or using its ADAMS accession number ML120650576). 

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

 
M. Gilbertson 4 

The NRC, like DOE, considers it to be in the public interest and important to dispose of the salt 

waste in a safe and timely fashion. We welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff to 

resolve concerns identified in the TER. If you have any questions or need additional information 

please call me at (301) 415-7197, or call Nishka Devaser, the Saltstone project manager, at 

(301) 415-5196. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

Mark A. Satorius, Director 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

cc: S. Wilson 

 Federal Facilities Liaison 

 Environmental Quality Control 

 Administration 

 South Carolina Department of Health 

 and Environmental Control 

 2600 Bull Street 

 Columbia, SC 29201-1708 

 

i

 §61.41 states “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.” NRC has evaluated compliance using a dose limit of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) Total Effective Dose 

Equivalent (TEDE) consistent with the approach discussed in final rule (66 FR 55752) “Because each of the organs 

had the same limit under the older system even though each had a different level of radiosensitivity, it is very difficult 

to directly compare the old standards with the new standards. As noted in the proposed rule, the Commission 

considers 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) TEDE as the appropriate dose limit to compare with the range of potential doses 

represented by the older limits that had whole body dose limits of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr).” The DOE performance 

assessment and NRC’s review have used the most updated dose factors consistent with Commission direction in 

SRM-SECY-01-0148 to calculate the potential dose. 

ii NUREG-1854 also indicates that assessments beyond 10,000 years may be necessary in some cases to 

demonstrate that the disposal of certain types of waste does not result in high impacts to future generations. 

 
M. Gilbertson 4 

The NRC, like DOE, considers it to be in the public interest and important to dispose of the salt 

waste in a safe and timely fashion. We welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff to 

resolve concerns identified in the TER. If you have any questions or need additional information 

please call me at (301) 415-7197, or call Nishka Devaser, the Saltstone project manager, at 

(301) 415-5196. 

Sincerely, 

Mark A. Satorius, Director 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

cc: S. Wilson 

 Federal Facilities Liaison 

 Environmental Quality Control 

 Administration 

 South Carolina Department of Health 

 and Environmental Control 

 2600 Bull Street 

 Columbia, SC 29201-1708 

 

DISTRIBUTION: GAlexander ARidge KPinkston RidsFsmeOd Fsme r/fiii

ML120650576 

OFC DWMEP:PM DWMEP:BC DWMEP:BC OGC 

NAME NDevaser GSuber CMcKenney BJones 

DATE 03/05/12 03/07/12 03/08/12 04/18/12 

OFC DWMEP DWMEP:DD FSME:TechEd FSME:OD 

NAME APersinko LCamper CPoland MSatorius 

DATE 04/19/12 04/19/12 04/26/12 04/30/12 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 

 

i

 §61.41 states “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.” NRC has evaluated compliance using a dose limit of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) Total Effective Dose 

Equivalent (TEDE) consistent with the approach discussed in final rule (66 FR 55752) “Because each of the organs 

had the same limit under the older system even though each had a different level of radiosensitivity, it is very difficult 

to directly compare the old standards with the new standards. As noted in the proposed rule, the Commission 

considers 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) TEDE as the appropriate dose limit to compare with the range of potential doses 

represented by the older limits that had whole body dose limits of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr).” The DOE performance 

assessment and NRC’s review have used the most updated dose factors consistent with Commission direction in 

SRM-SECY-01-0148 to calculate the potential dose. 

ii NUREG-1854 also indicates that assessments beyond 10,000 years may be necessary in some cases to 

demonstrate that the disposal of certain types of waste does not result in high impacts to future generations.