February 12, 2014 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-13-0075 – PROPOSED RULE: 

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL (10 CFR PART 

61) (RIN 3150-A192) 

The Commission has approved publication of the proposed rule and draft guidance for public 

comment subject to the comments and changes note below. 

1. The proposed rule should be revised to include a regulatory compliance period of 1,000 

years. 

 

2. The proposed rule should be published with a compatibility category “B” applied to the 

most significant provisions of the revised rule, including the Period of Compliance; the 

Protective Assurance Analysis Period and its analytical threshold, which, as it is 

approached, requires the applicant to propose remedial changes to the disposal site 

design, or impose inventory limits, or propose alternative methods of disposal; and the 

Waste Acceptance Criteria. 

3. The Commission has approved staff's proposal to require a 10,000 year intruder 

assessment analysis, built upon the same assumptions as the compliance and 

protective assurance analyses contained in the rule, which should be detailed in 

guidance documents. 

4. The site-specific analysis for protection of the general public within the 1,000-year

compliance period should set a specific dose limit of 25 mrem/yr. 

5. The staff should focus on ensuring a thorough review of the draft guidance by the 

limited community of disposal operations in the U.S. This includes the licensees, 

Agreement States, and interested public. The staff should also ensure the draft 

guidance is reviewed by the broader scientific and academic community and other 

government agencies with disposal experience. 

6. The proposed rule should clearly indicate that the intruder assessment should be 

based on intrusion scenarios that are realistic and consistent with expected activities in 

and around the disposal site at the time of site closure.
7. A further protective assurance analysis should be performed for the period from the end 

of the compliance period through 10,000 years. Given the significant uncertainties 

inherent in these long timeframes, and to ensure a reasonable analysis, this 

performance assessment should reflect changes in features, events, and processes of 

the natural environment such as climatology, geology, and geomorphology only if 

scientific information compelling such changes from the compliance period is available. 

In general, this analysis should strive to minimize radiation dose with the goal of keeping 

doses below a 500 mrem/yr analytical threshold. The radiation doses should be reduced 

to a level that is reasonably achievable based on technological and economic 

considerations. 

 

8. The Commission has approved the staff’s proposal for applicants to provide a qualitative 

analysis covering a performance period of 10,000 years or more after site closure to 

evaluate the ability of the disposal system to mitigate long-term risks associated with the 

disposal of long-lived low-level radioactive waste. 

9. The proposed rule should include a clear statement that licensing decisions are based 

on defense in depth (DID) protections, such as siting, waste forms and radionuclide 

content, engineered features, natural geologic features of the disposal site, and on 

performance assessment (PA) goals and insights, as well as scientific judgment. This 

combination of DID and PA should be identified as the “safety case” for licensing. The 

staff should clearly describe the attributes of the safety case in the proposed rule, as 

modified by this SRM, in terms of the types of DID protections and the role of the PA in 

satisfying performance criteria and establishing a safety case. Confirming changes 

should be made throughout the rulemaking package. 

 

10. The staff should develop a specific question for the Federal Register notice that 

introduces this proposed rule regarding whether the compatibility designations 

assigned to the various sections of the proposed rule as modified by this SRM are 

appropriate and solicit comments on whether changes should be considered and for 

what reason. Although the Commission has assigned Compatibility “B” for the 

Compliance Period and the Protective Assurance Analysis Period, the staff should 

specifically solicit comment on that designation. In addition, a question should be added 

to the FRN regarding whether 500 mrem/yr is an appropriate analytical threshold for the 

Protective Assurance Analysis period. 

 

11. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is encouraged to continue 

to provide their independent review and recommendations on the technical basis 

supporting this rule, and the accompanying draft guidance, during the rulemaking 

period. 

12. The public comment period should be extended to 120 days. 

13. The revised Federal Register Notice (FRN) arising from the direction in the staff 

requirements memorandum should be provided to the Commission for its review no later 

than 10 business days prior to its transmittal for publication. 
14. The following specific changes should be made to the FRN: 

a. On page 1, 1st full paragraph, revise line 3 to read ‘ ... development of site-specific 

criteria ....’ 

b. On page 3, under “I.” insert 2 new subtitles: “A. Accessing Information.” and “B. 

Submitting Comments.” 

c. On page 13, last paragraph, revise line 2 to read ‘ ... to develop site-specific 

criteria ....’ 

d. On page 16, delete the 1st full paragraph (Development of ... this notice.) 

e. On page 16, 2nd full paragraph, revise line 4 to read ‘ ... streams in quantities 

greater than previously expected. In ....’ Revise line 5 to read ‘ ... in the future

generation ....’ 

f. On page 16, delete the 3rd full paragraph (Some radionuclides ... (47 FR 57456).) 

g. On page 25, 1st full paragraph, revise line 7 to read ‘ ... would have to identify ....’ 

h. On page 60, paragraph 1., in line 2, delete the 2nd comma. In line 3, delete the 

comma. 

i. On page 64, last paragraph, revise line 2 to read ‘ ... must have to be ....’ 

j. On page 83, 1st full paragraph, revise line 2 to read ‘ ... must have to be ....’ 

k. On page 105, paragraph II., revise line 3 to read ‘ ... disposal for a specific site; are 

properly ....’ 

l. On page 107, next to last paragraph, revise line 4 to read ‘ ... the waste included in 

or generated from a low-level radioactive waste facility.’ 

m. On page 111, paragraph (3), revise line 1 to read ‘ ... It is possible, but unlikely, 

that persons Inadvertent intruders might ....’ Delete the sentence in lines 2 and 3 

(These persons ... intruders.) 

n. On page 112, paragraph (4), revise line 1 to read ‘ ... The iIntruder assessment 

must dDemonstrateing protection of inadvertent intruders by requires requiring

through the an ....’ 

o. On page 114, paragraph (3), revise line 2 to read ‘ ... years is typically designated 

as ....’ 

15. The following specific changes should be made to the Regulatory Analysis: 

p. On page 3, last paragraph, revise lines 6 and 7 to read ‘ ... classification limits 

(Note that the dose to an intruder exposed to a large volume of disposed LLRW at 

the classification limits could exceed 5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr)). By complying ....’ 
q. On page 10, paragraph 2., revise line 1 to read ‘ ... in the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular ....’ 

 

cc: Chairman Macfarlane 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Apostolakis 

 Commissioner Magwood 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR