NUREG-0945

Vol. 1

Final

Environmental Impact Statement

on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste"

Summary and Main Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

November 1982
-

ABSTRACT

The three-volume final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is

prepared to guide and support publication of a final regulation,

10 CFR Part 61, for the land disposal of low-level radioactive

waste. The FEIS is prepared in response to public comments received

on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the proposed

Part 61 regulation. The DEIS was published in September 1981 as NUREG0782. Public comments received on the proposed Part 61 regulation

separate from the DEIS are also considered in the FEIS. The FEIS is

not a rewritten version of the DEIS, which contains an exhaustive and

detailed analysis of alternatives, but rather references the DEIS and

presents the final decision bases and conclusions (costs and impacts)

which are reflected in the Part 61 requirements. Four cases are

specifically considered in the FEIS representing the following: past

disposal practice, existing disposal practice, Part 61 requirements,

and an upper bound example.

The Summary and Main Report are contained in Volume 1. Volume 2

consists of Appendices A - Staff Analysis of Public Comments on the

DEIS for 10 CFR Part 61, and Appendices B - Staff Analysis of Public

Comments on Proposed 10 CFR Part 61 Rulemaking. Volume 3 contains

Appendices C-F, entitled as follows: Appendix C - Revisions to

Impact Analysis Methodology, Appendix D - Computer Codes Used for

FEIS Calculations, Appendix E - Errata for the DEIS for 10 CFR Part 61

and last, Appendix F - Final Rule and Supplementary Information.

i
FOREWARD

In September 1981, NRC published the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61: "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (NUREG-0782). This draft environmental

impact statement (EIS) contains an exhaustive and detailed analysis

of a wide range of alternatives. Based upon NRC analysis of public

comments on both the draft EIS and upon the proposed Part 61 regulation itself (Federal Register Notice 46 FR 38081, July 24, 1981), no

new alternatives or principles were identified which required analysis. No major changes were required for several requirements of the

Part 61 regulation, including the overall performance objectives

which should be achieved in the land disposal of low-level radioactive

waste, administrative and procedural requirements for licensing a land

disposal facility, and the requirements for financial assurance. Many

clarifying and explanatory changes were, however, required with

respect to specific rule provisions.

Given this conclusion and public comments suggesting that the number

of alternatives considered in the EIS be reduced to a smaller, more

understandable number, NRC has chosen not to republish the extensive

analysis of alternatives as presented in the draft EIS. Rather, NRC

has refined the EIS impact analysis methodology based upon public

comments and has grouped the alternatives analyzed onto four major

alternatives which present the basis for decisions made regarding the

Part 61 requirements.

This final EIS is therefore not a revision of the draft EIS but a

stand-alone statement which uses the draft EIS as a resource and

reference document. Refinements made to the draft EIS assumptions and

impact analysis methodology are noted and used in the final EIS. NRC

hopes that in this way, the final EIS will be of a more managable size

and the alternatives analyzed and conclusions reached presented in

more of a concise, understandable manner.

iii
VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY Page

1.0 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND NEED OF THE FINAL EIS ....................... S-1

1.1 Purpose ............................. , S-1

1.2 Scope ............................ S-1

1.3 Need-for the Proposed Action .... ........................ S-1

1.4 EIS.Scoping Process .......................... -S-2

2.0 COMMENTS.ON DRAFT EIS AND RULE ......... ........................ .S-2

-2.1 Comments on the Draft EIS ................................. .S-2

'2.2 Comments on Proposed Part 61 Rule. S-2

3.0 'APPROACH AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS USED FOR PREPARATION OF THE ,

FINAL EIS ...... . -S-3

3.1 Approach Used for Preparation of the Final EIS .............. S-3

3.2 Performance Versus Prescriptive Requirements .............. S-3

3.3 PerformanceObjectives for.Land Disposal ......... S-4

3.4 Technical, Financial and Other Requirements ............... S-4

3.5 Method of Analysis ................. e ...................... S-5

3.6 Description of Impact.Measures Used and Exposure Pathways

Analyzed .................................................. S-6

3.6.1 Impact Measures .................................... S-6

3.6.2 Risk From LLW Disposal Facility Operation ........... S-7

3.6.3 Exposure Pathways .S , -7

3.6.4 Costs .; . S-8

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. S-8

4.1 Alternative 1 - The Base Case Alternative Reflecting

Past Practices .. S-9

4.2 Alternative 2 - The No Action Alternative Reflecting

Current Disposal Practices .. S-9

4.3 Alternative 3 - The Preferred Alternative Reflecting

Part 61 . . S-9

-4.4 ,Alternative 4 -. Upper.Bound Requirements (All Stable

Alternative) .. S-11

5.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS - CONCLUSIONS AND COMPARATIVE EVALUATION... 5-11

5.1 Results of Alternative 1 (The Base Case Reflecting Past

Practices) ................ ..-.-...-. ;.-... , S-11

5.2 Comparison of Alternatives 2 (No Action), 3 (Preferred)

and 4,(Upper Bound) ....................-.-. .;., S-15

v
I IlUI

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SUMMARY (Continued) Page

5.2.1 Long-Term Individual Exposures. S-15

5.2.2 Short-Term Whole Body Exposures. S-17

5.2.3 Costs . S-17

6.0 WASTE CLASSIFICATION .S-20

6.1 Calculated Waste Classification Limits .S-20

6.2 Isotopes Considered for Waste Classification Purposes ..... S-21

6.3 Volume Reduction .......................................... S-22

6.4 Compliance with Waste Classification. S-22.

6.5 "De minimis" Levels of Radioactive-Waste...... .5......... S-23

6.6 Classification by Total Hazard .' S-23

6.7 Manifest Tracking System .- 24

7.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE-REQUIREMENTS ............................... S-24

8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ..................... S-25

9.0 UNMITIGATED IMPACTS OF FINAL PART 61 RULE ...................... S-25

9.1 Environmental Consequences Occurring Directly as a Result

of the Final Part 61 Rule ................................. S-25

9.1.1 Beneficial Impacts ................................. S-25

9.1.2' Adverse Impacts ................. S-27

9.2 Environmental Consequences Occurring Indirectly as a

Result of the Final Part 61 Rule .......................... S-28

9.2.1 Hypothetical Regional Sites ......................... S-28

9.2.2 Results of the'Regional Analysis ................... S-28

9.2.2.1 Long-Term Radiological Impacts ............ S-28

9.2.2.2 Short-Term Radiological Impacts ........... S-33

9.2.2.3 Costs .................. S-33

9.2.2.4 Other Impacts. S-34

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND NEED OF THE FINAL EIS ....................... 1-1

1.1.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...................... 1-1

1.1.2 Purpose ................................................. 1-1

1.1.3 Scope ................................................... 1-1

1.1.4 Need for the Proposed Action ............................ 1-2

1.1.5 Scoping for the Final EIS ............................... 1-2

1.2' STRUCTURE AND APPROACH FOR PREPARATION OF THE FINAL EIS ........ 1-3

vi
'TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter 1 (Continued) Page

1.2.1 Structure of the Final EIS ......... ................... 1.2.2 Method of Preparation................................... ~~~~~~. f........ .

1-3

1-4

REFERENCES............................................... ............ 1-6

Chapter 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..................

2.2 'LOW-LEVEL WASTE ................. ; . ' .'

2.3 VOLUME OF LLW GENERATED........................................

2.4 'LLW GENERATORS ................ . . . . : ; .'

2.4.1 Fuel.Cycle Facilities...............................

2.4.2 *Nonf'uelfCycle Facilities.....:...........................

2-1

2-1

2-2

2-2

2-2

-2-3

2.5 DISPOSAL OF LLW .. .. . ; - 2.........3.......

2.6 FEDERAL AND STATE RrSPONSIBILITIES IN COMMERCIAL LLW DISPOSAL.. 2-3

2.7 REGULATORY-PROGRAM FOR LLW.DISPOSAL. ...... 2-5

2.8 BRIEF HISTORY'OF LLWDISPOSAL.....2-5

2.9 'HISTORICAL BASIS FOR LLW DISPOSAL REGULATIONS -' 2-6

2.9.1 Closed Sites......................... , :26

2.9.2 Operating Sites .2-9

REFERENCES......................................................... 2-12

Chapter 3 ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION .. 3-1

3.2 ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS .3-1 ..................... ' 

3.2.1 Editorial and Other Comments ...................... ' '3-3

3.2.2 Waste Classification.......... ... 3-3

3.2.3 Scope of EIS..................... .. 3-4

:3.2.4 Facility Design, Operation and Close. ' -3-6

3.2.5 Waste Characteristics .. 3-7

3:2.6 Institutional Requirements ....................... 3-7

3.2.7 :'inancial Assurances .. 3-8

3.2.8 Site Suitability ... ;'.3-8

3.2.9 Performance Objectives ...................................... 3.2.10 Amendments to Other Parts of 10CFR........... 3-9

3.2.11 Records, Reports,. Tests. and Inspections.-..... 3-10 .. .. . . .. . . ... . r .r ;

vii
. I IIlTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .................................... 4-1

4.2 CALCULATIONAL METHODOLOGY ....................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Information Base for Analysis ........................... 4-2

4.2.2 Use of Reference Waste Volume and Disposal Facility ..... 4-10

4.2.3 Impact Measures ................... I : 4-11

4.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE CASES ................................ 4-23

4.3.1 Past Practices (Base Case Alternative) .................. 4-24'

4.3.2 Current Disposal Practices (No Action Alternative) ...... 4-25

4.3.3 Part 61 Requirements (Preferred Alternative) ........... 4-26

4.3.4 Upper Bound Requirements (All Stable Alternative) ....... 4-28

4.4 RESULTS OF THE CASE ANALYSIS ................................... .. 4-28

4.4.1 Past Disposal Practices (Base Case Alternative) .......... 4-28

4.4.2 Current Disposal Practices (No Action;Alternative) ...... 4-37

4.4.3 Part 61 Requirements (Preferred Alternative) ............ 4-42

4.4.4 Upper Bound Requirements (All Stable Alternative) ....... 4-47

4.4.5 Variations to the All Stable Alternative ................ 4-48

4.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................ 4-51

Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS

5.1 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES VERSUS PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS ....... 5 -1

5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ......................... 5-2

5.2.1 Protection of the General Population from Releases

of Radioactivity .................... 5-4

5.2.2 Protection of Individuals from Inadvertent

Intrusion ..... ..................... 5-4

5.2.3 Protection of Individuals During Operations ............ 5-5

5.2.4 Stability of the Disposal Site After Closure ........... 5-5

5.3 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 5-5

5.3.1 Stability .............................................. 5-7

5.3.2 Contact with Water ...................................... 5-11

5.3.3 Institutional Controls .................................. 5-18

5.3.4 Safety During Operations ...........................-. 5-19

5.3.5 Waste Classification .......................... 5-23

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter 5 (Continued) Page

5.4 ADMINISTRATIVE, PROCEDURAL, AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE,

REQUIREMENTS.................................................. 5-46

5.4.1 Procedural and Administrative Requirements on

Disposal Facility Operators............................. 5-46

5.4.2 Financial Assurance' Requirements .. 5-51

REFERENCES......................................................... 5-59

Chapter 6 UNMITIGATED IMPACTS OF FINAL'PART 61 RULE

6.1 INTRODUCTION .6-1

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OCCURRING DIRECTLY AS A RESULT OF

THE FINAL RULE PART 61 RULE .. 6-1

6.2.1 Impacts on Federal Agencies . 6-1

6.2.1.1 Impacts on NRC ................... 6-2

6.2.1.2. Impacts on EPA . .................. 6-2

6.2.1.3 Impacts on DOE ................... 6-3

6.2.1.4..Impacts on DOT: . ................................- 6-3

62.2 Impacts on the States. 6-3

6.2.3 Impacts on the Public .6-4

6.2.3.1 Beneficial Impacts .6-4

6.2.3.2 'Adverse Impacts.; 6-5,

6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OCCURRING INDIRECTLY AS A RESULT OF

THE FINAL PART 61 RULE. .. 6-5

6.3.1 Hypothetical Regiopal Sites .6-6

6.3.2- Assumed Regional Disposal Facility Designs and.Waste

Source Term.......... ........ 6-6

6.3.3 Results of the Regional Analysis . 6-12

6.3.3.1 Long-Term Radiological. Impacts . .................. 6-12

6.3.3.2 Short-Term Radiological Impacts . .......... 6-19

6.3.3.3 6.3..3 *Costs. ~oss.....-.....................-............ .. ... 6-20 62

6.3.3.4 Additional Considerations...................... 6-21

6.3.3.5 Other Impacts ...... 6-22

ix
. llj m

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

S.1 Impact Measures Used in Analyses .......................... S-6

S.2 Results of the Alternatives Analysis ...................... S-12

S.3 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional

Analysis.................................................. S-29

2.1 Commercial Waste Disposal Sites ............................. 2-4

4.1 Waste Streams Considered in Analyses ...................... 4-5

4.2 Radionuclides Considered in Analyses ...................... 4-6

4.3 Impact Measures Used in Analyses .......................... 4-12

4.4 Sets of Retardation Coefficients Used in Impacts Analysis. 4-19

4.5 Waste Classification Limits Assumed for the Part 61 Case.. 4-27

4.6 Results of the Case Analysis .............................. 4-30

4.7 Variations on the Base Case Analysis ...................... 4-34

4.8 Variations on the No Action Case Analysis ................. 4-40

4.9 Variations on the Part 61 Case Analysis ................... 4-44

4.10 Condensed Renormalized Comparison of the No Action,

Part 61, and All Stable Cases . 4-52

5.1 Comparison of Impacts of Class A Limits Based Upon

the Final Part 61 Rule and Existing License Conditions 5-27

5.2 Comparison of Impacts and Costs of the Proposed and Final

Part 61 Waste Classification Requirements . 5-34

6.1 Summary of Regional Disposal Facility Site Environmental

Properties................................................ 6-7

6.2 Retardation Coefficients Assumed for Regional Disposal

Facility Sites .6-8

6.3 Population Distributions for the Regional Disposal

Facility Sites ............................................ 6-8

6.4 Design Assumptions for Regional Disposal Facilities ....... 6-10

6.5 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional

Analysis.................................................. 6-13

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

S.1 Life Cycle and Financial Assurances for a Disposal

Facility Following the Final 10 CFR Part 61 .S-26

4.1 Low-level Waste Generation Regions .4-3

4.2 Summary Description of Waste Spectra .4-8

4.3 Geometry of Ground Water Scenario 4-15

4.4 Geometric Relationships of Disposal Area and Ground Water

Access Locations .4-18

5.1 Life Cycle and Financial Assurances for a Disposal Facility

Following the Final 10 CFR Part 61 .5-47

xi
List of Preparers

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this draft environmental

impact statement was assigned to the Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The statement was prepared with technical

assistance from the firm of Dames and Moore, White Plains, New York.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff

Preparers

R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Kitty S. Dragonette

Paul H. Lohaus

George C. Pangburn

G. W. Roles

Contributors

Timothy C. Johnson

Mary Jo Seemann

James A. Shaffner

David L. Siefken

Derek Widmayer

Special Contributors

Willste CRESS Central Dictation Unit

Carole Finan

Jeannette Kiminas

Pauline Rock

Charline Simon

Irene Suissa

Cathy S. Bromberg, Secretary, Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Robert Fonner, Attorney, Office of the Executive Legal Director

Xiii
Damas and Moore Staff

Others contributing significantly to this environmental impact statement

included personnel of the firm of Dames and Moore, Inc. (D&M) of White Plains,

New York. The D&M contribution was directed by Dr. Oktay I. Oztunali.

OPTIONR & GRWATRR Codes

Oktay I. Oztunali

C. Joseph Pitt

Input on I-129 & C-14

Oktay I. Oztunali

Leslie Skoski

Kim D. Petschek

xv
SUMMARY

1.0 PURPOSE,,-SCOPE, AND NEED OF THE FINAL EIS

The~action being considered in.this final environmental impact statement is

the 'is'suahce 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 provides licensing procedures, performance objectives, and technical

requirements for the issuance of licenses for' the land disposal of "low-level"

radioactive waste (LLW). Specifically, the regulations 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 on waste form that~waste generators must meet for nearsurface-disposal of waste;,classification of'waste;.institutional.requirements;

- financial requirements;,administrative and.pr6cedural requirements for licensing

.a LLW disposal facility; and a manifest'system.

1.1 Purpose

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

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

Second, NRC has prepared this final EIS to document the decision processes applied

in the development of Part 61. 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 final EIS analyzes requirements.for..the land disposalof.radioactive waste

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

in the-approximate uppermost 30 meters of.the earth's'surface.'I BurJal deeper

than.30 meters may also be involved with near-surfaice'disposal technologies.

This final EIS does not analyze other methods.of disposal -such as ocean disposal.

It is also not a generic EIS in that it does'not analyze allof the issues

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

analysis for requirements in Part.-61.

1.3 .Needifor the Proposed Action..+.

-Current NRC-regulations for;licensing.radioactive materials do not contain sufficient technical standards or criteria for the disposal of licensed materials

as waste.- Comprehensive standards, technical criteria, and licensing procedures

are needed to ensure the' public health and Isafety.and long-term environmental

protection in.the.licensing ofnew 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. 'The development of'these regulations has been

in response to needs and requests expressed by the ptublic, Congress,' industry,

the States, the Commission and other,.federal agencies forjcodification of

regulations for the disposal of'LLW. '

S-1
- . I LWL.

1.4 EIS Scoping Process

NRC has conducted scoping activities for the Part 61 rule and this final EIS

since 1978. Public participation in the development of Part 61 and analyses

of the major scoping activities and public comments are discussed in detail in

Appendix C of the draft EIS which has been published as NUREG-0782.

In addition, proposed 10 CFR Part 61 was published in the Federal Register on

July 24, 1981 for 90 days public comment which was extended to January 14, 1982

to coincide with the 90 day comment period for the draft EIS. The availability

of the draft EIS was announced on October 22, 1981.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS AND RULE

Public comments received on both the proposed rule and draft EIS have been used

in preparing this final EIS. A total of 107 different persons submitted

comments on the proposed rule and 42 on the draft EIS. The concerns expressed

by all commenters are discussed in detail in staff analyses of comments which

are contained in Appendices A (draft EIS) and-B (rule) of this final EIS. The

major concerns are summarized in the supplementary information section of the

proposed final Part 61 rule contained in Appendix F of this final EIS. The

staff's consideration of these comments and actions taken in response to them

are set out in the various chapters and appendices of this final EIS.

2.1 Comments on the Draft EIS

Of the 42 comment letters received on the draft EIS, 21 came from States or

State agencies, 8 from federal agencies or national laboratories, 5 from

utilities, 3 from industry, 2 from individuals, 2 from disposal firms, and 1

from an individual radiation safety worker.

The tone of the letters was overwhelmingly supportive of the goals and the

results of the 10 CFR 61 rulemaking effort. Criticism of the draft EIS was

generally constructive in nature. Of the 42 letters received, 29 contained

items which required a response by the staff. The remaining 13 letters in one

form or another acknowledged receipt of the draft EIS but contained no items

requiring a response.

2.2 Comments on Proposed Part 61 Rule

The rule commenters represented a variety of interests. The topics addressed

a wide range of issues and all parts of the rule. The general response was

quite favorable. Almost half (47) expressed explicit support of the rule or

its overall approach. Many expressed the view that the rule provides a needed

and adequate framework for establishing additional low-level waste disposal

capacity. Support was expressed by almost every sector. Only 15 commenters

expressed outright opposition to the rule or some significant part of the rule.

Most (9) were individuals. No State group or current disposal site operator

expressed opposition. Most of the remaining commenters (47) either offered

constructive comments without taking a general position on the rule or offered

support with reservations about one or more aspects of the rule.

S-2
g - -

.3.0' APPROACH AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS-USED:FOR PREPARATIONWOF.THE FINAL EIS

i3.1- Approach Used for Preparation of the Final EIS

The approach NRC has followed in preparation of this final:EIS-is to present,

in a concise manner, the final decision bases and conclusions (costs and impacts)

which-are reflected in the requirements-of Part 61. NRC has'chosen not to

.republish the exhaustive and detailed analysis of alternatives presented in

the draft.EIS. .Rather, in responsezto public comments, NRC has reduced the

number of alternatives analyzed to a-morermanageable and-understandable number

and has used the draft EIS as a resource and reference document in preparing

this final EIS.

*. The.changes made to the-proposed Part 61'rule and draft EIS in response,-to

*..public-comments'did not involve -:identification'of major new alternatives or

.principles-which required analysis.. However, in the final EIS, an improved

method of.-cost analysis, a more refined.analysis of the impacts of waste'

classification, and analysis of a new pathway (trench overflow and leachate

treatment) were added.

Thus, NRC has concentrated in this final EIS on preparing a final analysis of

the costs and impacts of a continuation of existing near-surface disposal

practices (the no action alternative) and the changes in costs and impacts that

would result from application of improvements to existing practices established

by Part 61. An analysis of the unmitigated costs and impacts of implementation

of the final requirements selected for Part 61 is also presented.

The.final EIS is being published.in three'separate-volumes.'t Volume-one consists

of this summary and the main text. The main text consists of six chapters

described in greater detail below. Volume 2 contains Appendices A-B which set

.out-details'of:the analysis of public-commentsion the~draft EIS and proposed

Part 61:Rule. -Volume 3 contains Appendices.C-F which-set out other supporting

technical-information to that contained in the-main text.

Chapter one of the main text is an introduction which describes the proposed

action and presents Ue purpose,'scope,.need and'structure of.:the':.EIS.^ Chapter two presents background information 'abo'ut LLW and describe's' the--affected

:--environment. -Chapter three presents and analyzes major comments filed on the

draft EIS.n, Chapter four-describesrthe method of~analysis, impact measures used,

alternatives analyzed and the.results.of the analysis..of.alternatives. .Chapter

five presents final conclusions and a discussion of the final-requirements

selected. Finally, Chapter six presents the typical and unmitigated impacts

-of the application of the.final-requirements:selected for the Part'61 rule.

3.2 Performance Versus Prescriptive Requirements'

,In Chapter..two of.the draft EIS'.(§-2;2),iNRC analyzed the basic type of requirements which should be developed and set:out.in .Part:61'(i.e.', "'performance objective or prescriptive requirements). Based on this analysis,- the preferred

approach selected and followed by NRC in the preparation of Part 61 was to

develop-.both performance:objective-and prescriptive requirements.'- Overall

performance objectives were developed to define the leve-'of safety that should

be achieved in the land disposal of LLW. Minimum technical performance requirements were also developed for each of the major components of a LLW disposal

*-S-3
I U_

system that should be considered in all cases in the disposal of LLW to help

ensure that the overall performance objectives for land disposal would be met.

Finally, prescriptive requirements were established where they were deemed

necessary and where sufficient technical information and rationale were available to support them.

Based on public comments on the Part 61 rule and draft EIS and NRC's analysis

of these comments (the comments were supportive of this combined approach),

NRC has made no change to this approach and it has been followed in the

development of the final Part 61 rule.

3.3 Performance Objectives for Land Disposal

In chapter three of the draft EIS (§ 3.2), NRC reviewed the need for performance

objectives to ensure safety and environmental protection in the disposal of

LLW. In evaluating the level of safety and environmental protection which should

be achieved, NRC identified four components for which performance objectives

should be established. These were:

(1) Long-term protection of the public health and safety (and the environment);

(2) Protection of an inadvertent intruder;

(3) Protection of workers and the public during operation of a LLW disposal

facility; and

(4) Long-term stability of the disposal site after closure to eliminate the

need to actively maintain and care for a disposal facility over the long

term.

Based on public comments filed on the rule and draft EIS, no new areas were

identified which should be addressed in the Part 61 rule as overall performance

objectives for land disposal of LLW. Commenters supported development of performance objectives in the above four areas.

3.4 Technical, Financial and Other Requirements

In § 3.2 of chapter three of the draft EIS, NRC also identified four principal

components which collectively make up a LLW disposal system. Each of these

was specifically addressed in the development of the technical requirements

and includes:

(1) Site Characteristics - The geohydrological, geomorphological, climatological

and other natural characteristics of the site where the disposal facility

is located;

(2) Design and Operation - The methods by which the site is utilized, the

disposal facility designed, the methods of waste emplacement and closure

of the site;

(3) Waste Form and Packaging - The characteristics of the waste and its

packaging; and

S-4
(4) Institutional-Controls - The actions which involve a government agency

maintaining surveillance,- monitoring and control over-access and utilization of the site after closure.

Specific technical requirements for-each of.these components were developed in

chapters four, five,.six andseven'of-'the draftEIS.., In addition, NRC analyzed

the need for changes' to existing administrative and, procedural requirem'ents

that are applied'by NRC in the licensing.of LLW disposal.facilities'(Chapter

eight of the.draft EIS) and the need for financial'assurantce requirements

(Chapter 9 of the draft EIS). '

Based on public comments filed on the rule and draft EIS;'no new major areas

were identified in addition .to.the above that should be addressed in the

development.of the'technical requirements.; New topics identified by 'commentors

which should be addressed.in the Part'61 rule and EIS fell into one of-the

above areas.'

3.5- Method of Analysis

The overall method of analysis followed in this final EIS for'determination of

the technical requirements is 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

(Alternative-1). This analysis is reflective of past disposal practices

and is termed the "base.case" -analysis.

(2) Second, a range of three alternatives to the base case are evaluated with

respect to their incremental change in mitigating'potential impacts and

cost over the.base case.. One-represents today's practices and is the no

action'alternative (Alternative 2). The second represents the Part 61

requirements-and'is the preferred alternative (Alternative 3). The third

represents application of extensive improvements over today's practices

(Alternative 4).

(3) Third, a comparative evaluation of the alternatives is conducted based on

the impacts (radiological.and other impacts) and costs, of each alternative. Based on the evaluation and public comments, conclusions are reached

on the final re'quirements-to'be codified through the Part 61 rulemaking

action.

(4) Finally, application of the`requirements selected and incorporated into

the final Part 61 rule is evaluated to assess typical unmitigated impacts

of LLW disposal foll'bwing'the'preferred requirements. The disposal of

waste'according.to Part 6] is:'analyzed on a regional basis at four

regionally operated sites'and'the typical impacts and costs are determined.

The analysis also' helps assess the applicability of the Part 61 require-

.ments-to the.wide:'range in site and waste characteristics expected in the

regional disposal 'of LLW.

Based on public comments-no'change has been made to the overall method of

analysis. The number of alternatives analyzed has beenireduced.to a more

manageable number and NRC has presented the results in a clearer, more concise

manner.

5-5
.

I LUK3.6 Description of Impact Measures Used and Exposure Pathways Analyzed

NRC has used the same impact measures and with one exception, analyzed the same

exposure pathways in this final EIS as in the draft EIS. In response to public

comments, a new pathway, trench overflow and leachate treatment, has been added

and a more refined analysis of the impacts of waste classification was

performed. Also, in response to public comments, the cost analysis has been

calculated in a more realistic manner. These changes have not affected the

overall conclusions reached based on the analyses in the draft EIS.

3.6.1 Impact Measures

Table S.1 lists the specific impact measures used in this final EIS. The

impact measures used include short-term radiological exposures, long-term

radiological exposures, costs, energy use and land use. They were categorized

as they apply to waste processing activities at a waste generator facility,

during transportation to the disposal location and during and after disposal

at the disposal facility. As in the draft EIS, NRC has concentrated on longterm radiological exposures and costs.

Table S.1 Impact Measures Used in Analyses

Waste Management Phase Impact Measure

Waste processing Costs

Energy use

Occupational exposures due to

waste processing

Population exposures due to waste

incineration

Waste transportation Costs

Energy use

Occupational exposures

Population exposures

Waste disposal 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

o overland flow

o leachate treatment

S-6
3.6.2 -Risk From LLW Disposal Facility Operation "

Several commenters suggested that NRC quantify the risks associated with'operation of a LLW disposal facility. In the draft EIS, NRC expressed radiological

impacts associated with operation of a near-surface disposal facility in terms

of exposures to individuals and.populations. NRC did not convert or express

these exposures in terms of risks because 'of the difficulty of accurately

assessing risks to future populations from exposures incurred at future times

and the'small'number of individuals involved who could receive a potential

exposure. Based on a reexamination of this issue, NRC does not plan to express

doses in terms of risk in the final EIS. This would involve new work and time

to prepare 'which is not-warranted-given the urgent need for Part 61 and the

limited additional information which would be'provided. In the-draft EIS, NRC

compared calculated doses on a common basis to existing standards which are

expressed 'in terms of'dose quivalent. The-same'approach has been'followed in

the final EIS. 'NRC has,"'however,'attempted to express the overall-impacts of

Part'61 in the final'EIS in a clearer'manner so that comparison of alternatives

and unmitigated impacts are'easier to discern and understand.

To place in perspective the potential risk associated with.the various doses

calculated in this final EIS, NRC has summarized below dose response relationships.as set forth 'in'ICRP publication 26.'i The reader can' use' these to'estimate

the level of risk'associated with-'doses' calculated for the various alternatives.

In the draft EIS, doses were presented for the whole body and six organs (bone,

liver, thyroid, kidney, lung and gastrointestinal tract). 'In the final EIS,

doses are generally presented only for the whole body, thyroid and bone. This

has been 'done in response to public comments'to simplify, reporting of impacts

and since'the'whole body, 'thyroid and bone are generally of most significance

with respect to the' radionuclides i'nvdlved.''-

ICRP-26 states that "the risk fa'ctors'for different tissues are based on the

estimated likelihood of inducing fatal'malignment disease, ;non-stochastic changes,

or substantial genetic defects expressed in liveborn descendants.". The risk

factors summarized below, as taken from ICRP-26, rare expressed as overall

mortality risk factors, except as noted.

For uniform whole' body irradiation, the ICRP concludes thatfor individuals,

the'mortality risk factor for'r'adiation-induced cancers is about.1-x,iO-4 chance

of developing a fatal-cancer per one rem do'se.- This is'stated as.an average

for both sexes and all:ages.: A'500-mrem-dose would'then equate-to a risk of

potentially developing-a fatal'cancer-of about 5 x 10-5.' For.bone,7the risk

factor is lower, 5 x 10-6 potential cancers-per rem dose. 'Likewise for thyroid,

the'overall mortality risk factoir is lower, 5-x 10-6 potential cancers.per one

rem dose. ' '

3.6.3 Exposure Pathways

As in the draft EIS, NRC'has concentrated on long term.radiological',exposures.

These 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 groundwater; intrusion

and dispersion by plants and animals; long-term erosion of the site with eventual

uncovering of the waste and surface water and air transport; and release of

S-7
_ I LIU_

gaseous decomposition products from the waste containing radioactive species

(e.g., tritiated methane gas). These are discussed in § 4.2.3 of Chapter 4 of

the final EIS.

3.6.4 Costs

Costs are calculated and separated in this EIS into three components:

(1) Processing costs - those costs associated with processing and packaging

wastes prior to disposal;

(2) Transportation costs - those costs associated with transferring the waste

to the disposal facility; and

(3) Disposal facility costs - those costs-associated with design and operation

of a disposal facility over a 20-year period as well as postoperational

(closure and institutional control) costs. Closure and institutional

control costs are calculated as the total funds that would have to be

collected over the operating life of the site and invested in a sinking

fund in order to pay for the projected level of postoperational activities.

Additional information is contained in § 4.2.3 of Chapter 4. Appendix C also

describes the present value analysis used to calculate disposal facility costs.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

In the draft EIS, a broad range of waste form properties, facility design,

operating procedures and institutional control alternatives, directed at helping

to ensure that the performance objectives would be met were analyzed. A large

number of specific cases or combinations of alternatives were analyzed in the

draft EIS. The extent and detail of these analyses and difficulty in their

summarization and thus understanding were pointed out in the public comments.

Rather than repeat each of the alternative cases here, NRC has selected four

representative alternatives to present the costs and impacts of the Part 61

requirements which are described below.

Based on analysis of the public comments, NRC has also not repeated the analyses

which led to derivation of the performance objectives. The costs and impacts

of meeting the performance objectives are reflected in each alternative analyzed.

In addition, based on public comments, NRC has not repeated the extensive

analyses that led to the key technical principles which should be addressed in

the near-surface disposal of waste (i.e., long-term stability, contact of water

with waste and intruder controls). Rather, NRC has concentrated on showing

the incremental changes in costs and impacts resulting from application of the

Part 61 requirements over those practices in effect today.

In the analysis, NRC assumed a reference disposal facility site located in a

humid environment and having moderately permeable soils. The site is assumed

to be operated for 20 years and have a capacity of up to one million m3 of waste.

As part of the analysis, variations are considered in which the site soils are

assumed to be either very permeable (sandy) or very impermeable (clayey).

S-8
4.1 Alternative 1 - The Base-Case Alternative Reflecting Past Practices

This,alternative represents the level of~ control and costs which has been

historically applied in'the disposalof.LLW. This.historical level of costs

and 'impacts serves as a basis against which improvements and changes can'be

evaluated and compared on a common basis. The analysis of the base case

alternative also shows what the costs and impacts would be if the current

controls at existing sites were relaxed.:,.

The base case alte~rnative reflects past practices with respect to poor waste

form characteristics and properties and an absence of facility'-design or

operational practices directed at long term stability.- In, the past,- it was

believed that only a "good site".was needed for waste disposal. .No credit was

.given to waste.form or containers. -,The, site is thus' assumed to have been

selected in accordance with currently accepted site requirements.''Since a site

would not have been licensed inthe past without adequate health physics

procedures, accepted health physics practices and procedures are assumed to be

carried out through the operators radiationsafety program. Other assumptions

made forthis case are set out in § 4.3.1 of.Chapter 4 of the final-EIS.

4.2 Alternative 2 - The No Action Alternative Reflecting Today's Practices

This alternative characterizes and reflects today's practices in the near-surface

disposal of LLW. As the industry gained experience and as regulatory agencies

'acted with respect to'identified problems 'in past-operations, changes and

modifications were made in past disposal practices. These included limits on

the contents, type and form of waste acceptable for disposal and improvements

''_in'-design and'operational practices:' Several waste streams including evaporator

bottoms, resins, and'filter sludge waste containing greater than 1 uCi/cm3 of

radionuclides with'a-half life-exceeding 5'years are required to be stabilized

prior to disposal. These are mainly assumed to be stabilized by means of

containers providing.stability. Concentrated liquids from power,.plants are

solidified. A-limit of 10 nCl/gm is placed upon-the transuranic content of

received waste.. In addition, several design and operational improvements are

icarried out to reduce contact of waste by water and to improve site stability.

These include compaction of backfill material and trench caps, use of a permeable

backfill, use of a thick (2m) clay cap and improved surface drainage to reduce

infiltration. Care is taken during operations to maintain occupational.exposures

to accepted levels and higher activity~wastes presenting greater external

occupational. hazard are placed on the bottom of disposal trenches.andshielded

with lower activity waste.

Other assumptions made for this case are set out in § 4.3.2 of Chapter 4 of

.the final EIS.

4.3 Alternative 3 - The Preferred Alternative Reflecting Part 61

Alternative 3 reflects the final Part 61 requirements as established by the

draft EIS analysis and as modified based on public comments.

In the draft EIS, NRC analyzed (in addition to the improvements already in

effect' at the' existing'sites) a br'oad range of other alternatives which could

-be applied to'riduce radiologicalimpacts. The relative incremental change in

impacts and costs' for each alternative was calculated and'compared in arriving

-5-9
__ . *LIl.

at the requirements selected for Part 61. This extensive analysis of alternatives is principally set out in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the draft EIS. Also

based on the analyses in the draft EIS, three key principles were identified

which are of primary significance in ensuring the performance objectives will

be met over the long term. No new aspects were identified in the public

comments. These principles are:

(1) Long-term stability of the disposal facility and disposed waste. Stability helps reduce trench cover collapse, subsidence, water infiltration

and the need to care for the facility over the long term;

(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 off site; and

(3) Institutional, 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 helping to

achieve the performance objectives.

PRINCIPLE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

Migration Maintenance Intruder Operations

Long term Reduces water Reduces need Reduces Reduces

stability infiltration for long-term likelihood occupational

and potential maintenance and impacts hazards and

for migration of inadvertent offsite

intrusion releases in

accident

Reduce Reduces Reduces need Reduces waste Reduces

contact of potential for active degradation- occupational

water with for migration maintenance thus intruder hazards

waste impacts and offsite

releases

Institutional Custodial care Assures proper Reduces Reduces

and other reduces maintenance likelihood occupational

intruder potential for and impact of hazards

controls water inadvertent

infiltration intrusion

Based on the EIS analyses and public comments, several technical requirements

have been identified for codification into Part 61. Concentration limits are

established for important radionuclides as well as transuranic radionuclides

S-10
which determine the disposal requirements for the waste. Waste is divided into

three waste classes: -Class A,'Class B and Class C., All higher activity wastes

(Class B and Class C) are required to be stabilized. Stability can be provided

by the waste form as generated,-processing of the waste to a stable form or by

placement in a container or structure that provides stability. Lower activity

compressible wastes (Class A) are required to be disposed of in separate disposal

units from stable Class A, B and C wastes.' Class C wastes, which present greater

-long-term -potential-hazard to an inadvertent intruder, are required to be

-disposed of on the bottom of disposal units. Disposal facility' desigfand

operation directed at reducing water contact with waste-and achieving long-term

stability is the same as the previous no action alternative. The'only major

operational difference is the segregation of compressible Class A wastes from

stable Class A, B arid C wastes'. ' : -

Specific assumptions made for this case are set out in § 4.3.3 of Chapter 4 of

the''FEIS. One'important'assumption is that (except for Cs-137) all Class C

concentration limits, as'set out in' the proposed rule, are raised by a factor

of 10 to correspond to limits in thie final Part 61 rule. Class B and C wastes

are stabilized by a combination of solidification and use of containers providing

stability.

4.4 Alternative 4 - Upper'Bound Requirements (All Stable Alternative)

In -the draft EIS, NRC an'alyzed many alternatives providing greater controls in

disposal at much higher costs.> These&were rejected'by NRC based on cost/impact

considerations. -.- Alternative 4 analyzes a number of'these alternatives which

could be required and applied in the disposal of LLW. Because of the overall

importance of long-term stability in reducing impacts and long.term costs, the

alternatives selected are directed at ways to achieve loigterm stability.

The principal alternative analyzed is to'place all Class A unstable waste into

a stable form, principally through'waste packaging. The other alternatives

considered involve use of several facility design and operation options to

achieve stability including grouted disposal, disposal into grouted concretewalled trenches oriextreme compaction.' Other assumptions'for these-cases are

set out in §§'4.3.4_-and 4.4.5'of Chapter'4 of the final EIS.

5.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS - CONCLUSIONS AND COMPARATIVE EVALUATION'

This section presents the final conclusions drawn from a comparative evaluation

of the alternatives The final conclusions are presented as-the basic principles'and concepts that-should be set out as the-minimum technical requirements

in the Part 61 rule.

This section has been divided into 2 major subsections. The first subsection

-presents the results of Alternative 1 (the Base Case). The seco'nd'subsection

presents and ccimpares Alternative 2 (The No Action Alternative),'Alternative 3

(The Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 4 (Upper-Bound Requirements).

5.1 Results of Alternative 1 (The Base Case Reflecting Pa'st Practices)

Table S.2 summarizes the differences in costs and impacts for each alternative.

Principal conclusions for Alternative 1 include:

_5-11
_ _ _ _ _ _- ~ l

Table 5.2 Results of the Alternatives Analysis

1 2 3 4

Base No Preferred Upper

Case Action (Part 61) Bound

I. Long-Term Individual

Exposures (mrem/r

Intruder-construction

o 100 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

o 500 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

Intruder-agriculture

0 100 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

Body

Bone

Thyroid

o 500 yrs -

2. 30E+3*

4.49E+3

2. 16E+3

1. 14E+2

1.55E+3

2.70E+1

2. 68E+3

3.64E+3

2. 60E+3

6.66E+1

6.41E+2

3. 93E+1

1. 58E+2

5. 61E+O

1. 50E+3

3.16E-2

4.92E-2

2.16E+1

1.79E+3

1.80E+3

1. 78E+3

2. 61E+0

1. 16E+1

2. 29E+0

2. 21E+3

2. 32E+3

2. 17E+3

2.77E+0

7.19E+0

9. 08E+0

4.39E-1

4.49E-2

1. 11E+1

2.90E-4

4. 29E-4

1.50E-1

1.84E+2

1. 87E+2

1.84E+2

3. 02E+0

1.63E+1

2.42E+0

2. 02E+2

2. 08E+2

2. 01E+2

3. 04E+0

9.17E+0

9. 02E+0

1. 11E-1

3.70E-2

4.16E+0

1.44E-4

3.37E-4

5.99E-2

1. 75E+1

1.77E+1

1. 74E+1

3. 07E+O

1. 67E+1

2. 45E+0

0.

0.

0.

3.09E+0

9. 38E+0

9. 23E+0

1.09E-1

1. 47E-2

3. 31E+0

8.80E-5

1.36E-4

4.77E-2

Boundary Well

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

Surface water

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

II. Short-Term Whole Body

Exposures (total man-mrem

over 20 yrs):

0-:cupational

o Waste processing

o Waste transport

o Waste disposal

To population

o Waste processing

o Waste transport

**

7. 58E+6

3.33E+6

+3.75E+5

4.99E+6

2.15E+6

+5.75E+5

4.97E+6

2. 14E+6

+6. 15E+5

4. 97E+6

2. 15E+6

** +0. +1.26E+2

7.49E+5 4.78E+5 4.76E+5

+8. 93E+1

4.84E+5

III. Costs (total $ over

20 yrs):

Waste generation and

transport

o Waste processing

o Waste transport

**

2. 64E+8

+9.53E+7 +1.18E+8

1.73E+8 1.72E+8

+2.86E+8

1.70E+8

S-12
Table S.2 (Continued) '

1 2 3, 4

, , Base', No Preferred Upper

Case' Action (Part 61) Bound

Waste disposal

o Design & op.

o Post operational#

o Total disp. fac.

cost

o Unit disp. fac.

cost ($/m3)

IV.T,' Ttal'waste generatioh, ' transport, and disposal'cos

incremental to base case (t

$over 20 yrs):

V. Waste Volume (m3):. ,

Volume acceptable:-

o Unstable

-o 'Stable - Regular --

o -Stable - Layered

-Volume 6ot acceptable

,. .. 42; +

3.25E+8 A- 3.41E+8

4.55E+7'' 4.55E+7

'3.50EI 8

3; 57E+7

3.71E+8 3. 87 E+8 .. -3.'86E+8

3.42E+8

1. 38E+7

3. 56E+8

5. 64E+2

+1. 77E+8

3. 71E+2 '5.97E+2 '5.95E+2

-- +2.03E+7 :f4.IOE+7

1. OOE+6

-7A47E+5##

2. 52E-5##

O. . ...

*6.47E+5 - 6.48E+5.

4.42E+5## 4;.23E+5 , 2.05E+5## 2.21E+5 - 0. 3.47E+3

2.56E+4 -2.20E+4 ;

6. 31E+5

0.

6.27E+5 ' 3.83E+3

'O. 2.20E+4

*The notation 2.30E+3 means 2.30 x 103.

**In this EIS, population exposures due to waste'processing by waste,

generators,,occupational exposures due to waste'processing,by waste

generators, and costsdue to'waste .processing by waste generators are

presented asjimpacts'and costs'in addition to those associated with the

base 'case.. :

#Postoperational 'costs are presented as an upper bound level of costs for a

site ha'ving' moderately.p'ermeable 'soils. 'In the analysis,,ranges of costs are'

calculated depending'upon 'site-specific conditions and uncertainties regarding the ability of the disposal facility'to'function as planned. As discussed

in the text, the uncertainties in the calculated postoperational costs

decrease for each successive case.

,##Although much' of'the waste is or has. been stabilized,"the fact'that for

these'two 'cases all'the'stable waste'is disposed comingled'with unstable

waste tends to negate the potential gain of waste stabilization.' The

result is about the same as if all waste was in an unstable form..

. .

I .;, .

Ii

5-13 S 
_ ILIEI_

(1) The disposal facility is calculated to accept one million m3 of waste over

its 20-year lifetime. No waste shipped for disposal is determined to be

unacceptable for near-surface disposal.

(2) Long-term environmental impacts for the base case are calculated to be

high. Potential impacts to an inadvertent intruder are projected to be

2.3 rem (whole body) and 4:5 rem (bone) at 100 years following the end of

the two-year facility closure period. At 500 years, potential inadvertent

intruder exposures are reduced, but are still on the order of 0.6 to

1.6 rems to the bone. These exposures at 500 years are due to the

relatively longer lived radionuclides..

Groundwater impacts, which are considered over a time period of 10,000

years following disposal facility closure, are also high. As shown,

thyroid exposures are on the order of 1.5 rem at the boundary well and 22

mrem at the surface water location. These exposures are principally due

to migration of I-129. Whole body exposures are also relatively high at

the boundary well--160 mrem--and are principally due to the migration of

tritium.

It is not likely that doses to actual individuals would ever be this high,

notwithstanding the conservatism of the analysis. For one thing, potholes

and depressions created by the unstable site conditions would be filled

in by the site owner, thus reducing the percolation. In addition,

groundwater 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 potential

exposures from occurring. This is discussed in more detail below.

(3) Short-term environmental impacts include exposures to radiation workers

during waste processing, transport and disposal, as well as population

exposures due to waste processing and transport. All impacts are given

in units of man-millirem and are summed over the 20 years of site operation. Occupational exposures due to waste processing by waste generators,

population exposures due to waste processing by waste generators and costs

due to waste processing by waste generators are not calculated for the

base case. They are calculated for the other cases and are presented as

incremental impacts from the base case. The base case represents conditions

in which little or no waste processing is performed other than that required

to meet safety requirements for transportation and disposal facility waste

handling operations.

(4) A base case transportation cost of $264 million is estimated for transportation of about 50,000 m3 of waste per year over 20 years ($264 per m3 of

waste).

(5) Disposal design and operational costs are calculated to be on the order

of $325/m3 (9.20/ft3).

(6) Postoperational costs are projected to be quite high--i.e., on the order

of $46 million for the reference disposal facility site. At a site having

very impermeable soil and assuming that a bathtub condition exists

requiring extensive leachate pumping and treatment, postoperational costs

S-14
could climb to $58 million. These costs are the totalcosts that would

have to be collected from disposal facility customers over the operating

life of the disposal facility in order to pay for the projected postdperational activities.''Better than 90% of the post-operational funds collected

would befor the 100-year institutional control period. These costs

translate'-to a charge to a disposal facility customer ranging from $1.29

to $1. 64/ft3 . '

The sheer'magnitude of the funds'that would be needed to be collected over

20 years'tolensure long-term care'deserves special consideration.' High

potential ground-water doses are estimated, and to prevent'such potential

exposures'from'occurring, a considerable amount of active site maintenance

would be expected on the part'of the'site owner. 'It is difficult to predict how long'this extensive site maintenance would'be required'or how

much-it would actually cost, 'although it is'seen that many 'millions of

dollars could be potentially involved. It isitherefore judged to'be

inappropriate toassume that suufficient postoperational funds'would in

fact be collected. The disposal facility may close'pr-ematurely and prior

to collection of sufficient funds. There is also no assurance that the

'extensive kinds' 6f maintenance activities that would be required'would

'actually be carried out in a timely manner,'leading to.a self-perpetuating

situation.-.'Finally, extensive'site-maintenance activities can lead to

offsite'.releases of quantities of radionuclides.

In conclusion, the environmental and 'long-term cost impacts 'of this' case'are

clearly excessive and reversion to 'disposal fascility practices"typified by

this alternative is an-unac'ceptable alternative. 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., Such-active maintenance activities

can continue for long-time'periods,'and in fact tend to become'self-perpetuating.

Active maintenance activities such as' leachatepumping'and treatment' represent

a'large source'of expense without a tangible corresponding economic 'gain.

5.2''Comparison of Alternatives 2 (No Action), 3 (Preferred) and'4 (Upper Bound)

5.2.1 Long-Term'Individual Exposures'

In comparing the.no action'and.'preferred (Part 61) alternatives- it is-seen

that~both intruder'and groundwater'exposures for the nboactidn alternative are

.'reduced over the base case. This 'is-;principally due to the low concentration

(10nCi/gm limit) of t'ransuranic radionuclides disposed and the'improved

'stability of the disposal facility.' The'added operational' practices; however,

for the' preferr'ed'(Part'61) alternative 'of segregating stable waste' streams

fromunstable waste streams and placingcertain high activity-waste streams at

the bottom of the disposal cells'-further-reduces'potential.intruder'exposures

at 10 years for the Part 61 case byanorder ofmagnitud& Although anew

requirement;,'waste 'segregation is aneoperational;ractie' that has bean and is

currently being carried out for particulr awaste streams at existing sites.

Thus~ implementing this alternative'on a'm'ore'extensivebasis is well-within

current waste disposal technology.:'Similarly,"the new're'quirement''of lay'ering

(or other special handling) of certain waste streams has long been'a 'sta'ndard

practice at disposal facilities and so this practice is also judged to be well

within current waste disposal technology. Further reduction.in impacts are

S-15
I LIKE.

observed for the upper bound all stable alternative in which all waste streams

are stabilized prior to disposal. Other design and operation options-analyzed

for this upper bound alternative are discussed later in this section.

At 500 years, comparable intruder impacts (ranging from 2 to 17 mrem/yr are

observed for all three cases. In fact, due to the raise in the near-surface

transuranic disposal limits for the Part 61 and all stable alternatives from

10 to 100 nCi/gm, intruder impacts for these two alternatives are slightly

higher than those for the no action case. As discussed in § 4.4 of Chapter 4,

however, even this small difference in impacts is probably exaggerated. Waste

streams containing transuranic nuclides in concentrations between 10 and

100 nCi/gm are required in the last two cases to be layered. Waste streams

disposed with a minimum of 5 meters of cover (earth and/or low activity waste

streams) would still be difficult to contact after 500 years. In addition,

the analysis conservatively takes no credit for the reduction in exposures that

would result from stabilized waste forms which would tend to reduce potential

airborne dispersion and plant root uptake.

With respect to groundwater impacts, as shown, the impacts for the Part 61

case are about a factor of three lower than the no action case for exposures

to the thyroid and a factor of about four lower for exposures to the whole body.

For the all stable case potential exposures are somewhat lower than the Part 61

case. Most of the radioactivity contributing to the calculated impacts is

contained in the stabilized waste streams. One of the main purposes of

stabilizing such high activity waste is to provide structural support for

disposal cell covers, thus reducing trench cover subsidence and minimizing

contact of waste by percolating water. If, however, the stabilized waste

streams are disposed comingled with other unstable waste streams (as is tile

situation for the no action case), then much of the benefit to be achieved by

waste stabilization can be lost. This is illustrated in § 4.4 of Chapter 4 by

the variations in the no action and Part 61 case analysis in which reduced

effectiveness was assumed for improved covers over disposal cells containing

unstable waste streams. In the no action case, the increased percolation from

comingled disposal raised the calculated thyroid impacts to 41 mrem/yr at the

site boundary well. A similar assumption for the Part 61 case raised the

calculated thyroid impacts at the boundary well to only 7.8 mrem/yr.

The results of the analysis also suggest that waste stabilization reduces the

dependence upon the site to minimize radiological impacts. This is an important

consideration, since there will always be some uncertainty associated with

measurements and predictions of site geohydrological properties. A stabilized

disposal site reduces the concern regarding the impact of these uncertainties

on the potential radiological exposures arising from waste disposal.

The staff also notes that for both the no action and Part 61 case, there is

still a possibility (although small) of a water accumulation problem at a

disposal site having very impermeable soils. The relative radiological impacts

and costs of this phenomenon, however, are much reduced for the Part 61 case

as compared to the no action case. The potential for such impacts is believed

to be reduced to minimum levels for the all stable case. This is presented in

Chapter 4.

S-16
5.2.2 Short-Term Whole'Bddy Exposures '

Occupational exposures due to-waste processing forthe no action alternative

_are-calculatedto increase over the base case. This is due to the'in'creased

waste pr'pcesssing'-e'formed-for this case. Occupational exposures'.due to.-waste

transportation and waste, disposal are reduced over the-base case. This'is

,principally.'due'tio'the reduced volume of-waste delivered to;.the disposal

facility' resulting from increased use of volume reduction techniques. .'Popula-

'tion exposures'due to waste incineration are calculated to bezero forthe no

action alternative>'"'Releases-are only assumed to occur'from waste'incineration

andino volume reduction through incineration is assumed for.,the no action

'alternative. -Population whole body exposures due to waste transportation are

reduced-over' that of the base case,-'.which is again a result of the 'increased

use of volume reduction for this case.

Occupational exposures for the preferred Part 61 alternative are higher than

the no action case'due to processing additional. volumes of waste into,a stable

form or'package. Such'potential exposures, however, are difficult to'determine

<since'they'are facility-specific and are based on the type.of processing.

performed, facility'design and layout,'.and on other factors. Population'

exposures for the"Part'61 alternative follow a similar pattern.> Population

exposures due to wiaste incineration-are small;- Population exposures.due to

waste transport are slightly increased'due to the slightly increased volume of

waste transported to'the disposal facility. Occupational,.exposures'due'to

waste transport and waste disposal are about the same as those-of the previous

case.

Occupational exposures 'for the all-stable alternative are judged to be greater

;:than the-Part 61 case. The difference in occupational exposures for waste

processing 'for this case and-the.previous case are entirely due to the additional

waste stabilization requirements.:' 'As'shown, this difference is not significant.

5.2.3 Costs

,'Waste processing costs are estimated to be increased by $95 million for-the.no

action alternative over the-base case. These costs arelpresentedas,.total

costs over 20 years, the assumed lifetime of the disposall'facility:,.These

additional costs are due to the requirements to stabilize higher activity

wastes'prior'to-disposal and the volume-reduction.activities assumed. Waste

processing costs are also increased-for the preferred Part 61 alternative by

anadditional'$23 million. This.increase is due'to stabilizing additional

volumes of waste into a stable form or package and the additional'volume

reduction activities assumed.' -Costs.for. stabilization would be incurred only

by disposal facility customers generating the high activity waste and not by

small waste g'enerators'-who mainly generate waste with only low levels of

activity.;,' Waste processing 'costs are significantly increased.for' the upper

bound all 'stable alternative'duedto' the placement of all wastes 'into a stable

form or'package'. This cost-increase would be borne by all 'waste generators

and is the principal 'reason this alternative was not selected.

'Transportation costs are'reduced-for-the no action, preferred-and upper bound

alternatives over the base'case due to.the.,smaller volume of'waste shipped but'

do' not vary much from one-case to the other. .

S-17
11.111-

Relative to the base case, disposal facility design and operating costs for

the no action alternative have increased from $325 million to $341 million.

This corresponds to an increase in unit costs from $325/m3 ($9.20) to about

$527/M3 ($14.93/ft3). This increase is due to the many improvements in site

operation for the no action case relative to the base case (and also to the

reduced volume of waste delivered to the disposal facility for the no action

case). These same improvements, however, result in lower long term postoperational costs which are projected to be on the order of $23 million for

the reference site, assuming that the disposal facility functions as planned.

Given the uncertainties associated with long-term disposal site stability for

this case, a series of upper bound analyses was also calculated for this case

assuming reduced effectiveness of disposal site covers and different disposal

site conditions. Postoperational costs in these variations were calculated

to range from $40 million (permeable site soils) to $46 million (moderately

permeable site soils) to $58 million (impermeable site soils).

With regard to the no action case, the preferred Part 61 case results in

increased design and operational costs due to segregation of stable wastes and

layering of certain higher activity wastes. Improved stability results in

lower institutional control and post-operational costs. A low level of maintenance is projected to be required for stable waste streams, since these

waste streams are segregated from unstable waste streams. A higher level of

maintenance is projected for unstable waste streams. Total post-operational

costs for the preferred case are projected to be about $21 million for the

reference site, assuming that the site functions as planned. This translates

to a unit post-operational charge to be paid by disposal facility customers of

$31.94/m3 ($0.90/ft3). These costs include costs for a five-year observation

and maintenance period following disposal facility closure. In a series of

upper bound variations similar to (but more conservative than) those performed

for the no action case, upper bound post-operational costs for the Part 61 case

ranged from $33 million (for a site with very permeable soils) to $36 million

(for a site with moderately permeable soils) to $44 million (for a site with

very impermeable soils)

Post operational costs for the all stable alternative are the lowest of the

four cases considered. The uncertainty regarding the actual levels of costs

is also the lowest of the four cases.

In conclusion, relative to the no action case, costs incurred for the Part 61

case are projected to include increased waste processing costs, somewhat

increased disposal facility design and operation costs, and decreased postoperational costs. (These costs do not include the cost savings to disposal

facility customers for raising the near-surface transuranic disposal limit from

10 to 100 nCi/gm. This cost savings could be as much as $19 million over

20 years.) Most of these additional costs are attributed to additional waste

processing costs associated with stabilizing some additional high activity

waste streams. Thus, these costs would only be incurred by disposal facility

customers generating the high activity waste and not by small waste generators

such as hospitals who mainly generate waste with only low levels of activity.

The additional disposal facility design and operation costs are associated with

the additional disposal facility operating practices for the Part 61 case of

segregating unstable waste streams from stable waste streams, and of layering

certain high activity (Class C) waste streams. Of these additional disposal

facility costs, segregation costs are projected to be incurred by all disposal

S-18
facility customers. These-costs are estimated to run at about an additional

$12.30/M3 ($0.35/ft 3) in design and operations costs. Costs.for layering

certain high activity waste streams are projected to be only incurred by

disposal facility customers generating the high activity streams.

Due to the increased disposal facility stability for the Part 61 case, the level

of long-term site-maintenance is reduced for the-Part'61 case in comparison to

the noaction.case. Corresponding-long-term institutional control costs-to be

borne by the site owner are also reduced, as are the uncertainties associated

with projecting such costs. This means that the funds collected from the

disposal facility cutomers to provide for post-operational activities could be

reduced. Thus, lower post-operational costs'to the disposal facility customers

are projected for the Part 61 case.

The annual cost differential between. the all stable-case-and both.the no action

case and the Part 61 case is projected to be greater. These'additional costs

'are principally due to the increased costs.to stabilize all waste~streams. Such

costs would be passed-on to all disposal facility customers., .Conversely, disposal facility design and operating costs for the all stable case would be

*-reduced relative to the Part 61 case (there would be no waste-segregation'.charge).

.Post-operational.-costs would be less than either of the other.two-cases.

The.fact that the large additional costs that are projected to.occur.for the

all stable case would be expected to be passed on to all disposal facility

customers is believed to be significant. Many disposal facility customers are

small entities such as hospitals or small research-facilities. The waste"

generated by such facilities is generally of.very.low activity, and requiring

stabilization of all waste could add up to $450/M3.($12.74/ft 3) in total disposal

costs to.be borne.by-such.small entities. Rather than stabilizing all wastes,

another option might beato provide stability through variations.in disposal

~facilitydesign and operation--e.g., through such possible techniques as grouted

disposal, disposal into concrete-walled trenches, or extreme compaction. The

additional disposal facility design and operating costs for these alternatives

are projected to run at about $80,.$369, and $28 respectively per m3 of unstable

waste disposed. Post-operational costs, however,.would be-reduced.- Such possible

-'techniques would also have to be developed'and tested for specific disposal

facilities, since past experience regarding these techniques at low-level'waste

disposal facilities has ranged from occasional to none. In addition, there are

some occupational safety concerns regarding some-of the above alternatives.

NRC staff thus judges that the preferred alternative is the one representing

the final Part 61 requirements. Although the Part 61 case involves somewhat

higher costs than the no action case, the potential in the Part-61 case for

minimizing long-term environmental releases and costs to the site owner is

enhanced. Greater protection is provided to site owners against excessive

long-term costs and also provided to disposal site customers against'premature

closure of the disposal facility. : Minimum environmental impacts and costs to

the site owner are associated with the all stable case. NRC.staff,'however,

believe that there are sufficient uncertainties associated with the cost impacts

to disposal facility customers that it cannot be implemented generically at

this time. This decision may cha'nge in thte-future, depending upon cost

considerations and~the application of newer waste management technologies.

During licensing of specific disposal facilities,. however, special attention

will be given.to the possibility of-leachate accumulation within disposal cells.

S-19 .
I U.I?3.

At specific sites where such a possibility can occur, additional measures

intended to eliminate this possibility will be considered.

6. WASTE CLASSIFICATION

The waste classification system developed for the Part 61 regulation follows

directly from the performance objectives and technical criteria. It is intended

to ensure as far as possible on a non-site-specific basis that the Part 61

requirements are met.

Three classes of waste are established:

1. Wastes for which there are no stability requirements but which must be

disposed 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 isotopes and certain minimum requirements on waste form and packaging 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 concentration of

isotopes and requirements for a stable waste form as well as minimum

handling requirements.

3. Wastes which need to be placed 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 after institutional

controls have lapsed. These wastes are termed Class C "intruder protected" wastes and are also defined in terms of allowable concentrations

of isotopes and requirements for disposal by deeper burial or some other

barrier.

Finally, a "fourth" class of waste is established which is that waste which

exceeds the classification limits and is generally considered unacceptable for

near-surface disposal. Disposal of this waste at near-surface disposal facilities would require case-by-case determinations.

A significant number of comments and issues were raised with respect to the

waste classification system. Major issues raised related to:

o Calculated waste classification limits;

o Isotopes considered;

o Volume reduction;

o Compliance;

o De minimis levels for waste;

o Classification by total hazard; and

0 Manifest tracking system

6.1 Calculated Waste Classification Limits

The numerical basis for the limits calculated for the three waste classes is

presented in Chapter 7, Volume 2, of the draft EIS. The principal basis used

for setting the classification limits was limiting exposures to a potential

S-20
inadvertent intruder, although a number of other considerations went into setting the values--principally long-term-environmental concerns, disposal facility stability, institutional control costs, and-financial impacts to small.

entities. Waste classification represents a combination of waste form, radioisotope characteristics, radioisotope concentrations, the'tuethod of emplacement,

and to some extent the site characteristics.

A number of comments were received on the calculated limits for Class C waste.

'NRC~staff' has evaluate'd these comments and has concluded that'a rise in the

Class C 'limits by a factor of 10 is'warranted for all radionuclides. This'is

due 'to consideration of (1) the re'duced likelihood of significant intruder

exposures wit incorporation of passive warning devices at-the disposal facility,'(2) the-difficulty of contacting'waste disposed 'of at'greater' depths,''

and (3) average concentrations in waste which would be' expected to'be considerably less than peak concentrations.. The effect of the change in the

Class C concentration is analyzed in Chapter 5'and summarized below.

Two cases are analyzed. In the first case, Class C limits are assumed which

correspondto those established for the final Part 61 rule. For example, the

limit for disposal of alpha-emitting (except Cm-242) transuranic radionuclides

by near-surface-disposal-is set at 100 nCi/gm. The results of this case-are

obtained from the "preferred case"- (Alternative 3) analysis.,presented earlier.

The second.case corresponds to Class C-limits which were proposed for the draft

Part 61--rule.

Only slight differences are observed between the two cases. Most of the

differences in the calculated impact measures appeartd be derived from the

slightly reduced volume of waste delivered to the disposal facility for the

case corresponding'to the limits e'stablished'in the proposed Part'61 rule. A

reduced amount of waste processing'is alsoprojected:for the proposed rule case

relative to the final rule case. .Unit disposal costs are slightly raised for

the proposed rule case, however,'' which is'due to the'reduced volume of waste

delivered tothe disposal'facility.. -' -

6.2 Isotopes'Considered 'for Waste Classification Purposes '

In the draft EIS, a total of,23 different radionuclides were considered in the

numerical analysis. .These nuclides were nearly all moderately or long-lived

,radionuclides. Based upon these 23'radionuclides, concentration limits were

proposed in the draft EISJfor' 11 'individual radionuclides'plus' alpha-emitting

transuranics, enriched uranium and depleted uranium. In response' to public

'comments, limits for 1 35Cs , enriched uranium, and depleted uranium have been

eliminated, as have-been limits for 59Ni and 94Nb except-as contained in

activated metal. [A separate limit'is'-provided for 242Cm, a transuranic

nuclide with a-162.9.da&yhalf-life.'.' ;

These' changes are principally in response tocomments ton proposed Part 61

regarding'the'costs and'impacts of compliance with the' dwaste classification

requirements.,I n particular,.many commenters were concerned that they would

have to-directly'measure'every'isotope.in every waste package.' This would be

difficult since measurement of'many of'the listed'isotojes--which'wou'ld usually

be present only in trace quantities--could not be performed except by complex

radiochemical separation techniques by laboratories.'.-Commenters were concerned

that costs and personnel radiation exposures would be significantly increased.

S-21
_ -___ ILIL_

Thus to ease the burden of compliance, the number of isotopes treated generically in the waste classification table was reduced to those judged to be needed

on a generic basis for waste classification purposes. Other isotopes may be

added later either generically or in specific waste streams.

6.3 Volume Reduction

Some commenters were concerned that the waste classification requirement would

discourage volume reduction. This concern is believed to be alleviated by the

increase in the Class C waste disposal limits. As an illustration, the volumes

of waste determined to be unacceptable for near-surface disposal under extreme

volume reduction conditions (waste spectrum 4) may be compared against the

proposed and final Part 61 limits.

These comparative volumes are as follows:

Percent of Total

Unacceptable Volumes (m3) Generated

Proposed Part 61 Limits 9.42 E+3 4

Final Part 61 Limits 1.93 E+3 1

6.4 Compliance with Waste Classification

Many commenters on the draft Part 61 rule were concerned regarding acceptable

procedures for determining compliance with the waste classification requirements. It was recognized in the draft EIS that developing a reasonable

approach to compliance would be an important consideration. A balance is

needed between the need for knowledge of waste contents and practical limitations in measurement. Based upon discussions with licensees and other

interested parties, and comments on the draft EIS, a draft technical position

paper has been prepared.

The staff's position is that all licensees must carry out a compliance program

to assure proper classification of waste. Licensee programs to determine

radionuclide concentrations and waste classes may, depending upon the particular operations at the licensee's facility, range from simple programs to

very complex ones. In general, more sophisticated programs would be required

for licensees generating Class B or Class C waste, for licensees generating

waste for which minor process variations may cause a change in classification,

or for licensees generating waste for which there is a reasonable possibility

of the waste containing concentrations of radionuclides which exceed limiting

concentration limits for near-surface disposal. Some licensees, such as

nuclear power facilities, are expected to employ a combination of methods.

There are four basic programs, however, which may be potentially used either

individually or in combination by licensees:

- Materials accountability; - Classification by source;

S-22
- Gross radioactivity measurements; or - Direct and "inferential" measurement of individual radionuclides.

6.5 "De minimis" Levels of Radioactive Waste

Over one-fourth of all commenters on the draft EIS endorsed the concept of

setting levels for wastes below which there is no* regulatory concern, the

so-called "de minimis" level. The fundamental concern of practically all

commenters appeared to be' not whethe'r a generic or a case-by-case approach

should be taken, but rather that''action'to develop de minimis standards should

be taken as soon as possible.

'NRC staff believes that the current' policy'of examining waste streams on a

case-by-case basis to establish "de minimis" levels'will result in the'quickest

andlbest reisults. 'It is'recognized 'that setting generic limits ista desirable

goal, and NRC plans to'work'toward this goal over the' next few years.

Meanwhile, NRC staff believes that the process of examini'nga few specific

waste streams will facilitate the development of generic requirements'and is

accelet'ating its efforts on setting standards for disposal of wastes'by less

restrictive means. -'In'this re'gard, NRC staff is 'willing to accept petitions

for'rulemaking from licensees for declaring certain waste streams'to be of no

'regulatory concern. '

-6.6 Classification by Total Hazard

Several commenters were concerned with materials which may be present in lowlevel radioactive waste which may be chemically toxic or hazardous.,- Some

suggested that the Commission's waste'classification'system incorporate a

"total hazard" approach that would consider both the radiological and chemical

; ihazard of'was'tes. One commenter c6onsidered the' EIS deficient'in that it did

not consider the health'impact of hazardous chemicals in LLW.' At least one -- 'comment'did not favor the'totalI hazard approach because of'the'very'complex

classification'system'that the commenter perceived 'would result'.'

The Commission'has stated publicly on several occasions-that'if it were';

technically feasible to classify waste by total hazard, then it would make

S 'eminently good-sense'to do so. 'NRC does'not now know of any'scheme'for such

'classification.' 'The'Commission'will be stu'dying'the chemical toxicity'of low-

-level'-waste, with' special emphasis on identifyingany seeswhogenerate

'''''hazardous wastes subject to requirements -of the' Environmental'Protection Agency.

We will look'then at~what-couldbe-done,' perhaps through'processing, to minimize

the' hazard. '

* Furthermore, the;Commission believes that the technical provisions-'of Part 61

'generally meet or exceed'those expected in the:EnvironmentalVProtection'nAgency's

*trules for'the disposal'of hazardous wastes. Although-it is-'not'the Commission's

intent to allow''disposal-ofhazardous 'wastes in -a radioactive waste''disposal

facility, as is noted in the-regulation,'''the'iCommission recognizes thatsuch

wastes may be present in low-level radioactive wastes. It is the Commission's

'view that:dispos'al of these'combined''wastes in eaccordance'with' the requirements

of Part:61'iwill adequately protect7the public health and safety. 'Such hazardous

wastes are expected to be'such a'small percentage of'the-total volume'that

'dilution by'other'wastes'would greatly minimize any'risks.'-'The Commission

"'intends'to work closely with the Environmental'Protection Agency'to assure

S-23
I LILLcontinued compatibility. Further, EPA in its response to a resolution of the

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors indicated their willingness

to work with other Federal agencies to address this problem.

6.7. Manifest Tracking System

Based on analyses in the draft EIS a new proposed section was added to 10 CFR

Part 20 (§ 20.311) which established a manifest tracking system for LLW. The

system addressed the need for providing information on the classification and

characteristics of waste shipped for disposal, for improved accountability of

wastes and for helping establish a better data base about LLW.

The manifest required by § 20.311 is consistent with DOT shipping paper requirements and the same document may be used by licensees to meet requirements of

both agencies. Section 20.311 requires more comprehensive information about

the waste being shipped, e.g., specific nuclides in the waste and their

quantities, waste chemical content, and waste form. No significant changes

were made to the manifest requirements based on public comments. Copies of

proposed Part 61 were distributed to all NRC licensees and copies were also

made available to all Agreement States for their licensees. Only 29 letters

commented on the manifest system. Based on these comments, several clarifying

changes were made to the proposed requirements. Because of the minor nature

of the comments received, NRC did not redo the analyses presented in draft

EIS. No new alternatives were identified in the comments which would require

changes to that analysis or final conclusions derived.

7.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

No significant changes have been made to the financial assurance requirements

as proposed in 10 CFR Part 61 based on public comments. These requirements

are intended to ensure that: (1) a licensee has sufficient financial resources

to construct and operate the facility and to provide for final closure and post

closure care; and (2) a licensee provides financial assurance for the active

institutional control period after the site is closed and stabilized.

One of the major points raised by a variety of commenters was that the proposed

regulation failed to address financial responsibility for unanticipated contingencies at a LLW disposal site. These comments cover two different time

periods--the post-closure period, when the original licensee is still responsible at the site, and the institutional control period, when the license has

been transferred to the landowner of the site for a period of up to one hundred

years. In the case of the .post-closure care period, the licensee would be

responsible for all activities at the site found necessary by the Commission

to protect the public health and safety. Financial responsibility for activities during the institutional control period are a matter to be worked out

between the site owner (i.e., the state or federal government) and the licensee

in its lease or other legally binding arrangement.

Several commenters considered that the rule should resolve the issue of financial responsibility for contingencies by requiring liability insurance or

specific language that licensees would be required to indemnify property owners

in case of off-site migration. Although not proposed in the original rule,

the staff evaluation of these public comments indicates there is a need for

S-24
-- r*e *, -- _ I- ' .1 'i I

licensees to provide financial responsibility-for liability coverage for off-

.sitebodily injury and propertydamage. The four existing LLW disposal

facilities currently carry this type of liability.coverage. ..The Commission

has not established a third 'party;,liability'requirement.in Part 61, however,

since the Commission's only statutory framework for establishing' such a.

requirement is Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act, 'also known as' the"'Price-

.Anderson" Act which is designed to cover "catastrophic events." .The Commission

believes this coverage would be inexcess of the risk at a low-level waste

.facility.. The Commission will strongly encourage licensees to continue to

* carry thirdiparty liability insurance coverage through,the conventional

-insurance market. . ,

8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS '.'' ' . <o,,.' .;*- . * -zA

No significant-changes were made-in the administrative and procedural requirements for-licensing a LLW disposal facility.,. Because of.'thi's',' no..additional

,analysis of these.requirements beyond-that contained in the draftEIS was

-:included'in.the final'EIS. '-One change was made to the provisions .for State

and,'tribal participation in the-NRC licensing process to provide for a more

parallel evaluation of proposals by states and Indian tribes for Participation

in the NRC licensing process. The time required for-submittal of such proposals

from the-statein which the site is located~was reduced from 120 days to 15 days

after tendering of the application. For Indian tribes and other States not

covered above, the time was changed to 120 days after tendering.

As set out in the draft-EIS, the life cycle of a disposal facility can-be

divided into five phases. These are shown and briefly described in Figure S.1.

'9.0 'UNMITIGATED IMPACTS OF FINAL PART 61 RULE'

Both direct and indirect environmental impacts will occur as a result of the

final Part 61 rule. The direct effects of the action fall upon those segments

of the human environment whose conduct of affairs will be affected by the change

in'regulatory- requiiements'includifig:- generators and processors; transporters;

dis'posal facility operators';' federal' agencies and the states; and the public.

The :indirect impacts of the final Part 61 rule involving its effect on air and

-water quality, biota and social impacts are determined.based on application of

the performance objectives and minimum technical requirements of the rule to

*four reference disposalfacility sites located on-a regional basis. By applying these requirements to a reference facility design and analyzing the bene-

* fits andresidualimpacts', 'an estimate of the "real world" effects of the rule

is provided -

9.1 Environmental Consequences Occurring Directly.as a.Result of the Final

Part 61 Rule - , .

9.1.1 Beneficial Impacts

The requirements of the Part 61 regulation are expected to result in beneficial

imiipacts to the public-in three major'areas. First, the implementation and

enforcement of the rule will improve the performance of future LLW disposal

: . S-25
- ALL

facilities and thereby reduce the potential hazards of LLW disposal. Although

the benefits of the rule's requirements may not be immediately apparent, the

staff believes that in the long term these requirements will improve stability

and will lessen the potential for radionuclide migration and the need for

active long-term maintenance of facilities.

Second, the requirements of the Part 61 rule should assure that near-surface

disposal remains a safe viable option for the disposal of LLW. Therefore, the

public can be assured of the continued availability of goods and services whose

provision results in generation of LLW. Among these goods and services are

electricity from nuclear power plants, medical diagnostic aids based on nuclear

technology, research into causes and cures of debilitating diseases such as

cancer, and research into new applications of nuclear technology.

Finally, the Part 61 rule provides public benefits in the form of more explicit

provisions for participation in the licensing process for future LLW disposal

facilities. Licensing requirements and procedures have heretofore been fragmented and somewhat difficult for interested citizens to fathom. These procedures are consolidated in the rule, and expanded provisions for participation

by state and tribal governments are set out under Subpart F of the rule.

Figure S.1 Life Cycle and Financial Assurances for a Disposal Facility

Following the Final 10 CFR Part 61

Time in

years Activity Form of financial assurance

1-2 yrs Site Selection and Licensee responsible for costs incurred

Characterization

1-2 yrs Licensing Activities Licensee responsible for costs incurred

including license fee

Site closure plan including cost estimates

for closure is submitted as part of license

application

Lease arrangement with long-term care

arrangements for financial responsibility

between licensee and state submitted for

review to NRC for adequacy

Licensee obtains adequate short-term sureties

to provide for closure

20-40 yrs License Issued; Site Short-term sureties in place for closure:

is in Active Opera- NRC periodically reviews and requires

tion; Waste Received 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

S-26
Time in

years Activity '' ' For'm'o'f financial'assurance

1-2yrs '--- Site Closureand'. '' Costs'covered from.short-term'sureties,

Stabilization if necessary; otherwise,'.licensee performs

activities

Leasearrangement between site owner and

operator-for long-term care is'still-in

effect . .

5-15 yrs Observ'ation and '' Licensee still responsible for all further

Maintenance costs during this period, with short-term

assurances still in'place'".' -'

100-yrs. License;Transferred:to -Terms and conditions-of.lease-are met, and

Site'Owner;:"Active. either state or licensee provides'funds to

Institutional.Control pay for all requiredind.necessar activities

Period"- .- of;this period

9.1.2'- Adverse Impacts '''

The staff does 'not expect that'implementation of the rule will be without

'adverse public impaicts.''Three primary'impacts are'expected toloccur.

The first of these impacts will be residual environmental and human health

haazards're'sulting from LLW disposal. ' Despite 'the provisions of the' Part 61

rule, the va~riables and'processes'involved in'LLW disposal are sufficiently

-complex that unmitigated'impacts'cannot be avoided. 'These may'include occupational:exposu're- migration of radionuclides,' and subsequent offsite exposures.

'" (Section '9.2',discusses'these unmitigated:'impacts.) It should be' noted, how-

* ever, that 'these impacts'are not 'impacts'caused by theWrule, but rather impacts

which''are'considered'beyond 'the capability of-the rule to' eliminate entirely.

*Achieving'reductions in'nimpacts from'LLW disposal will'not be without costs in

'an economic sense." Implementing the' requirements'of the Part' 61 rule will

involve costs to the'disposal facility oper'ators, waste transporters, 'and waste

'generatdrs. 'These costs, of course, will be'passed'on'to' the public :in the

form of increased prices for goods and services whose provision involves the

generation of LLW. It is not expected that the passing on of these costs will

create a significant incremental change to.jthe..consum'er, but~rattier will appear

along with many other costs of doing business in aggregate price increases.

These 'anticipated increased costs' can 'alkso be6b'alanced against' 'the-likely costs,

:'which would be significantly higher, 'that- couldriesult'with'out the-promulgation

~lof-'a'uniform series'' of criteria--for waste 'disposal.' C Jhe 'current lack of such

-criteria is believed by many'to significantly contribute'to the current'shortage

of disposal capacity.

Finally, implementation and enforcementl of-thefierovisions':of the Pait"61 rule

will require the allocation of federal and state resources during the operational and postoperational-periods"df a'LLW-disposal facility: To'}the'extent

that' these public resources are:allocated to regulation of;LLW disposal, they

5 5-27
-_- _ __ 3 .ILt

are unavailable for other purposes. Conversely, to the extent that the public

incurs this cost, it reduces (within limits) the costs of LLW disposal in terms

of human health hazards and environmental impacts.

9.2 Environmental Consequences Occurring Indirectly as a Result of the Final

Part 61 Rule

To estimate these impacts, the performance objectives and minimal technical

criteria established in the final rule are applied to four reference disposal

facilities assumed to be constructed on four hypothetical regional sites.

Through this analysis, the residual or unmitigated impacts that could occur

even with the application of the Part 61 requirements are addressed.

9.2.1 Hypothetical Regional Sites

For the purposes of this final EIS, the conterminous U.S. has been divided

into four regions having boundaries based upon the existing five NRC regions

(NRC Regions IV and V are treated as one region for purposes of analysis). A

disposal facility is assumed to be located at a hypothetical site within

each region. Each site has been developed from a number of sources and is

meant to be consistent with the basic disposal facility siting considerations

set forth in the final Part 61 rule and the generic environmental characteristics

within that region. The regional sites are intended to be representative of

reasonable realistic sites--i.e., sites that could be licensed under the Part 61

rule--but are not intended to represent the "best" sites that could be located

within the regions.

The disposal facilities and waste forms situated at the four regional sites

are intended to provide an example of potential impacts associated with disposal of waste according to the minimum requirements of the final Part 61

regulation. These should not be interpreted as representing the best or the

only designs or waste forms which could be implemented in compliance with the

rule. There are a number of ways in which the Part 61 requirements may be met

for a specific disposal facility, and compliance with the Part 61 rule, as

well as measures which may be implemented to reduce potential impacts to levels

as low as reasonably achievable, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The examples, rather, are intended to illustrate an upper bound range of impacts

from implementation of the rule, with the expectation that actual impacts from

implementation of the rule at existing or future disposal facilities would be

less.

9.2.2 Results of the Regional Analysis

The section is divided into 4 subsections as follows: 9.2.2.1, Long-Term Radiological Impacts; 9.2.2.2, Short-Term Radiological Impacts; 9.2.2.3, Costs; and

9.2.2.4, Other Impacts (including non-quantifiable impacts such as impacts to

biota and cultural resources). Quantifiable impact measures are summarized on

Table S.3.

9.2.2.1 Long-Term Radiological Impacts

Long-term radiological impacts for the regional case study as summarized on

Table S.3 include potential individual and population intruder impacts,

erosional impacts, and groundwater impacts. Individual inadvertent intruder

S-28
Table S.3 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis

NE Site SE Site -MW Site

- low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. low perc. high

; . SW Site

perc.

I . I. Lonq-TermIndividual

txposures mrem yr :

Intruder-construction

o 100 yrs - Body:

.,Bone

Thyroid

o 500 yrs - Body..

.Bone -

Thyroid

Intruder-agriculture . .

o 100 yrs - Body,-

Bone

Thyroid

o 500 yrs - Body

*Bone

Thyroid

1. 82E+2*

1.83E+2

1. 82E+2

2.39E+O

7.92E+0

2.15E+0

1.97E+2

2.01E+2 . 1.97E+2 :

3. 36E+0

1. 85E+1

2. 66E+0

2. 24E+2

2. 28E+2

2.24E+2

3. 68E+0

2. 16E+1

2. 91E+0

1. 27C+2

1. 67E+2

1.24E+2

1. 45E+1

1. 71E+2

6.76E+0

1. 95E+2

2. 01E+2

1.94E+2

2. 87E+0

8. 19E+0

8. 58E+0

2. 18E+2

2. 23E+2

2.17E+2-

3. 32E+0

1. 01E+1

9.87E+0.

2.49E+2

2.56E+2

2.47E+2

3. 53E+0

1. 04E+1

1. 09E+1

1.38E+2

1. 46E+2

1. 37E+2

6. 03E+0

2.07E+1

9. 96E+0

'N.

I

I

. I .4

I

Boundary well

"Body - ; 6.78E-3 - 8.57E-3 2.61E-2 - 5.59E-2 7.90E-3 - 1.04E-2 3.84E-3 ;

o Bone 6.44E-3 - 1.25E-2 3.13E-2 - 1.04E-1 9.65E-3 - 1.75E-2 ' 1.42E-2

o Thyroid 4.29E+0 - 4.97E+0 5.02E+0 - 9.38E+0 4.66E+0 - 5.33E+0 7.82E-1 -

Surface water

o Body . 1.50E-4 - 3.76E-4 **

°Bone K . - 2.90E-4 - 1.02E-3

0*Thyroid - ^* 7.23E-2 - 1.35E-1 **

. .

1, 1. I - ,

I I . .
Table S.3 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis (Continued)

C)

NE Site SE Site MW Site SW Site

low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc.

II. Short-Term Whole Body

Exposures (total man-mrem

over 20 yrs):

Occupational

0 Process by waste

generator# +1.70E+5 +2.40E+5 +1.70E+5 +1.50E+5

o Process by regional

v process center 1.81E+5 7.25E+4 1.08E+5 9.13E+4

o Waste transport 4.70E+6 5.91E+6 4.26E+6 4.48E+6

° Waste disposal 2.06E+6 2.58E+6 1.73E+6 1.66E+6

To population

o Process by waste

generator# +1.26E+2 +1.51E+2 +1.23E+2 +5.83E+1

° Process by regional

process center 0. 0. 0. 0.

o Waste transport 3.79E+5 5.86E+5 6.07E+5 1.07E+6

III. Costs (total $ over 20 yrs):

Waste generation and transport

° Process by waste

generator# +2.20E+7 +2.90E+7 .+2.10E+7 +1.60E+7

o Process by regional

process center 5.29E+7 2.10E+7 3.14E+7 2.66E+7

o Waste transport 1.22E+8 2.04E+8 2.01E+8 3.05E+8

Waste disposal

o Design & op. 3.51E+8 3.54E+8 3.42E+8 3.29E+8

° Postoperational

Closure 3.87E+6 3.87E+6 3.87E+6 3.87E+6

Obs. & maint. 1.13E+6 - 1.42E+6 .1.14E+6 - 1.43E+6 1.11E+6 - 1.39E+6 5.86E+5

Inst. Control 1.57E+7 - 3.86E+7 1.57E+7 - 3.06E+7 1.54E+7 - 2.96E+7 9.32E+6

Total post op. 2.07E+7 - 4.38E+7 2.07E+7 - 3.59E+7 2.04E+7 - 3.49E+7 1.38E+7

o Total disp. cost 3.72E+8 - 3.95E+8 3.75E+8 - 3.90E+8 3.62E+8 - 3.77E+8 3.43E+8

0 Unit cost ($/m3) 5.70E+2 - 6.06E+2 5.03E+2 - 5.24E+2 7.06E+2 - 7.34E+2 6.79E+2
Table S.3 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis,(Continued)

NE Site SE Site. 'MW Site - SW Site

low perc-;,. high perc. low perc., high perc. low perc. high perc.

V~~~~l~ 19.,L - rtJ ~f~ v~s........ _r-.?\. ......- ..- .--

1. wate voum 2 tI iv. waste Voiume-km-):

Volume acceptable

° Class A unstable

o Class A stable

o Class B

0 Class C V. n

Volume'not acceptable

6.52E+5

4. 25E+5

1.56E+5'

6. 76E+4

3. 26E+3

1. 69E+4

,;: 7.17E+5' ''

4.72E+5

1.73E+5 ' 6.70E+4 -.

4.34E+3 -

2.80E+4

4.95E+5

.3. 12E+5

1. 27E+5

5.33E+4

2.97E+3

1. 82E+4

4.88E+5

3. 25E+5

1. 28E+5

3.26E+4

2. 18E+3

1. 67E+4

*The notation 1.82E+2 means' 1.82x102 " **Less than 1.xlO 6 millirem/year.

***Impacts at the surface water body are not given for'the southwest site dueato the intermittent nature of the

neare'stGstreamto the site and the extreme depth to groundwater atthe site. ' #In this EIS, population exposures due to waste'processing by'waste generators, occupational exposures due to

waste processing by waste generators, and costs due to-waste processing by waste-generators are presented as

impactsand costs in addition to those associated with a no action case (i.e., continuance of current disposal

practices). -V
- ul .,1-

impacts are calculated for two scenarios for two time periods (100 and 500 years)

following transfer of the disposal facility to the site owner for the whole

body, bone, and thyroid.

As shown, the limiting individual inadvertent intruder impacts are to the bone

although in all cases the Part 61 performance objective for inadvertent intrusion

is met.

Potential impacts from groundwater migration are listed for three different

organs (whole body, bone, and thyroid) for two different biota access locations:

1. A well (boundary well) located at the site boundary which is assumed to

be used by a few individuals;

2. A small stream (surface water access) located down-gradient of the disposal facility and assumed to be used by a small population of about 300

persons.

As shown in Table S.3, the highest exposures due to ground-water migration are

to the thyroid, although in all cases the Part 61 performance objective for

environmental releases is met. The estimated impacts reflect the differing

volumes of waste streams and corresponding radionuclide inventories within

each regional facility, as well as the differing environmental characteristics

of each regional site.

For the high percolation northeast case, it is possible that the disposal cells

containing unstable waste could accumulate water and fill up like a bathtub.

This could lead to overflow of the disposal cells.

Leachate accumulation impacts are, therefore, calculated for the northeast

site to demonstrate representative impacts that could potentially occur from

such a situation. Waterborne impacts are calculated assuming that 425,000

gallons of leachate annually overflow the unstable waste disposal cells. This

overflow is assumed to be carried to a nearby stream where contaminated water

is consumed by an individual. The impacts to the surrounding population from

processing the leachate through an evaporator are also calculated. The results

of this calculation are as follows:

Body Bone Thyroid

Individual dose from

disposal cell overflow

(mrem/yr) 6.64E+1 1.14E+2 4.37E+1

Population dose from

leachate treatment

(man-millirem/yr) 1.98E+2 7.40E-1 1.98E+2

S-32
It would appear that additional efforts to achieve site stability and reduce

percolation would be called for at sites in which there is a potential for

water accumulation problems.."'

9.2.2.2 Short-Term' Radiological Impacts

Short-term radiological impacts are also summarized in Table S.3. Included

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) potential impacts from incinerating small'volumesof'waste at

the waste generator's facilities. u o wast a

Asshown; transportation impacts~over.20 years range from about 380 to 1,070

man-rems, or about 19 to 54 man-rem's per year.

Occupational'impacts are listed as total impacts .over 20 years for waste processing, transportation to the disposal facility, anrd waste disposal. Waste

processing occupational exposures are presented as additional exposures to

those associated with a "no action" situation. That is, these exposures are

presented as incremental exposures to those that would be'received'if existing

disposal practices and facility license conditions were continued.

Also included are the occupational exposures that are estimated to be associated

with operation'of regional processing centers. 'This'waste processing is assumed

''to consist ofcompactionof compressible waste streams by large-compactor/

shredders. ' -

9.2.2.3 'Costs

Costs, including waste processing, transport, and disposal costs are listed in

Table S.3. Similarly to occupational exposures, costs due to processing the

waste by the waste generator are presented as additional costs to those associated with a continuation'of existing disposal facility practices and license

conditions. These c'sts include co'sts for waste volume reduction as well as

for, waste stabilization.

Waste'-disposal'costs-are set out into 'design and operational costs and postoperational costs', whereepostoperational costs'include costs'to waste customers

(over.20 years of operation) for providing f6r: (1) facility closure, (2) a

5-year observation and maintenance period,.'and (3) 100 years'off:institutional

control. Also shown are total disposal costs as well as unit ($/m3) costs.

As shown, the largest total design and operational costs are for the'northeast

and southeast sites, due to the larger volumes of waste delivered to these two

sites. The so'uthwest''site'iseprojected-to'experience a:low'level of postoperational costs, due to the 'emiarid'ratur'eof the'site '-

Postoperational costs for the "northeast, southeast, and midwest sites;are presented'in Table 6.'5 'as' arange from a reas'onable to :a' worst case, corresponding

to the variation in percolation into the'disposed' unstable wa'ste' streams. A

low level'.of postoperational costs'is projected for the-stable waste streams.

A moderate`(reasoriable'case) to high (worst case) level of. postoperational

costs, however, is assumed for the unstable waste streams.

5-33
___ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ 1.[11

The presentation of the worst case here is believed to be very conservative,

since it discounts improvements in disposal facility operations which could be

implemented to help to reduce water contact with the unstable waste streams.

It also discounts the increased use of compaction for the compressible waste

streams. Such compaction would tend to retard the rate of subsidence and

slumping associated with the unstable waste disposal cells.

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 the southeast facility, while the design and operational costs are only

slightly less. This is because capital costs to construct the disposal facility

are 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.

9.2.2.4 Other 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. It is believed that implementation of the Part 61 regulation would

have little if any effect upon overall air quality.

Biota

The operation of a disposal facility would involve acquiring and fencing in up

to a few hundred acres of land. During this process, impacts to biota could

result from destruction of habitat. Such impacts would again not be caused by

the fact that the facility is used for waste disposal, but arise from the

decision to change the land from one use to another. Similar types of impacts

would result from other land uses involving construction such as a small

industrial concern, a school, a farm, and so forth. Implementation of the

Part 61 rule is expected to have little effect on the potential for impacts to

biota.

Land Use

Possible future use of a LLW disposal facility after it has closed is greatly

influenced and somewhat circumscribed by the presence of the disposed waste.

This does not mean that land used for LLW 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.

S-34
It is difficult to assess the influence of the Part 61 regulation on this land

use. A range of land uses may be estimated, using the regional analysis as a

guide. Land use for each of the regions is shown below.

Land Use (m2 x 105)

Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

2.26 2.49- 1.72 1.69

.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 terms

of LLW management and disposal, this would be a difficult project given the

large number of waste generators, the many different types and forms of LLW,

and the many possible processing techniques that could be used.

The estimated increase in energy use due to the Part 61 regulation is listed

below in gallons of equivalent fuel for each region for the range of post

operational activities projected.

Energy Use (gal x 105)

Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

+0.83 - +0.96 +1.11 - +1.31 +0.90 - +1.00 +0.66

Social Impacts

In general, social impacts due to promulgation of the final 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 impacts are

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 final Part 61

regulation is not expected to result in any significant incremental changes

in social impacts associated with operation of LLW disposal facilities.

S-35
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND NEED OF THE FINAL EIS

1.1.1 Description of the Proposed Action

The action being considered in this final environmental impact statement .(final

EIS) is'the issuance of a new-regulation, Part 61, to the U.S.' Nuclear:Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules-in Title 1O-,Code''of Federal Regulations (1O CFR)..

The new Part 61 provides'1icensing procedures, performance-objectives and .

technical requirements for licensing:the land disposal 'of 1`low-level" radioactive waste (LLW).' -.

There are four principal purposes to: the regulation:

'. o Establish performance objectives-for the land disposal of radioactive waste; ' -

o Establish the technical requirements for disposal of radioactive

waste by near-surface disposal including limits'on the form and.-

content of waste acceptable for near-surface disposal;

o Establish the administrative and procedural requirements which NRC

will follow in licensing the land disposal of radioactive waste; and

o Establish a manifest system.'

1.1.2 Purpose

NRC has a two-fold purpose'in preparing this"EIS. lFirst, it'is to fulfill NRC's

responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (NEPA)

(Ref.' 1). 'NRC has also prepared this- EIS to' demonstrate ;the decision.process

and bases applied in the establishment of-technical requirements' and licensing

procedures included in the Part 61 regulation. It is the intent of NEPA to

have federal agencies incorporate environmental'values into the-decision-making

process to assure' athorough'consideration of such-values. .NRC has considered

and analyzed-alternative courses 'f action and requirements were selected with

full consideration-of public views and the'environmental, health,- and safety

effects to current and future generations.-

1.1.3 Scope . -

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

specifically near-surface'dispoal.-- Near-surface disposal involves-disposal in

the uppermost crust of the earth, generally;within -30!meters of the earth's

surface. Near-surface disposal technology may also involve burial at depths

greater:than 30 meters. .:This EIS does not address' other'methods of 'disposal

such as ocean disposal. * - ' .

- 1-1
This EIS is not a generic EIS. It does not attempt to analyze all of the

issues that are involved in the disposal of LLW. Rather, it is specific to

providing a decision analysis leading to the establishment of the technical

requirements and procedures for licensing the disposal of LLW. Only issues

that are germane to this decision process are analyzed and considered.

1.1.4 Need For The Proposed Action

Current NRC regulations for licensing radioactive materials do not contain

sufficient technical standards or criteria for the disposal of licensed

materials as waste. Comprehensive standards, technical criteria and licensing

procedures are needed to ensure 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. The development of these

regulations has been in response to needs and requests expressed by the public,

Congress, industry, the States, the Commission and other federal agencies for

codification of regulations for the disposal of LLW. Respondents to the

advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on October 25, 1978 strongly

supported the Commission's development of specific standards and requirements

for the disposal of LLW.

1.1.5 Scoping For The Final EIS

NRC has conducted scoping activities for the Part 61 rule and this EIS since

1978. Included have been:

(1) Public 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 25, 1978 (Ref. 2);

(2) Public comments on a preliminary draft of 10 CFR Part 61 dated November 5,

1979 (Ref. 3). On February 28, 1980, the Commission also published a

Notice of Availability of the November 5, 1979 preliminary draft regulation, announcing its availability for public review and comment (Ref. 4).

Copies of the draft regulation were distributed to all of the states;

(3) During the summer and fall of 1980, four regional workshops were held 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 (Refs. 5, 6, 7, and

8). The workshops provided 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 61 rulemaking.

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);

(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;

1-2
(5) A Natural Resources Defense Council Petition for-Rulemaking (Ref. 9);

(6) Discussions with industry, public interest groups, state'and federal

agencies, and others;

exeineadcurrent LLW'miieent tcnqe.n,

(7) Licensing experience and rrn matechaghiques at existing,

disposal sites;

(8) Programs of the Environmental* Protection-Agency to',de',elop.standards for

LLW disposal and regulations for disposal ,of nonradioactive solidand

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 discussedFinAdetail'in'Appendix C

of the draft EIS.(Ref. 10). . . , ,- -. 

In addition, proposed 10 CFR Part 61 was published on'July'24, 1981 for public

comments (Ref. 11). The 90-day comment period was extended to January 14,-1982

to coincide with the 90-day comment period for the draft EIS. The availability

of the draft EIS was announced on.October 22, 1981. Public comments received on

both the rule.,and draft EIS have~been use'd.in'.preparing'this._final EIS., The

analysis of comments, is contained in Appendices-Akand B.-'.

1.2 STRUCTURE AND APPROACH FOR PREPARATION OF THE FINAL'EIS ' '

1.2.1 Structure of the Final EIS - - -

*This.final EIS has been' prepared in accordance with requirements of'the'National

Environmental, Policy 'Act (NEPA), following''Council on'Environmental Quality'

.(CEQ) .regulations (Ref. .12) for preparation of. environmental impact statements

and following NRC implementing regulations set "out, injTitle.10,''Code'of'Federal

Regulations, Part 51,."Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures 'for"

Environmental .Protection. ' -,

The EIS is 'divided into threeIvolumes.., Volume 1contains the summary, andsix

chapters which are listed ind,'summarily described below:''1 ,:. ' , ,

Chapter 1.,."Int'rouction" descr"ibe-"the -prop6ed'a'tion a'nd presentsthe

purpose,: scope,,:need.and structure' 6f.,the EIS. It also 'describes how NRC has

utilizeddata prepared:and.presentedin the',draft EIS and"comments filed on the

draft in preparing this final statement.', ,. . . ; .'

Chapter 2 -'"Description ofithe.Affected Environment" prese'nt;background

information about LLW, describes 'the affected environment,' and reviews the,'

historical basis for the Part..61 rule.. , , ,, . -

Chapter 3- "'Analysis of Commeints'on the OraftEIS"'summarizes he major

comments received, changes made and actions.taken'by th6, staff in'response

to the comments.' . ,

,1-3
Chapter 4 - "Analysis of Alternatives" describes the pathways of exposure

analyzed, impact measure used, specific alternatives analyzed and presentation

of results.

Chapter 5 - "Conclusions and Discussion of Requirements" presents final conclusions and requirements derived from the analysis of alternatives.

Chapter 6 - "Unmitigated Impacts of Final Part 61 Rule" presents the typical

and unmitigated impacts of the Part 61 rule based on analysis of disposal of

waste on a regional basis following the final requirements in Part 61.

Volumes 2 and 3 contain a series of supporting appendices.

Volume 2

Appendix A - Staff Analysis of Public Comments on the Draft EIS for 10 CFR

Part 61

Appendix B - Staff Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed 10 CFR Part 61

Rulemaking

Volume 3

Appendix C - Revisions to Impact Analysis Methodology

Appendix D - Computer Codes Used for Final EIS Calculations

Appendix E - Errata for the Draft EIS for 10 CFR Part 61

Appendix F - Proposed Final Rule and Supplementary Information

1.2.2 Method of Preparation

The approach NRC has followed in preparation of this final EIS is-to present,

in a concise manner, the final decision bases, conclusions (costs and impacts)

of NRC's analysis of LLW disposal as reflected in the requirements of Part 61.

NRC has chosen not to republish the exhaustive and detailed analysis of alternatives presented in the draft EIS.

Based on public comments received and NRC's analysis of those comments (see

Chapter 3 and Appendices A and B of this final EIS) no new alternatives or

principles were identified which required analysis. No major changes are

required for several specific requirements of Part 61 including the overall

performance objectives which should be achieved in the land disposal of LLW,

administrative and procedural requirement for licensing a LLW disposal facility

and the requirements for financial assurance. Many clarifying and explanatory

changes are, however, required with respect to specific rule provisions.

Several changes are also made with respect to the EIS relating to the method

of cost analysis used, certain analyses of the impacts of waste classification,

and a new pathway (trench overflow and leachate treatment) is analyzed.

Given this conclusion and the public comments that the number of alternatives

should be reduced to a smaller understandable number, NRC has chosen not to

republish the extensive analysis of alternatives as presented in the draft ElS.

Rather, NRC has grouped the alternatives analyzed into 4 major alternatives

which present the basis for decisions made regarding requirements included in

Part 61.

1-4
NRC has concentrated its efforts in this final statement on analysis of those

areas where changes have been made based on public comments and to present'a

clearer analysis of the costs and impacts of alternative technical requirements

for the near-surface'disposal ofLLW which'can be applied to-ensure the overall

performance objectives are met. Thus, the final EIS 'concentrates on analysis

of the costs and environmental impacts from continuation of existing practices

in near-surface disposal-of waste:(the-no'action alternative) and from applifcation of improvements to existing-'practices that would be implemented due to

requirements established by Part 61.-'Finally, this EIS collectively considers

all the final Part 61 requirements and presents the typical and unmitigated

impacts of the final Part 61 rule. This.is accomplished through analysis of --the disposal of LLW at a grouping' of regional 'sites that are operated:in'

compliance with the Part 61 requirements.

The draft EIS,-thus, serves as a resource and reference document to the final

EIS. -Changes made'.to the draft EIS and'assumptions used in the'analyses based

on public comment are noted and used in the'final EIS. Other changes to the

draft which are not critical-to the analyses-are presented in errata tothe

draft EIS in Appendix E. In this way,.the analyses and conclusion of the final

'EIS reflect-the work-presented in the draft EIS and any changes and modifications

made based on public comment. NRC.'staff-hope that by presenting a'more'concise

statement of the alternatives analyzed, changes made based on public comments

and final conclusions, the final EIS will be of more manageable size,-easier

to'understand and the-costs' for publication and distribution will'be reduced.

1-5
REFERENCES

1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. as amended, Public Law 91-190

as amended by Public Law 94-83.

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR Part 61. Management and Disposal

of Low-Level Wastes by Shallow Land Burial and kiternative Disoosal Methods,

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal kegister, 43 FR 49811-49812,

October 25, 1978.

3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR Part -':: Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste and Low-Activity Bulk Solid Waste, Preliminary Draft,

November 5, 1979.

4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR Part 61, Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste; Availability of Preliminary Draft Regulation, Federal

Register, 45 FR 13104-13106, February 29, 1980.

5. Southern States Energy Board, Findings on NRC's Low-Level Rule Resulting

from the Southern States Energy Board Workshop, May 15, 1980.

6. Western Interstate Energy Board, Report to the Nuclear Reaulatory

Commission, Workshop on Low-Level Waste Licensing Rule, July 25, 1980.

7. Midwestern Office, Council of State Governments, Report to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Workshop on Low-Level Waste Licensino Rule,

August 28, 1980.

8. New England Regional Commission, Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Summarizing the Proceedinqs of the November 6-7, 1980

Workshop on Low-Level Waste Management Licensino Rule.

9. Petition Docket No. PRM-20-7: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

Shallow Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Federal Register,

41 FR 41759, September 23, 1976.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Environmental impact Statement

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

Whastetj NUREG-0782, Vols. 1-4, September 1981.

11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensina Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Federal Reaister, 46 FR 38081-38105,

July 24, 1981.

12. Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, National

Environmental Policy Act-Regulations, Federal Recjister, 43 FR 5597i56007, November 29, 1978.

1-6
Chapter 2

D ESnIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT-

;This chapter has teen zr--; to'describe the affected'environment and to provide the reader'with biicktround information''about'LLW and about the historical

basis for the requirements in the Part"61 regulation. 'In prepa'ring this EIS,

the staff has assumed a' .;sic level of knowledge about the structure of matter,

radioactivity and raaio-c.ive decay. The reader is referred to references 1 and

* _2 as well-as any nigh s-hool';or college physics or physical science textbook for

,.; background information'.on these topics.' 'The reader is also referred to'NCRP

Report.No. 3° %f R'F. f ir '-ack-round 'information about basic radiation protec-

* tin criteria. ;. : :

* 2.-1 .UESCRIFTiQN OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

i The environment affected or potentially affected by the-generatioh,'transport,

and disposal 'f LLW encmpasses.the-whole of-the nuclear industry And much of

society. It cZns sts *^tS -.1 the 'iidustries, 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 cf those involved in-supplying waste processing-and .- -packaging services-at ^,aste generatorwfacilities, and transporting waste from

waste generators to dispo'al'facilities. It consists of those involved in the

ownership, 'peration, and. long-term'control of 'thedisposal facilities. It

-invoi'Ves the varijus regui"tory agencies such as NRC' the'Department of Transportation (DOT) 'and the state-radiation control programs that license,- regulate,

and 'inspection all'waste management phases to~assure an adequ'ate-level of safety.

It consists f society': thetindividuals, 'small populatfio-n'groups,-and the

general population that.an'6be'potentially affected' byrthte'variious'activities

involvedin the generation' and disposal of waste.' Finally,-''it-consists of the

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

.and. arioii pl .'t ..und . ..rna, species that would be 'affected byisite-specific

2. activities.' Additinal details regarding specific parts, of the affected

environment are contained 'in the following section's.

*,- ' , -. ; .. : ,;

.. 4.._'W-LE'IEi. '.Z :..SE . l .- -

* The am 'S cw- 'wast2" serves as a.general term for a very'wide 'range of

r. - .cave wA '.*: 'iustries'; ,hospitals; medical,'educatiofial,'or

research ins`itutions;' Pri7vate'or government laboratories; or' facilities

forming-partoofkth6 nuclear fuel cycle (e'g., nuclear power plants,"fuel fabricaticn 0lantS) %Jti1iz'd.1, radioactive materials as a part-'of their normal

operational activities generate so-called low-level'radioactive waste just as

.they generatesother types-of.hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. LLW consists

of the:.radiba'ctive materials' themselves and other materials'which have been in

contact' with 'raaioactiv. ma.i-terial and are contaminated or suspected of 'being contarinated. 'Because o-the wide range in thetypes ofactivities and in

specific purposes of'application, LLW is generated in many waste types, forms,

and amounts. It ranges from trash that is only'suspected 6f'bein'g 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 wide range of chemical forms and can be shipped

in a number of different types of packages.

2-1
___ l | l -

2.3 VOLUME OF LLW GENERATED

Currently, about 85,000 m3 (3 million ft3) of LLW is generated and disposed of

at the commercial LLW disposal sites annually. Based on projections of LLW

volume prepared by NRC for the waste streams 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.

2.4 LLW GENERATORS

LLW is generated by more than 20,000 companies, institutions, laboratories, and

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

materials as a normal part of their day-to-day activities. This includes fuel

cycle facilities such as nuclear power plants, uranium hexafluoride conversion

plants and fuel fabrication facilities; institutional waste generators, such

as colleges and universities, medical schools, private physicians and hospitals;

and industrial generators such as research and development labs, manufacturing

companies, pharmaceutical suppliers and quality control labs. Most of the

activity disposed of at the commercial sites is generated by less than

100 licensees.

2.4.1 Fuel Cycle Facilities

The LLW produced by commercial nuclear power plants can be divided into six

basic categories: ion exchange resins, concentrated liquids, filter sludges,

compactible trash, noncompactible trash and nonfuel irradiated reactor components. Ion exchange resins are used in reactors to remove dissolved radioactivity from liquid streams. When spent, they are exchanged and the spent

resins are placed into a shipping container (usually referred to as a liner)

where excess water is removed (dewatering) prior to transfer to a disposal site.

In some cases the spent resins may be solidified with binders such as cement

or synthetic polymers. Resin waste in shipping containers is usually transported in a cask or overpack that is shielded for radiation protection purposes.

Concentrated liquid waste is produced by the evaporation of a wide variety of

reactor liquid streams. These concentrated liquids are solidified in various

materials such as cement, placed in a shipping container, and shipped to a disposal site. Filter sludge is waste produced by precoat filters and consists

of powdered filter material. It is used to remove suspended and dissolved material from liquid streams. Filter sludge waste is generally dewatered and placed

into a container for disposal. Compactible and noncompactible trash consists

of everything from paper towels, plastic, and glassware to metallic components

such as pipes and contaminated tools. Nonfuel irradiated components consist

of fuel channels, control rods, and in-core instrumentation that has been

exposed to in-core neutron flux.

Other fuel cycle waste streams include process waste and trash from uranium

hexafluoride and fuel fabrication plants. This can include calcium fluoride

generated in hydrogen fluoride gas scrubbers, filter sludges and paper, plastic,

equipment and other trash. These are generally packaged in 55 gallon drums or

larger containers and shipped for disposal.

2-2
2.4.2 Nonfuel Cycle Facilities

Institutional waste generators use`radioactive materials in many diverse applications including-analytical-instruments,- diagnosis and therapy, research and -,instruction. The type of waste'generated generally falls into six groups:

''liquid scintillation vials, liquids, biological wastes, trash, accelerator

'targets and sealed sources. Liquid.scintillation vials are made of.glass'or --plastic and contain organic solvents and small amounts-of radioactivity. -They

are'ususally packaged in 55-gallon' drums with absorbent material for-disposal.

Absorbed liquids consist of organic and aqueous liquids generated by various

preparatory and analytical procedures involving radioactive material. They

'are'absorbed on media such'as-diatomaceous earth and packaged in 55-gallon 'or

smaller drums. Biological wastes consist of animal carcasses, tissues-and culture media used in research programs. It is usually treated with lime and

' packaged in 55-gallon drums-for disposal. Institutional.trash consists.mostly

of paper, rubber, plastic, broken labware and-disposable syringes. Sealed

sources consist of radioactive material that has been encapsulated to contain

and-prevent leakage of the material.' Sealed sources-aredpackaged'in a'shielded

container for transport and are sometimes disposed of in toner tubes-or caissons

backfilled with concrete.

The use of radioactive materials and resulting wastes produced by industrial

waste generators are diverse and can consist of: sealed sources, compuctible

trash, radioisotope production wastes, and a range'of.biological, scintillation and absorbed liquids similar to those generated by medical -and -educational

institutions.

2.5 DISPOSAL OF LLW

-Waste is disposed of by a method generally known as shallow land or near surface

disposal (NSD). This method of waste disposal consists of placing packaged

wasteinto.excavated trenches. The filled trenches are backfilled,with soil,

capped,' and mounded .to -facilitate 'rainwater runoff. -

The operators of thedisposal facilities offer the essential services"of providing a licensed'-and controlled'site 'for>'disposal of'radioactive'waste.

*.Presentlyithere'are'6 commercial-sites: 3 operating and 3,'closed. -AOne of

the operating siteslocatedat Barnwell, South Carolina, is-operated.by ChemNuclear. Systems,"Iric.' .The' other. two operating sites ,located at'Beatty,' Nevada

and'Richland, Washington are.operated'by U.S. Ecology, Inc. -Thecommercial

sites .are summarized in Table';2.1'below. The Department of Energy (DOE).also

operates 14:sites throughout'the country .forlthe 'disposal 'of wastes generated

from certain defense and'all'DOE.research.and developmentiactivities.These

14 sites are not'subject'to'NRC'or Agreeme'nt State regulatory Jurisdiction.

2.6 FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSIBILITIES IN COMMERCIAL LLW DISPOSAL

There are five key federal'agencies that 'administer programs'regarding the

'_-management'and disposal of LLW. .These'include the.Nuclear'Regulatory Commis-

'. sion (NRC), the Environmental'Protection"Agency.(EPA), 'the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) in the'Department'of Interior,;the Department, of'Eneigy-(DOE),

'and the Department'of Transportation.(DOT). ' - ' . . -

- * -- - ;-- - C

*.2-3
| LouTable 2.1 Commercial Waste Disposal Sites

Originally

Licensed Currently Operational

Location Operator By (Year) Licensed By Status

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

Nevada

Maxey Flats U.S. Ecology, Inc.* Kentucky (1962) *State Closed

Kentucky

West Valley, Nuclear Fuel New York (1963) State Closed

New York Services, Inc.

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

Washington NRC**

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

Illinois

Barnwell, Chem-Nuclear South State and Open

S. Carolina Systems, Inc. Carolina, (1971) NRC**

XU.S. Ecology was the operator while the site was open. Currently, Hittman,

Inc. maintains the site as a caretaker for the State of Kentucky.

**NRC licenses only special nuclear material.

NRC has regulatory responsibility for use of source, byproduct, and special

nuclear material including control of LLW disposal at 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 charged 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 assists in the

development of basic data for application in the development of criteria. The

U.S. Department of Transportation has the primary responsibility for regulating

waste containers and other aspects of the interstate transport of radioactive

waste. The Department of Energy carries out federal responsibilities for the

research, development, and transfer of LLW disposal technology to commercial

industry.

In discharging its responsibilities, NRC is permitted by the Atomic Energy Act

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

special nuclear material to the states. States which have assumed regulatory

authority are termed Agreement States and currently, there are 26 such Agreement States. Licensing of commercial LLW disposal facilities is part of the

NRC's authority which may be assumed by an Agreement State. Of the six commercial disposal facilities which have operated in the United States, five of

these facilities are located in Agreement States and are principally regulated

by the Agreement States (See Table 1.1).

2-4
2.7 REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR LLW DISPOSAL

Existing NRC regulations for commercial LLW disposal in licensed disposal'

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

(§20.302). The requirements mainly 'describe in general'terms'the type'of

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

require that LLW disposal facilities'mu't be sited on'land owneddby the'state

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

lease conditions between the disposallfacility-'operator and state landlords

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

surveillance of the facility site after closure.. Licensi.ng of the six commercial sites has, therefore, been performed by'NRC"or the Agreement-States on

a case-by-case basis following these'general requirements in Part 20 or compatible provisions in Agreement State',regulations.

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

Licensing of Byproduct Material"), Part 40 ("Domestics Licensing of Source

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

apply to possession of-licensed material-by a disposal facility licensee.

Part 2 ,("Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings") contains geneI, ral'requirements for NRC'licensing'proceedings.- Part''51 ("Licensing and Regu-

' latoryPolicyand Procedures for Environmental Protection") contains requirements for compliance with the National Environmental'Policy-Act of 1969 (NEPA).

To the exte'nt that a new regulation such as Part 61 represents a change in NRC's

radiation protection program for source,!byproduct, and special nuclear material,

.it-is necessary that the Agreement States cooperate in the formulation 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. ' ;

2.8 BRIEF HISTORY OF'LLW DISPOSAL'

''Thedisposal of-commercial LLW by near surface dispbsal 'generally~followed from

the practices and procedures'utilized by'the Atomic Energy'Commission'(AEC) at - *' national laboratorie's'involved in atomic energy research andidevelopment and'

''defense-programs. ;Activities' in the programs involving use'of radioactive materials-generated quantities of radioactive waste and means had to'be developed

'for their disposal.. fo .:.r athi di ! , .9 ' f .- ¢ * .- a

Two principal methods of disposal',were utilized: near surface disposal'(NSD)

and ocean disposal. The'practice of NSD'was quickly adopted:-as the preferred

disposal practice. This technique could be utilized near-the point where the

waste was being generated, avoiding unnecessary transportation which'might

jeopardize the security of the project in the event of a transportation accident. In addition, NSD proved to be a fairly cost-effective technique as it

employed practices commonly used in sanitary landfill operations and did not

require' unusual equipment or'construction-techniques t -

iWith the growth of commercial applications,'the'AEC'announced in 1960 that

regional land burial site's for commercial'LLW'should'be established'on'federal-

* or state-owned land and that the sites-'should be operated by private contractoris subject to g'ov'ernmernt licensing authority. -With this'announcement, the

'AEC indicated that its'disposal sites'wouldonly be available for commercial it ~ .ds'a'ie;6l only

2-5
use until adequate disposal capacity was established in the private sector.

As an interim measure, pending designation of regional commercial waste sites,

the AEC also announced that disposal sites at Idaho Falls, Idaho and Oak Ridge,

Tennessee would continue to accept commercial wastes for disposal.

At the same time, the AEC also initiated a phase-out of sea disposal operations

by placing a moratorium on the issuance of new sea disposal licenses. Existing

licenses remained in effect and were phased out. The last disposal of commercial wastes at sea took place in June 1970.

In September 1962, the AEC licensed the first commercial land burial site at

Beatty, Nevada and, during the period 1962-1971, five additional commercial

sites were licensed by the AEC or Agreement States resulting in a regional

distribution of commercial disposal sites as shown in Table 1.1. In May 1962,

the AEC withdrew its program of interim acceptance of commercial waste at Idaho

Falls and Oak Ridge.

2.9 HISTORICAL BASIS FOR LLW DISPOSAL REGULATIONS

Over the past 35 years, considerable experience has been gained at both government and commercial disposal facilities. This section reviews the historical

record of past disposal practice to see which practices have worked well, areas

where improvements are needed and the level of performance of existing sites.

This material has been taken from NUREG/CR-1759, "Review of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal History" (Ref. 4).

In general, the overall performance of the existing LLW disposal facilities

has been marginal to very good. Problems have been encountered at several

sites although these problems have not resulted in any threat to the public

health and safety. Of most significance have been problems with site

instability which have led to maintenance problems at the three closed sites.

The problems have thus, involved economic and social resource commitments not

originally anticipated to care for and maintain the sites. The instability

experienced at these sites also makes prediction of long term performance

difficult as well as the need to commit funds and personnel to correct areas

of instability to ensure that problems of public health and safety significance

do not develop. The experiences at these sites point out that a combination

of unstable waste forms, specific site characteristics and certain design and

operational practices led to problems of instability. They also point out

problems with respect to financial assurance and institutional control of the

sites. Each is discussed in further detail below.

2.9.1 Closed Sites

Maxey Flats

The difficulties experienced at the Maxey Flats site were caused by a number

of interrelated factors, including site characteristics, waste form, site

design and operation, and institutional considerations. Although the difficulties have not caused significant off-site exposures, they have resulted in considerable expenditures of money by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to maintain

the site in a safe condition. These expenditures were neither planned for nor

funded for while the disposal facility was operating. They have also resulted

in uncertainties in predicting the levels of future impacts and required

maintenance.

2-6
,Siting factors contributing to the difficulties included a humid environment

coupled with a complex site geology. The low permeability of most of the site

soils, along with the humid environment;and site-operational practices, has

'resulted in a water acculmblation'problem (the "bathtub" effect) in many-of the

disposal trenches. -

In addition, 'numerous fractured'formations exist in the subsurface media. In

-general, the locations and extent of fractured formations cannot be: ascertained,

-'and'they raise the'possibility of subsurface migration'of'radionuclides. Consequ'ently,'they significantly increased the difficulty of predicting the long

term performance of the site.'

The waste6formhasiprobably been one of 'the most significant'factors leading

to the current difficulties. The waste farms .sent to"Maxey Flats reflected

the generalp'ractices of the times.-:'Licensees were'encouragedAto send all suspect wastes for disposal. -FWaste'minimization or volume reduction were not

required on a technical or economic base. Most of the waste that was disposed

into the site is believed to have been either composed of very easily degradable

material or'p'ackaged'so-that large void spaces existed within the waste or

'between the waste and the packaging. ;Frequently, these:easily degradable waste

streams contained-little-or no radioactivity. Some of the waste packages (such

as cardboard-and:fiberboard boxes)`were-often easily degradable. The wastes

-often contained chemical agents that helped to further increase waste degradation and'leaching of radionuclides. '

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 trench contents, followed by subsidence or slumping of-the disposal trench covers. This increases the percolation of water into the disposal

trenches, accelerating the cycle. This'slumping-and subsidence is'frequently quitesudden. ''- -'- ''':'

'Initially; much'of this slumping would be expected to-be'caused by compression

of-the'wastes'packaged in weak or easily degradable'containers.- Over the short

-term, longer-lasting btlt"still degradable rigid 'containers'such-as wooden boxes,

55-gallon drums; and steel-liners would be expected to help reduce subsidence.

The rigid containers initially provide-some structural-support to the'trench

covers, and act toz"bridge" voids-within the'disposal trench and'waste'packages.

Eventually, however,' this structural support is'lost' as' the rigid-containers

rust or rot out, leading to disposal-trench settling at-'rates which are diffi-

-cult to predict. '' - - -

Site design and operating practices also contributed to the rapid waste degradation,' subsequent slumping of-the-trench cove'rs, andLinflux of precipitation.

The site' design and operating practices also reflected the 'general practices

of the times. The'waste'was emplaced within the disposal-trenches with'little

or no attempt to segregate wastes according-to characteristics such as chemical

content or the relative stability of the waste packages. In general, little

compaction was given to the disposed waste, backfill, and trench covers other

than that provided by driving over the disposal trenches with heavy trucks.

Given-all these factors, considerable void 'spaces are believed to have'existed

within the trenches which promoted -rapid settling. -'Another factor was that

water was'frequently-allowed to'stand in-the open disposal trenches while they

we're-'being 'actively'filled.- This again helped to promote rapid waste degradation and settling.

2-7
II.I:LAnother operational problem involved handling practices which led to several

incidences of contamination of site grounds and equipment. This contamination

was caused by small leaks and spills from packaged wastes delivered to the site.

Although some contamination is probably unavoidable, the surface contamination

problems at Maxey Flats have also been caused by past onsite solidification of

bulk shipments of low activity liquids shipped to the site for disposal and by

deposition from an evaporator installed to treat trench leachates pumped from

trenches. Of principal importance, this site surface contamination has complicated assessment of the relative contribution of each of the possible routes

of radioactivity release from the site, and consequently may have reduced the

effectiveness of the environmental monitoring program.at the site.

Institutional considerations have principally involved insufficient planning

for site closure, funding for closure and for long-term care, and appreciation

of the levels of activities and expenditures that could be needed to address

major subsidence and disposal trench instability problems and leachate

management.

Given this experience, it is clear that unless adequate steps are taken to

achieve long term site stability (i.e., reduce subsidence of the disposal

trenches through mechanical or other means of stabilization and installation

of trench covers that will prevent infiltration) the process of leachate production and need for treatment will continue to occur. At the same time,

instability makes it difficult to predict long term site performance and

uncertain high costs are involved to care for the site over an uncertain long

time frame.

West Valley

The difficulties experienced at West Valley were also caused by a number of

interrelated factors, including waste form and site design and operations.

Here again, the major problem has been site instability caused by disposal of

compressible wastes, void spaces between waste and packaging, no segregation

of wastes during emplacement, voids created through backfilling operations,

and no real compaction of backfill or trench caps. These factors coupled with

a humid environment and low permeability soils led to trench cap subsidence

and collapse, infiltration of precipitation and accumulation of leachate within

disposal trenches. Remedial actions to place and compact thicker trench caps

were required and have retarded infiltration. Liquids pumped from trenches

were treated. Such active maintenance activities caused by site instability

are probably more expensive than if the site had been designed and operated so

that only minor maintenance (e.g., filling of small depressions, cutting the

grass) were required. Again, in this case, although there has been no hazard

to the public health and safety, large unanticipated expenditures of funds have

been required to place the site into a stable condition. The ability of remedial

actions to provide long term stability is uncertain and additional funds may

be required over the long term.

Sheffield

The performance of the Sheffield site has shown some of the same types of

instability problems as Maxey Flats and West Valley. Although little or no

leachate pumping activities are required at the site, trench subsidence and

slumping problems have been observed which are generally similar to those

2-8
'>'experienced at the Maxey Flats and West Valley sites. Much of the waste was

'easily degradable or was packaged with large void spaces within the waste containers.' Void spaces also existed between disposed waste packages, and there

was limited compaction of-backfill and disposal trench covers. The subsidence

and trench cover slumping has led to increased infiltration of rain'and'surface

water, leading to increased maintenance requirements. The need for maintenance

resulting from this instability would appear to be significantly less- than that

at West Valleysor Maxey Flats. This is mostly due to the nature of the site

'soils, which'are more permeable than those at the other two sites', and consequently there-is less potential for a water accumulation problem. The'site

operator has taken steps to-address and mitigate the above concerns.

'Stil1, itis apparent that significant expenses will be required over several

years for site stabilization and care.: As in the case of Maxey'Flats and West

Valley, these expenses were not planned for at the time that the facility was

''''opened and'the site was opened and operated without specific criteria for the

-condition the-site'would-be in upon transfer to the State (the-degreeof site

' stability after-closure, the level of maintenance required over the long-term,

etc.) Duringoperations, the site operator prepared a site utilization plan,

which included provisions for site surface water management and erosion control,

but waste disposal was terminated prior to complete implementation of the plan.

-Such a plan was not,-however, made a condition of license operation at the time

'the facility was originally licensed.- Although funds were collected for "perpetual care" as a surcharge on received waste, the'amount of-funds collected

will be insufficient to close and stabilize the site by today's standards.

Theretwas no provision to formally corrolate and update the amount of funds

that would have'to be collected with the amount of site maintenance expected.

2.9.2 Operating Sites

Barnwell

There have been no problems identified with performance of the disposal facility.

As'is the case-of the Beatty and Richland sites, the problems experienced are

unrelated to the operation of the site or its ability to isolate radioactive

wastes. They have related to the receipt of improperly-packaged waste, improperly solidified waste and waste-containing excess free liquid. An inspection

program has been instituted to-address this problem. Also, as is the case at

the Beatty and Richland sites, since operations started, a -number of changes

and improvements to site operations have been Implemented in response-to operational experiences. [

Many of-these-improvements have involved operational,.procedures, including

methods of disposal trench construction,' health physics, and environmental

'monitoring. "An example of an improvement-in-disposal trench construction

implemented since operations:began is the current-practice of replacing the

top few feet of sandy surface soil with compacted:clay., Many-of the waste form

and packaging requirements implemented at'the site have been imposed within

the last few years and are intended to help improve transportation safety,

occupational'safety during handling at the disposal site and to improve' overall

stability of the site. -:

I'An improvement in institutional requirements has been the adoption into both

the State and NRC license of more specific requirements on site closure. These

2-9
-

requirements include development by the site operator of a preliminary closure

and stabilization plan. A requirement that adequate funding arrangements for

closure and long-term care be made is also part of the closure license

conditions.

Richland

There have been no problems identified with the performance of the disposal

facility. Due to natural site characteristics, there have been no problems

with groundwater migration from the site and no problems are expected in the

future. Potential long-term problems with wind erosion of site soils have

been greatly mitigated and possibly eliminated through engineering means -- i.e., by the depth of cover placed over the disposed waste and the license

requirement for trench stabilization against wind erosion.

The problems that have been experienced at the site are unrelated to the operation of the site or to the ability of the site to isolate radioactive waste,

but are a result of violations of transportation regulations by waste shippers

and transporters. Wastes have been received at the site improperly packaged

and in damaged packages.

The current license for the site is very detailed, containing specific requirements on waste form, operational health physics, and trench design and construction, which can be inspected against. Perhaps most importantly, the site license

contains specific requirements on preparation for site closure. The site operator is required to prepare a preliminary site closure and stabilization plan

addressing site closure, the conditions of the site upon transfer to the site

owner, and arrangements for funding for closure and long-term care.

Beatty.

There have been no problems identified with performance of the disposal facility.

The difficulties that have been experienced are unrelated to the ability of

the site to isolate radioactive waste. Problems were encountered with respect

to diversion of waste from the disposal site by site employees which resulted

from earlier inadequate management control over site personnel that existed at

the site at the time the problems were occurring. (Subsequent to the diversion

problem, site management changed hands, and there have been no such diversion

problems since.) Recent problems with waste shipments similar to those experienced at Barnwell and Richland can be attributed to a large degree to waste

generator and shipper practices.

As the site has been operated, a number of license conditions and improvements

have been added in response to the above problems and experiences. For example,

although liquids in bulk quantities were once received at the site for subsequent solidification and disposal, this practice has been discontinued. With

few exceptions, receipt of liquids at the site is prohibited. Some of the

requirements instituted after the diversion problems included increased security

(additional fencing and access control), additional trench construction requirements (including a requirement to survey trench boundaries and reference the

surveys to a benchmark), and improved. recordkeeping requirements that waste

normally be emplaced within three working days of receipt. Other, more recent

requirements are intended to help address the problems with leaky waste packages being delivered to the site.

2-10
Unlike the Barnwell and Richland facilities, there are no requirements in the

site disposal license for preparing and implementing a specific site closure

and stabilization plan. The State believes, however, that this is compensated

by a strong lease with the-site operator.< This lease-was renegotiated in 1979

and the site operator agreed to'posta'bond against~icosure costs. 'In addition,

"a sinking fund exists for long-term care of the site. This fund is fed through

sources such as fines on transportation-violators as well 'as'a'surcharge'on

received waste.

2-11
-

REFERENCES

1. Murray, Raymond L., Understanding Radioactive Waste, Prepared for U.S. DOE

under contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, PNL-3570/UC-70, December 1981.

2. Evans, Robley, D., The Atomic Nucleus, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1955.

3. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Basic Radiation

Protection Criteria, NCRP Report No. 39, January 15, 1971.

4. Clancy, J. J., et. al., Data Base for Radioactive Waste Management, Volume 1

Review of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal History, NUREG/CR-1759,

November 1981.

2-12
Chapter 3

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS ON THE-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATMENT

3.1 '- -INTRODUCTION ':

The draft EIS for' 10 CFR 61 was"issued in September 1982 as NUREG-0782. The

public-comment'period for the'document'ended on January 14, 1982, and during

this period 50 commenters provided written comments to NRC. Of the'50 comments

received-by the Commission, -8 contained no reference to the draft EIS but were

limited instead to'comment on the'proposed 10 CFR 61.: These eight comments

were considered and analyzed as part'-of the'staff analysis of comments on the

rule. Therefore, the discussion in this 'chapter is -limited to the comments of

the'remaining 42-commenters.: All of the written comments -(including the 8

mentioned above) are available for review at-the NRC;Public Document Room, 1717

H Street NW., Washington, D. C. and are filed under PR-61 (46 FR 51776).

'Of the 42.comments received on'the 'draft EIS, 21 came from states-or state

agencies. Although many'i6f-the these -commenters had no comment o'n the draft

'EIS', several submitted extensive comments. Federal agencies and/or-national

'laboratories submitted -8 of the 42 comments, and these includedisome of the

most extensive'comments received by the staff. '

-Other commenters responding to the draft EIS are categorized-below:

o Utilities - 5 commenters '

o Industry - 3 commenters

o Individuals - 2 commenters -

o Brokers/Disposal firms - 2 commenters i'

o Radiation Safety Personnel - 1 commenter - ' 

As comment -letters were received they were docketed'by the staff and then

reviewed to determine the specific comment items requiring responses. Each

such item'was numbered marginally, and a response-to-that item was-prepared by

an individal reviewer. Individual-reviewers also identified-additional 'work

or analysis for the draft EIS which was prompted'by the preparation of comment

responses.' -The comments received and the responses prepared for them are presented in Appendix A.

3.2 ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS

As'noted above, 42 comment letters were'recieved by NRC on the draft EIS. The

tone of the letters was-overwhelmingly supportive of'the goals and the results

of'the'10'CFR 61'rulemaking effort. Criticism of the proposed rule and the

draft'EIS'was generallyconstructive in nature.: Of the 42 letters received,

29 contained items which required a response by the staff. The' remaining 13

comments in one form or another acknowledge receipt of the draft EIS but contained no items requiring a response.

-3-1
Public comments were received on the rule as well. A total of 107 different

persons submitted comments on proposed 10 CFR Part 61. The commenters represented a variety of interests. The topics addressed a wide range of issues

and all parts of the rule. The general response was quite favorable. Almost

half (47) expressed explicit support of the rule or its overall approach.

Many expressed the view that the rule provides a needed and adequate framework

for establishing additional low-level waste disposal capacity. Support was

expressed by almost every sector. Only 15 commenters expressed outright

opposition to the rule or some significant part of the rule. Most (9) were

individuals. No State group or current disposal site operator expressed

opposition. Most of the remaining commenters (47) either offered constructive

comments without taking a general position on the rule or offered support with

reservations about one or more aspects of the rule. The staff analysis of

rule comments is contained in Appendix B and specific comments and staff

action taken in response to specific comments are set out in the various

chapters and appendices of the final EIS.

In 29 comment letters on the draft EIS, the staff identified 235 items which

required responses. For purposes of summary presentation in this chapter,

these items were assigned to categories based on the major divisions of the

rule. Two other categories not based on the rule--scope of the draft EIS and

Editorial and Other Comments--were added to assure completeness. The following listing gives a breakdown of comment items by category:

Category Number of Comment Items

1. Scope of the draft EIS 42

2. Performance Objectives 3

3. Technical Requirements: 7

Site Suitability

4. Technical Requirements: 16

Design, Operations & Closure

5. Technical Requirements: 46

Waste Classification

6. Technical Requirements: 14

Waste Characteristics

7. Technical Requirements 12

Institutional Requirements

8. Financial Assurances 9

9. Records, Reports, Tests & Inspections 0

10. Amendments to 10 CFR 1

11. Editorial and Other 85

Total 235

In the following sections, the significant comments under each category will

be discussed. Along with this discussion the staff's analysis and conclusions

as to changes or additional work in the final EIS are presented. As noted

earlier, each comment item has been specifically addressed and is contained in

Appendix A. In addition, the staff's actions taken in response to specific

comment items are set out in the various chapters and appendices of the final

EIS.

3-2
3.2.1 Editorial and Other-Comments

This category was the largest in'terms of the, number"'of comment'responses.

required, 85-in all. However,-mostof the comments dealt with typographical

errors, organization or format and had no significant effect on the analyses - in 'the draft or final EIS. -The majority of the comment-titems' are' listed in

Appendix'E-of this volume, '.Errata for the draft EIS for 10'CFR Part 61.;"

3.2.2 Waste Classification.,,-

The staff received 46 comments on the treatment in the draft EIS'of..the rule's

technical requirement on waste classification. Most of the commente'rs were

concerned-with.the.limits on waste concentrations set forth in the rule and on

'thedassumptionsand basessupporting these limits., For example, several of

the commenters noted that for various reasons--among them, unrealistically

conservative assumptions, decay of short half-life ,radionuclides'and'the low

probability of inadvertent intrusion--,the-values derived in the'draft EIS for

Table 1 were'unnecessarily restrictive. :,-These commenters.'also'.noted that the

data base' upon-which these values were developed contained uncertainties and

that the'draft EIS did notexplicitly-evaluate .the.effecttof these uncertainties..-It was'suggestedthat upon review.of these and other factors.that the

concentration limits shouldbe relaxed by atleast one.order of magnitude.

* The.staff acknowledges thatthere,are uncertainties in-theradioactive,waste

data base. Despite these uncertainties, however, thestaff-believes'that the

data base is the most complete yet prepared for low-level 'waste. The staff

also believes that the uncertainties.do not preclude making an-intelligent --decision on the requirementstobe included in Part 61.','The data base-and

assumptions-are--conservative, although an effort has-been generally-made to

avoid over-conservatism.

With respect to the commentson the restrictiveness-of the concentration limits

in Table 1, the-staff.has reevaluated the calculations.that establish the waste .-classification concentration limits to eliminate unnecessarily'c'o'nservative

.assumptions. Based on this reevaluation.the concentration limits for Class C

* waste in Table- -'have been raised. t' ,

- Five parties commented .onthe proposed.Part 61 limits 'on near-surface-disposal

of transuranic.(TRU);radionuclides. In.the draft rule these limits:wer'e set

-at.10 nanocuries:per.gram:(nCi/gm) of waste. In general, these commenters

supported a relaxation of this limit, although onecommenter only,'suggested

that options for disposal of transuranic nuclides above' 10 nCi/gm should be

addressed. Several arguments were advanced in support -of-this position, one

being that TRU content in wastes from nuclear power plants is typically well

* below10'nCi/gm and only occasionally-in.the-10'-100 nCi/gm range. Another .-.noted-that the current-.,limit.:(-1OnCi/gm) is essentially unenforceable'in that

current measurement techniques -make ,it very difficult'if not impossible to

certify~that waste contains less thanlO nCi/gm.' However, 'it-would.be much

less-difficult tocertify thatwaste contains less thin 100 nCi/gm. .In

responseto these and other arguments, the staff reevaluated the.analyses for

disposal of waste containing transuranic nuclides-and,,as a result, the

disposal limits for Class C waste have been raised-to 100 nCi/gm for long-

-lived alpha~emitting transuranic nuclides.- For:Class A-wastes, the limit

remains.at 10 nCi/gm.-. , m - - - ' -

3-3
al lax6-

Several commenters expressed support for setting concentration levels for

wastes below which there is no regulatory concern, the so-called "de minimis"

level. The staff considered this action during the development of the draft

Part 61 and the draft EIS, but decided that setting de minimis levels on a

waste stream specific basis was preferable to establishing a generic limit.

The staff is of the same opinion at this time and therefore, has not included

de minimis levels in the final Part 61 and final EIS. However, NRC intends to

accelerate its schedule for development of de minimis levels. In the development of these levels, the staff is willing to accept petitions for rulemaking

from licensees for declaring certain waste streams to be of no regulatory

concern.

The issue of total hazard in determining a waste classification system was

also addressed by several commenters. (In this regard, a waste classification

system based on "total hazard" is meant to consider in addition to radiological hazard, the chemical, biological, or other nonradiological hazards in

waste material.) The problem which the staff has found in dealing with nonradiological hazard is that to the staff's knowledge there is no accepted

consistent way to numerically compare radiological and nonradiological

hazards. There are hundreds of thousands of different chemicals in existence,

and the level of knowledge of the effects of these chemicals on the human body

is much less understood than the effects of radioactive material. Nonetheless,

there are key provisions of the rule which were developed to minimize potential

nonradiological hazards associated with low-level waste. In addition, NRC

plans to coordinate with EPA on this matter.

Finally, several commenters raised questions about compliance with the waste

classification system proposed in the rule and draft EIS. These commenters

questioned the ability of regulators to accurately inspect against the generator's certifications, and the use of scaling factors, among other aspects.

The staff believes that licensees can economically and effectively carry out

proper waste classification programs. At present the staff has identified

four basic programs which may be used either individually or in combination by

licensees to determine radionuclide concentrations in waste: materials accountability; classification by source; gross radioactivity measurements; and direct

measurement of individual radionuclides including scaling some radionuclides

based upon measurement of others. (These methods are discussed in the final

EIS.) Routine detailed measurements on all waste packages are not considered

necessary or desirable by the staff. To assist licensees, the staff is preparing written guidance on the methods by which compliance with the waste

classification system can be shown.

3.2.3 Scope of EIS

Forty-two of the comments received fell under this category. Most of these

comments simply asked why a certain subject was not included in the draft EIS,

why it was treated the way it was or other similar questions. As these types

of comments were very specific and did not affect the overall EIS to a substantive degree, they are not discussed in this summary. Rather, the staff

has excerpted those comments on scope which are most substantive or which have

affected the final EIS to the greatest degree.

The major comment raised on the scope of the draft EIS described the document

as "...inadequate as an environmental full-disclosure statement..." and

3-4
criticized-the document for reading "...as though a serious public health and

radiological protection problem werelbeing addressed whereas, in truth, the

shallow land burial of low-level nuclear waste is essentially 'a non-problem in

these respects.'"- In preparing thie draft EIS-the staff.sought'to explore a broad .range ,of alternatives in order to systematically develop'the proposed'Part 61

rule.:and to demonstrate' the.decision process.behind thit'development. The staff

'also sought to assure that the Commission's mandate under the'.Atomic'-Energy

.!.,Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were me't.'.In' both cases the staff .. feels that-the documentimeets' the objectives and notes that this 'commenter was

alone among 50 others in~suggesting that the draft EIS was inadequate.

The staff also believes that low-level radioactive waste, if not managed and

disposed of properly, may;indeed'jeopardize'public health and safety and the

environment; in addition to posinglong-term economic burdens.' Similarly, the

staff-does not believe thatLLW can be dismissed'as a "non-problem"'and'any

attempt to do so is, at'the'very least, inappropriate. ' l'.' anan

Another commenter,.the.,Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found the draft

EIS'to be deficient in''the abse'nce 'of discussion in',the'draft EIS of the

"...potential environmental impactand health risk.from the non-radioactive

chemical,-hazardouis a'ndtoxic materials-'in the LLW.".';In preparing the'draft

~EISthe staff concentrated on the. public health and safety aspects and

.environmental impacts'of-the'radiological 'hazard of LLW, although'it was

recognizedrthit chemical and other.hazards'may.accompany this waste. The staff

believes that efforts'to consider these other hazards are not reaadily attainable

and would in;fact delay the 'Part 61 'rulemaking effort 'needlessly.' The staff

believes that the technical provisions of Part 61 generally meet'or exceed those

expected in EPA's rules for the disposal 'of hazardous wastes. ''.Although it is

not NRC's intent to allow disposal of hazardous wastes 'in a radioactive waste

disposal facility, as is noted in the regulation, the''Commission recognizes

that small amounts of such wastes may be present in low-level radioactive wastes.

It is-NRC's.view that''disposal,.of these.combined wastes'in accordance with the

Irequirements of Part 61 will adequately protect public health'and safety and

environmental.quality." In addition, NRC.plans to study.the chemical'toxicity

--of various types.of..low-level waste in the interim and to'exainiie what 'steps

could be taken to minimize the non-radiological hazard of LLW.

;A third comment on'nthe6scope'of the-draft EIS-noted that the document'failed

to specify'".. .in a clear, concise and meaningful way, the costs and benefits

associated with"the various alternativeactions considered."' Several commenters

raised this issue in different ways and' the staff, upon review of the draft

EIS, recognize the difficulty. in.following the large number of alternatives

analyzed. Therefore, the final'EIS contains--summary alternatives which combine

various waste form and processing options; facility.design options and operational procedure-s..These summary alternatives,(four in number) are evaluated

against one "another.to arrive'at the preferred alternatives'for inclusion in

the final "version'o'f-Part 61. The' staff feels that this' treatment is responsive to concerns such as the one mentioned'earlier 'in this'paragraph and also

affords.theinterested reader an opportunity to more critically examine the

decision process which led to the final isio'ns of Part 61.'

-' ' ' I '''. ' -K';' ";i

3-5
- 01.4-

Two commenters felt that the draft EIS should include a discussion of.the

hazard or risk associated with operation of a low-level waste disposal

facility in order to place the impact analysis in its proper perspective.

Upon review of this comment the staff decided to hold with its original

decision not to attempt to quantify risk of LLW disposal facility operation.

This decision was based on consideration of the substantial new work and delay

in preparation of Part 61 which a risk assessment would require. In addition,

the staff felt that this significant expenditure of work and the consequent

delay in rulemaking was not warranted given the limited additional information

which would be provided by expressing exposure in terms of risk. The draft

EIS contained a comparison of calculated doses (impacts) to existing standards,

and in the final EIS the staff has attempted to express these impacts in a

clearer manner. In addition, a section has been included in the summary which

provides dose response relationships as set forth in ICRP Publication No. 26.

The reader can use these to estimate the level of risk associated with doses

calculated for the various alternatives.

Another commenter felt that the draft EIS throughout placed undue emphasis on

practices in use in the late 1960's to early 1970's as reference points for

evaluating proposed Part 61 requirements. The staff recognizes that significant improvements have been made by the regulatory agencies and site operators

in the requirements imposed on disposal facility operations and believes that

the draft EIS contained adequate recognition of this fact. In the final EIS,

as mentioned earlier, four summary alternatives have been identified by the

staff for comparative evaluation. These alternatives include an alternative

which specifies past disposal practices and one which specifies current practices. Each of these alternatives are then evaluated against the projected

costs and impacts of implementation of Part 61. No further changes are

planned in the final EIS as a result of this comment.

Finally, one commenter noted that the draft EIS and Part 61 "...fail to

accurately address realistic concerns and place realistic conditions on the

operation of a radioactive waste disposal site at an arid location." The

staff in preparing the draft EIS and Part 61 did not attempt to regionalize

the analysis. Rather, the effort was intended to arrive at a regulation which

would be applicable in any climatic region. The staff believes that the

Part 61 requirements for achieving long-term stability will be effective at

both humid and arid sites. Specific measures to be used at specific sites

will be reviewed on a site-specific basis. No further changes are planned in

the final EIS as a result of this comment.

3.2.4 Facility Design, Operation and Closure

The staff received 16 comments which were placed in this category. The comments were specific in nature and had little, if any, effect on the final EIS.

In general, the comments dealt with the layout of disposal facilities, design

of disposal unit covers, and occupational exposures.

One of the commenters inquired as to the availability of decontainerized disposal as an option for low-activity waste. The staff considered this option

and has not precluded it from use under Part 61.

Several commenters raised questions regarding cost assumptions in the draft

EIS: salaries, environmental monitoring costs and closure and decommissioning

3-6
costs. In general, these commenters felt that the cost assumptions were too

"low. Two commenters also'suggested that more realistic cost projections-could

be made by incorporating the concept of time value of money. -The staff made

inquiries of these commente'rs and;incorporated revised'cost figures 'into the

final EIS."'Although these revised figures 'did to some extent alter the analysis

of the final EIS, the conclusions of the analysis were not changed.

3.'2.5 Waste Characteristics'

The staff received 14 comments by various parties on the technical'requirements

related.to waste characteristics. Several of the major comments are 'discussed

below: '

One commenter-felt that container-limits on gaseous radioactive'wastes are

excessively conservative and should be justified in the draft EIS. The staff

based its -100 Ci limit on license conditions for disposal of gaseous wastes

now in effect at the Hanford and Barnwell disposal sites. .-The 100 Ci limit

appears generally consistent with an accident evaluation assuming a dropped

package producing occupational exposures'to site workers. The DOT limits,

however,.are'established based'upon accident doses to the public.- For gaseous

waste forms the'occupational 'exposure case is the limiting-condition. The

Commission has studies underway to determine whether higher limits would be

appropriate. Such limits would be proposed in a future rulemaking.'-

Another commenter requested that criteria-be given by NRC to reasonably-assure

that wastes will meet the 150 year stability requirement ' -Since the draft EIS

was published, the staff has reconsidered this requirement-and removed it to

be in keeping with the desire to avoid prescriptive requirements where possible.

Staff'technical positions prepared to provide -guidance on this subject, however,

state'that'to the'extent'that it is-practicable, waste forms or containers

'should be'des'igned to maintain'gross'physical properties and identity'for over

300 years.' - ' ' ' '

3.2.6 Institutional Requirements

Twelve comments were received by the staff'on this part of the'draft EIS.

Several of these major comments are discussed below. It should be noted,

however, that none of these'comments' resulted in substantive changes to the

'methodology, findings or conclusions' of the draft EIS. ' ' ''' -

One commenter noted that the differences between the'responsibilities -of

-'Agreement and'non-Agreement States''werei not clearly identified and questioned

whether'a non-Agreement-State-could 'provide 'surveillance during operational,

closure and institutional control per'iods if that-state in fact'owned-the - disposal facility. - The staff'noted that the responsibilities of Agreement and

.non-Agreement States are in fact different' with respect:to'licensing of a LLW

disposal -facility. ;.Agreement'St'ates'would'have'responsbility-for licensing

'and regulatory control'of sites; -while'in 'the :case-of''non-Agreement States,

this'responsibility would rest'with the'NRC for-byproduct, 'source'and special

'nuclear materials.- With respect'to"surveillance, monitoring,K'institutional

and other land ownership resp'6nsbilities, 'hwever, both-Agreement'and nonAgreement States would have the same responsibilities as landowners-and NRC

believes both can administer acceptable programs.

- 3-7
l .ll|

Another comment noted that Part 61 should permit transfer of land to federal

ownership during site operation or after closure. The staff noted that the

proposed Part 61 does not preclude transfer of land ownership from a state to

the federal government. Present laws, however, contain no specific provisions

for such transfers and each case would have to be worked out on an individual

basis.

A third comment questioned the assumption in the draft EIS that records may

not be available in 100 years noting that our society has commonly preserved

records for over 300 years. In preparing the analysis of institutional controls, NRC did not intend to imply that records would only last for 100 years.

Rather, the staff assumed that active institutional controls can only be

relied on for 100 years, although they may last much longer. The staff also

assumed that passive institutional controls such as records would last for

much longer than 100 years.

3.2.7 Financial Assurances

The staff received 9 comments on this portion of the draft EIS. The comments

received were specific in nature and, although they had some effect on the

final EIS, there was no substantive effect on the conclusions of the analysis.

3.2.8 Site Suitability

Seven comments were received by the staff on the technical requirements for

site suitability. The comments considered most significant by the staff are

discussed below.

One commenter felt that the draft EIS "...fails to emphasize the need to prevent

significant movement of pollutants from the disposal site to underlying ground

water." The commenter also suggested that ideally the disposal site should be

in an area having a substantial thickness of clay or that trenches should have

impervious bottoms and sides.

The staff believes that the draft EIS contains adequate emphasis on the movement

of radionuclides from the disposal site to underlying groundwater. (Indeed,

several commenters felt that the draft EIS placed too much emphasis on this

pathway.) With respect to the second comment on siting in areas having a

substantial thickness of clay, the staff has attempted throughout the draft

EIS to avoid prescriptive requirements. The siting criteria in the rule

strive to eliminate undesirable characteristics yet allow siting in almost any

part of the country, so long as an applicant can demonstrate that the site

will meet the performance objectives and technical requirements of the rule.

Requiring an applicant to locate only in an area having a substantial thickness of clay would limit the siting options open to the applicant and would

give little credit to other aspects of the disposal "system," i.e., waste

form, site design, operational procedures, etc. With respect to the use of

trenches having engineered impervious bottoms and sides, this suggestion would

in the staff's opinion only lead to other problems, i.e., the "bathtub effect,"

which would in turn lead to trench overflow and the need for trench leachate

pumping and treatment. This comment has not resulted in any change to the

final EIS.

3-8
Another comment on site suitability noted that the draft EIS and the proposed

Part 61 rule assume that "...in the event of early release of radionuclides

from disposal containers, ,or from-decontainerized disposal that site design...

should be capable of preventing radionuclide migration out of the disposal

trenches... (but) the proposed regulations provide no fail-safe assurance that

this will be the case." The draft EIS and 10 CFR 61 do not provide fail-safe

assurances that waste released from a container will 'not migrate from the

trenches into the surrounding groundwater and environment. Rather, both the

rule and the draft EIS are based on the interaction of waste form, site characteristics, site design and site operation and closure as a system which will

provide a reasonable assurance that the performance objectives of Subpart C

will be realized.

One commenter felt that NRC would be basing its decision on site suitability

on the ability of sites to fit NRC computer models and that the realities of

site complexity make it unlikely that present models will be adequate to the

task. The staff's findings on suitability of a proposed site will not be

based solely on computer modeling although such modeling will be a basic tool

in site evaluation. Existing models are believed to be adequate for noncomplex sites and new or improved models are being developed.

3.2.9 Performance Objectives

The staff received 3 comments on this aspect of the draft EIS. Two of the

three comments received are discussed below.

One commenter noted that ALARA considerations are mentioned through the draft

EIS, but do not receive any treatment in the performance objectives of the

rule. The staff considered this comment as well as similar ones made on the

rule itself and determined that it is NRC's intent that ALARA apply to the

performance objectives addressing releases of radioactivity to the environment

and safety during operation. Accordingly, the rule has been amended to include

specific reference to ALARA in the performance objectives for protection of

populations (§61.41) and safety during operations (§61.43).

A second commenter took issue with NRC's approach in the draft EIS and proposed

Part 61 of specifying performance objectives and technical requirements rather

than only performance objectives. The staff believes the approach taken was

appropriate for several reasons. One is that a rule based only on performance

objectives would take longer to prepare and would require significantly greater

time in licensing due to the large number of factors needed to be considered

in determining compliance. Moreover, while this approach might be workable,

it would not allow for establishment of more detailed prescriptive requirements

in those areas where specific guidance is known to be needed. Finally, the

comments received on Part 61 and the draft EIS have overwhelmingly supported

the combined approach of performance objectives and minimum technical requirements set forth in the rule.

3.2.10 Amendments to Other Parts of 10 CFR

The staff received only one comment on this subject area, and inasmuch as it

did not have any effect on the final EIS, it is not discussed here.

3-9
ILIIl_

3.2.11 Records, Reports, Tests and Inspections

No comments were received on this part of the draft EIS.

3-10
Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1,.BACKGROUND AND'INTRODUCTION

Thedraft EIS contained.a detailed analysis of a broad range of alternative

waste form properties'and altern'ative 'disposal facility design and operating

* practices. 'In fact, more than 70 specific cases were analyzed numerically in

Chapters'4, 5, and 6'ofthe.draftEIS, while several other alternatives which

could not be readily analyzed numerically were analyzed on a .subjective'basis.

This analysis served two objectives.' First, based upo'n the results'of this

analysis, several.performance, objectives and technical criteria were developed

for codification into the proposed'Part 61 regulation.' Second, the analysis

served to review, andprovidean estimate of the relative effectiveness of,

many of the improvements in low level-waste disposal, technology that had been

developed over the past.years.

The four basic performance objectives developed for near-surface of low level

waste include:

1. ,Protect'the public health and safety (and the environment) over the

,long term; ' ,

2. Protect the potential inadvertent intruder;

3. Ensure operational and public health'and.safety during the'short-term

operational phase; and

4.. . Ensure lorngj-term stability'to eliminate 'the need for-long-term

maintenance after operations "cease. '' - ; - -

Technical criteria were then developed to help ensure that the performance

objectives will be met. Key principles were identified which are of primary

significance in ensuring that the performance objectives will' be met.' These

are:

' 1. . ong-term stability of the'disposal facility'and disposed waste.

.Stability'helps to reduce disposal unit cover collapse,Isubsidence,

water,infiltration, and the-need to care for the'facility over the

long-term.'

2.' The jresence of liquids in waste and the contact of water with waste

bothduring operations and'aft'er the site is'closed. 'Water is the

primary vehicle forywaste'transpbrt and its-presence inland 'contact

with waste can contribute to' accelerated'wa'ste decomposition'and

increased potential'for making'the waste available for transport

offsite. ' ;-

3. Institutional, engineering, and natural controls that'can be readily applied to reduce the likelihood and impacts of inadvertent intrusion.

4-1
3I- 3-

A review of the comments received on the draft EIS indicated few, if any, major

objections to the overall performance objectives and most of the technical criteria. There were, in fact, several laudatory comments on the draft EIS. There

were, however, a number of comments on specific technical details of the analysis,

such as the assumed costs for environmental monitoring. (Revisions to the technical details of the analysis methodology are discussed in Appendix C of this

final EIS.) In addition, there was some concern that the large number of cases

considered and the extreme level of detail was confusing and difficult to follow.

In response, the analysis for the final EIS is considerably simplified over

that for the draft EIS. Four cases (and minor variations on them) are presented

for numerical analysis which are representative of the following:

1. Past disposal practice (base case alternative)

2. Current disposal practice (no action alternative)

3. Part 61 requirements (preferred alternative)

4. Upper bound requirements (all stable alternative)

A detailed description of each alternative and variation thereof follows, which

is then followed by a presentation and comparative evaluation of the results

of the analysis. First, however, a brief review of the assumptions, data base,

and impact measures calculated is presented.

4.2 CALCULATIONAL METHODOLOGY

This discussion of the calculational methodology used for the final EIS is

presented in three sections: (1) information base for analysis, (2) use of

reference waste volume and disposal facility, and (3) impact measures. Further

background information may be obtained from consulting the draft EIS and

Appendix C of this final EIS.

4.2.1 Information Base for Analysis

To perform the alternative analyses, an information base was 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 was assumed to be divided into four regions

as shown in Figure 4.1. 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 region (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. A list of some of

the various regional site's environmental properties is presented below.

4-2
I

--I -

LA

ALA I *

NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT CAPACITY . - A

* 1.censed To Operate -

72 licented by NRC to operatal 2 otheth authorized to operate (DOE-owned)

A Belin Built

_87 constructton permit,

2 site work authorlied

I mtewittt

54,474.0

S 910.0

*, 95.373.4

; 2,300.0

;

AA

* Planned -

17 reactors ordered 19,874.0

t80 - 172931.4

lincludes Sequoyah t and No. Anna 2. a of October t, 1910 *we ttrttit up

with full power opitnlg tieanttIat from NRC. and Sarm 2, whloh wm sthorited

to b**J gurl and conduct low povw 1tssk4. Does not Wndude Inden Point 1.

rated at 25S MWAt: the openattng authority of thit unit wn revoked on 6.Ibt0

by the Nuclear fngulatory Convnision athr owner 16 itutired to tuznt a decommissioning ptan for Unit I witthi 120 days from said datse.

Figure 4.1 Low-Level Waste Generation Regions BECAUSE OF SPACE LIMITATIONS, SYHBOLS

DO NOT REFLECT PRECISE LOCATIONS
Regional Sites

Environmental Property NE SE MW SW

Mean average temperature 80C 170C 110C 140C

OC (OF) (460F) (630F) (510F) (570F)

Average wind speed 16.6 13- 17 25

km/hr

Average annual precipitation 1,034 1,168 777 485

mm (in) (41) (46) (30.5) (19)

Average annual natural percolation 74 180 50 1

(PERC) into groundwater system (2.9) (7.1) (2.0) (.04)

mm (in)

Precipitation-evaporation (PE) index 136 91 93 21

of site vicinity

Average silt context of site 65 50 85 65

soils (%)

Average cation exchange 15 10 12 5

capacity (meq/100g)

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 37 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 years 1980 through 2000. The

37 waste streams so considered in this EIS are listed in Table 4.1. 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. For

some waste streams, sufficient data is available to represent radionuclide

concentrations as a distribution. The radionuclides considered are shown in

Table 4.2. The volumes of each waste stream are considered on a regional basis.

That is, the volume of the waste stream is projected for each of the above

regions over a 20 year' period.

Furthermore, six generic alternative waste form, processing, and packaging

options are considered. These generic processing options, called "waste spectra,"

4-4
Table 4.1 Waste Streams Considered in Analyses

Waste Stream Symbol

Group I: LWR* Process Wastes!,..

PWR** Ion Exchange Resins : P-IXRESIN

PWR Concentrated Liquids P-CONCLIQ

PWR Filter Sludges P-FSLUDGE:

PWR Filter Cartridges-- P-FCARTRG

BWR*** Ion Exchange.Resins B-IXRESIN

BWR Concentrated-Liquids ' B-CONCLIQ

BWR Filter Sludges, ' B-FSLUDGE

Group II: Trash

PWR Compactible Trash.- P-COTRASH

PWR Noncompactible Trash P-NCTRASH

BWR Compactible Trash, B-COTRASH:

BWR Noncompactible.Trash B-NCTRASH

Fuel Fabrication Compactible Trash F-COTRASH

Fuel Fabrication Noncompactible Trash ;F-NCTRASH'

Institutional Trash (large facilities) I-COTRASH

Institutional Trash (small facilities) I+COTRASH

Industrial SS# Trash' (large facilities) N-SSTRASH

Industrial SS Trash (small facilities) N+SSTRASH

Industrial Low Act. Trash (large facilities) N-LOTRASH

Industrial Low Act. Trash (small facilities) N+LOTRASH

Group III: Low Specific Activity Wastes

Fuel Fabrication Process Wastes

UF6 Process Wastes

Institutional LSV## Waste (large

I-nstitutional LSV.Waste (small 1

Institutional Liquid Waste (larl

Institutional Liquid Waste (sma'

Institutional Biowaste (large f,

Institutional Biowaste (small fi

Industrial SS Waste,

Industrial Low Activity Waste

Group IV: Special Wastes

facilities)

facilities)

ge facilities)

I1 facilities'

facilities)

acilities) '

F-PROCESS'

; U-PROCESS

I-LIQSCVL

I4LIQSCVL

) I-ABSLIQD

) I+ABSLIQD

I-BIOWAST

- I+BIOWAST

-N-SSWASTE

N-LOWASTE

LWR Nonfuel .Reactor Core Components

LWR Decontamination.Resins

Waste'from Isdtope' Production Facilities

Tritium Production Waste

Accelerator Targets.

Sealed Sources

Industrial High'Acitivity'Waste' '

MOXt Facility Decontamination Waste

;; L-NFRCOMP

L-DECONRS

'- N-ISOPROD

- N-TRITIUM

N-TARGETS

: - N-SOURCES

N-NIGHACT

F-PUDECON

*LWR:

**PWR:

***BWR:

#SS:

##LSV:

tMOX:

Light Water Reactor

Pressurized Water Reactor

Boiling Water Reactor

Source and Special Nuclear Material

Liquid Scintillation Vial

Mixed Oxide (PuO2+U02)

..- 4-5
- £.I1t.

Table 4.2 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

13

13

x

13,9

x

f3

13

13,

13

13,

13

13I

a,

a,

a,

a,

Y

y

Y

Y

1, Y

Y

3, Y

Y

Fission; Li-6 (n, cc)

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-98 (n, y), Mo-99 ( )

Fission

Fission; daughter Xe-135

Fission

Natural

Natural

U-238 (n, 2n), U-237 (1 )

Np-237 (n, y), Np-238 (1);

daughter Cm-242

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

(3 )

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture; daughter

Am-242

Daughter Pu-241

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture

Multiple n-capture

a, y

a,

a,

a

a,

ar,

aI

Y

3, Y

Y

3, Y

Y

Y

4-6
represent relative levels of waste processing activities applied to the 37 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

an infinite number of possible'combinations of'various waste streams and processing options are available. The first four waste spectra are described in detail ---in Appendix-D-of the-draft EIS. Minor-revisions to the.spectra for the final. EIS,

as well;as a description'of waste spectra-5 and 6, are contained in Appendix C

of this-final -EIS..;'A.condensed description-of the,6 waste spectra-is included

in this'chapter!as Figure-4.2. -

Briefly, waste spectrum 1 characterizes'past and,- in some cases,-existing waste

management practices. Waste spectrum 2 characterizes improvement's in the form

'of the'waste-through processing'and reduction'in waste volume-with relatively

modest'expenditures of time and money.' Of the:6 waste spectra, waste spectrum 2

mostclosely resembles existing waste management practices,-which'are currently

inamarked state of change dueto state-initiatives, a lack of disposal-capacity,' and-'economic considerations.- Waste spectrum 3 characterizes further waste

*form improvements and volume reduction at further increased -costs,-including

incineration of most combustible waste stre'ams. -Waste' spectrum 4 characterizes

the maximum volume reduction and improved waste forms that can currently be

practically achieved. Waste spectrum 5 characterizes (for most waste streams) 'use"6f'containers"prov'iding"structural 'support to achieve waste form stability

,rather than processing toga solidform. For purposes solely of analysis-in -. thisEIS, costs and other properties'associated with such containers are assumed

'to be those'associated with a high integrity container (HIC), a recently developed and mairketed waste packaging option. 'Waste spectrum 6 is a combination

of.waste spectralland 2, and characterizes a'condition in'which compressible

waste streams 'are subjected to-improved compaction, but high activity waste

streams are~disposed for the most part'in-an unstable waste form. Waste;-spec-

-trumn6is'believed to'represent current and future waste'management'practices

assuming there are no'requirements on achieving stable waste forms.

The waste spectra can be used singly or in combinations to represent a particular

alternative requirement. .

The third.component'of the information base involved'characterizing'a number

,of alternative disposal facility designs and operating practices with respect

''to their costs, operational exposures, a'idother factors.''These-alternatives

are 'developed in Appen'dix F'to the draft EIS'as updated by'Appendix C of this

final'EIS. Included are'aalternatives 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 character- -ized include the following:

"' ' ' ' Deeper trenches, Improved-monitoring -

Thicker trench covers -. - Moisture barriers '

Increased backfill thickn'ess -Sand backfill '

Layered waste disposal Improved surface water - -,'

Slit trenches drainage't '- 'T -; - -

Caisson disposal Weather shielding

Concrete walled trenches Stacked waste emplacement

Grouting Waste segregation

Engineered intruder barriers Decontainerized disposal

Improved compaction Dynamic compaction

4-7
@& l4"

Figure 4.2 Summary Description of Waste Spectra

Waste Spectrum 1 This spectrum assumes a continuation of past and in some

cases existing waste management practices. Some of the light water reactor

(LWR) wastes are solidified; however, no processing is done on organics, combustible wastes, or streams containing chelating agents. LWR resins and

filter sludges are assumed to be shipped to disposal sites in a dewatered

form. LWR concentrated liquids are assumed to be concentrated in accordance

with current practices, and are solidified with various media designated as

solidification scenario A.* No special effort is made to compact trash.

Institutional waste streams are shipped to disposal sites after they are

packaged in currently utilized absorbent materials. Resins from LWR decontamination operations are solidified in a medium with highly improved characteristics (solidification scenario C).*

Waste Spectrum 2 This spectrum assumes that LWR process wastes are solidified

using improved solidification techniques (solidification scenario B).* Prior

to solidification, LWR concentrated liquids are additionally reduced in volume

to 50 weight percent solids through use of an evaporator/crystallizer. In the

case of cartridge filters, the solidification agent fills the voids in the

packaged waste but does not increase the volume. Liquid scintillation vials

are crushed at large facilities and packed in absorbent material. All compactible trash streams are compacted, most at the source of generation and some

at the disposal facility. Liquids from medical isotope production facilities

are solidified using solidification scenario C procedures.

Waste Spectrum 3 In this spectrum, LWR process wastes are solidified assuming

that further improved solidification agents are used (solidification scenario C).

LWR concentrated liquids are first evaporated to 50 weight percent solids.

All possible incineration of combustible material (except LWR process wastes)

is performed; some incineration is done at the source of generation and some

at the disposal site. All incineration ash is solidified using solidification

scenario C procedures.

Waste Spectrum 4 This spectrum assumes extreme volume reduction. All waste

streams amenable to evaporation or incineration with fluidized bed technology

are calcined and solidified using solidification scenario C procedures; LWR

process wastes, except cartridge filters, are calcined in addition to the

streams incinerated in Spectrum 3. All noncombustible wastes are reduced in

volume at the disposal site or at a central processing facility using a large

hydraulic press. This spectrum represents the maximum volume reduction that

can be currently achieved.

4-8
Figure 4.2 (continued)

Waste Spectrum 5 This spectrum incorporates for most waste streams high

integrity containers'(HICs)'to achieve.a stable waste form.' Relative'to.waste

spectrum 1, all waste streams other than activated metals which had previously

been in' an unstable 'form are stabilized using HICs.' Activated metals arestabilized by filling'interstitialvoids in a waste container-withy anoncompressible material LWR concentrated liquids' are solidified assuming solidification scenario B procedures, while waste from medical isotope production

facilities is assumed to be solidified using solidification scenario.C.

Wastes from'tritium'manufacturing facilities are also placed into-HICs. All

compressible waste streams are compacted into-HICs, most;at the source of

generation and some at a regional processing cehter assumed to be colocated

with the disposal facility.

Waste'Spectrum,6 'This waste'spectrum represents overall waste characteristics

'projected to result'without requirements for waste stability and considering

the increasing" costs for'waste disposal. Similarly'to waste spectrum 1,.most

higher activity'waste streams are'disposed in an unstable manner. LWR.resins

and filter sludges are shipped in a dewatered form. Pressurized water reactor

(PWR) cartridge filters, -LWR nonfuel reactor core components, and LWR.noncompressible trash are 'also' packaged in a nonstable manner. LWR concentrated

liquids are reduced in'volume to 50 weight percent'solids and :solidified.-

Similarly to waste'spectrum'2, all compressible waste 'streams are compacted.

Most-are compacted at the source'of generation and-some at'a regional processing center assumed to be colocated with the disposal 'facility. -

Solidification'scenario A: half of a waste stream is

urea-formaldehyde, the other half in cement. :

-Solidificat'io'n scenario B ' half of a waste streameis

the other half in vinyl ester styrene. A - Solidification scenario C: 100% of a waste stream is

ester styrene. : - -

.. ... * .

solidified in

solidified insolidified in

cement,

vinyl, 'i

i - . I

I I . I

: -,- :  i . -, -1

I I .  : . .

I I .  . . I -

I t 1.

. . i .

I r .- -

. I . . . I., I 11 " , ,

'4-9'
- l.14 -

Other disposal alternatives were also briefly examined. These included poten- tial land based methods (e.g., intermediate depth disposal, mined cavities) as

well as other potential disposal methods (e.g., ocean disposal). Many of the

alternatives were selected for further detailed analysis in the draft EIS.

4.2.2 Use of Reference Waste Volume and Disposal Facility

From the above, it can be seen that when considering the effects of alternative

regional, waste form, and facility 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

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 of the draft EIS, the reference waste volume distribution is obtained through averaging all the waste volumes assumed to be generated in each of the waste 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 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 (e.g., from state compacts) therefore

implies that most of the waste generated in humid environments would also be

disposed in humid environments. 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., up to about 50,000 m3 of waste per year over a 20-year operating life,

or up to a total volume of one million m3. This corresponds to approximately

one-quarter of the total volume of LLW projected in the United States to the

year 2000.

The reference facility site minimally meets all of the site suitability requirements set out in the draft Part 61 rule. The facility is also assumed to be

operated in compliance with minimum radiation safety practices required by provisions of 10 CFR Part 20, as well as most of the criteria in the NRC Branch

Technical Position on Site Closure and Stabilization. (See Appendix I of the

draft EIS.) The facility is described in detail in Appendix E of the draft

EIS. 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

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

4-10
includes 58 disposal trenches with dimensions of 180 m (591 ft) long, 30 m

(100 ft) wide, and 8 m'(26'ft)'de'ep.- The rather large trench sizes assumed

are representative of recent trends at existing disposal sites. A 100-foot

buffer zone-encircles the-disposal area and lies between the disposal area and

the disposal site boundary. Support facilities and structures at the site

include (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 contents of the shipment. Arriving shipments-are inspected for compliance with

applicable-federal regulations and waste acceptiance'criteria established as

conditions in the disposal facility license.

Waste is randomly emplaced in the trench, sometimes using cranes and forklifts,

and for the base case (see Section 4.4) 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-meterfthick:earthen cap is then placed upon the backfill and is

mounded. The'earthen cap is then covered with natural overburden material.

The overburden is then reseeded to promote growth -of a short-rooted grass

cover. - -

After a 20-year operating period, closure of the facility is assumed to

require approximately-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 that

direct radiation levels are at essentially background levels. Following

closure, the disposal license with the site operator is terminated and the

license for the site -s transferred to the site owner. For this EIS, the site

owner is assumed to be a state agency.

4.2.3 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 4.3.

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 leading to surface water and air transport; and release of gaseous decomposition products from the waste containing radioactive species (e.g.,

tritiated methane gas). Further discussion is provided below.

- 4-11
.

Table 4.3 Impact Measures Used in Analyses

Waste Management Phase Impact Measure

Waste processing Costs

Energy use

Occupational exposures due

to waste processing

Population exposures due

to waste incineration

Waste transportation Costs

Energy use

Occupational exposures

Population exposures

Waste disposal 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

o overland flow

o leachate treatment

4-12
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 intothe disposal facility cann'6t reasonablybe 'pro-

.tected against, and it is not.considered further. After the facility closes,

however, and assuming a removal or breakdown of active institutional control

'. .-;and surveillance over the facility, -one, ora few individuals couldinadv'ertently .- .disturb.waste at the disposal facility-through such activities as constructing

l a house... In this case-the intruder is unaware of the'presence'of the waste or

-the~possibility of.a' health hazard..- - -.

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

removal of institutional controls, has -been examined-in-detail-in studies by a

; number of industry, national.laboratory, and federal agency contractor;investigators. These studies analyzed a range of intrusion exposure pathways ranging

from potentially trivial events to-events which could cause relatively signifi-

- cant exposures. .. - .. .- . .. ;

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

selected a limited number for analysis in the EIS. (Refer to Chapter 4 of the

draft EIS.3).-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 'dependin'g upon specific waste

forms and disposal practices. -

-., ;The intrusion events considered are discussed in detail in Chapter- 4 and Appendix G of.the draft EIS.. Briefly, the events involve consumption'of water from

*:a well drilled at the 'site, plus two scenarios in which the intruder'.contacts

.waste directly.. The former is discussed.as part of the forthcomingdiscussion

- on groundwaterimigration.- - - . . .

.. The-two scenarios involving direct contact of waste by an -intruder are termed

the intruder-construction scenario and the intruder-agriculture scenario. The

-intruder-construction scenario involves exposures to workmen involved in con-

;structing.a house-directly on the disposal facility, thus contacting and dispersing the disposed waste. .-Exposuresican result from-.airborne dispersal of a

soil/waste mixture (leading-to~exposures due tojimmersion in a contaminated

cloud as well as from;inhalation)-and from-direct gammi radiation>. -The intruder-

--.;;agriculture scenario-involves-an individual or several individuals living in

the house thus constructed and consuming food grown'in a-small O6n-site garden.

Exposures can result from airborne dispersion of a soil/waste mixture, direct

-gamma radiation, and ingestion-of-contaminated-foodstuffs. . .:

The extent to which the-above two scenarios occur is dependent upon'the condition- of- the waste- at the time the-waste is contacted. -JThis'is furtheir'a function -of time, the original-waste form, and disposal-site operating'practices.

;For -. example, the-extent that-the-above two scenarios would occur wouldbe . .significantly reduced if: (1) the waste was in a-form recogn'izable as something other.than dirt, or (2).the waste was disposed at a sufficient'depth so

4-13
@ l.l;-

that contact from normal surface activities such as housing construction is

unlikely. In the first case, since it is believed that the most likely cause

of human intrusion is a bureaucratic mistake, it is believed that activities

such as housing construction would not proceed if workers dug up hunks of waste

material. Rather, workers would stop while land records are investigated and

the mistake discovered. This abbreviated version of the intruder-construction

scenario is called the intruder-discovery scenario, and potential exposures

would be much less than those of the full intruder-construction scenario. In

this event, the intruder-agriculture scenario would not occur. In the second

case, it is believed that if the waste is disposed at sufficient depth below

the earth's surface, then it would be much less likely that the waste is contacted in any case, whether the intruder-construction and intruder-agriculture

scenarios occur, or just the intruder-discovery scenario occurs.

In this EIS, therefore (see the draft EIS for additional background), the

following-is taken to occur at the end of the institutional control period:

o If stable waste streams are segregated from unstable waste streams,

then the intruder-agriculture and intruder-construction scenarios

are applied to the unstable waste streams and the intruder-discovery

scenario is applied to the stable waste streams.

o If unstable waste streams are not segregated from stable waste streams,

then the intruder-agriculture and intruder-construction scenarios

are applied to all waste streams.

o If waste streams are stable and layered (placed at the bottom of a

disposal cell), then only a fraction of the intruder-discovery scenario

is applied to the stable and layered streams.

The effectiveness of waste stability and waste layering as a means of reducing

intruder exposures, however, is only assumed to last for a period of 500 years.

After 500 years, no credit is given to waste form for reducing intruder exposures. Waste is assumed to have an appearance similar to ordinary dirt and

the intruder-construction and intruder-agriculture scenarios proceed normally.

A somewhat similar situation exists for layered waste. The full effectiveness

of layering is only assumed to last for 500 years. After 500 years, the layered

waste is assumed to be contacted in a similar manner as unlayered unstable waste

at 100 years. However, waste disposed so that at least 5 meters of earth or

low activity waste covered it would still be undoubtably difficult to contact

even at 500 years. As much as a factor of 10 credit for layered waste is believed

possible at 500 years, although no such credit is taken in the analysis methodology. The effect on the calculated impacts of taking such credit is explored

in the ensuing analysis, however.

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

water are given major consideration in this EIS. To analyze potential ground

water migration impacts from near-surface radioactive waste disposal, NRC staff

has adopted use of a model reference waste disposal facility located in a humid

environment. Movement of radionuclides from the disposed waste and through

ground water has been modeled based upon calculational procedures derived from

Darcy's Law. As depicted in Figure 4.3, a disposal cell (or group of disposal

cells) is assumed to be located within an unsaturated zone of thickness Zo.

4-14
.I

- I

. - 1 ;-

9..

9..

- I .

lax ;

f - -

l f

t -

t

4 s - + 4 h

: 4 -

- t ) -

-

: : lbl

:; s \ n

; - *e

| - \ q

D

- I

- . ... **,

11 " . . I

:,

INTERfACE 0FTHE'

SATURATED AND .. UNSATURATED ZONES, I .

_ - . ..

IU,

,TED ZONE PARAMETERS:..

V, X, R ,.-

Ds Ds j D " ' .. . . , ' .

, DISCHARGE SURFACE - * . . I

E . . :^ .'.

.. . . . . .

* : r . o . . * . .

,_, - . . ,; ..

. .

Figure' 4.3

. g . .f . .a Scenario

Geometry of Ground Water Scenario ---
II :1

Both the unsaturated zone and the underlying saturated zone (aquifer) are assumed

to be stationary, homogeneous, and isotropic, and the fluid moving through these

zones is assumed to be incompressible and of constant viscosity. The disposal

cell is filled with a heterogeneous mixture of waste streams ranging from streams

having very low activity to streams having relatively high activity. Each waste

stream contains a particular suite of radioisotopes and, if contacted by water,

leaches at a particular rate. Precipitating water striking a covered disposal

cell may percolate into and flow through the cell and leach out a portion of

the radionuclides contained in the waste.

The source term of each radioisotope in the disposed waste leaving the bottom

of the disposal cell is given by (Jo) in Curies/year. The radioactive source

moves down through the unstaturated zone with hydraulic velocity (w), and mixes

with the water in the saturated zone. The.water in the saturated zone, carrying

the radiocontaminants with it, is then assumed to flow horizontally with hydraulic velocity (v). As illustrated in Figure 4.3, the contaminated ground water

can be visualized as crossing a discharge surface at some arbitrary distance (x)

downstream of the disposal cell(s), having a radionuclide activity equal to J

(in Ci/yr).

The source term (Jo), and the factors that go into its determination, are discussed more extensively in Appendix G of the draft EIS. It is a somewhat complicated function of site environmental conditions, disposal facility design

and operating practices, waste characteristics (including waste leaching characteristics, radionuclide concentrations, chemical content, and structural

stability), and the potential for intrusion by humans, plants, or animals. To

provide a reasonable yet conservative analyses, the reference site is assumed

to experience a relatively high precipitation rate (1.17 m/yr) and a high natural

percolation rate (PERC = 180 mm/yr). The percolation of water into disposal

cells at the reference facility is a variable depending upon facility design

and operating practices and waste form. For example, unstable waste forms would

result in higher percolation of rainwater into disposal cells (due to subsidence

of disposal cell covers), while improved thicker disposal cell covers and compaction techniques would reduce percolation. If the unstable waste streams were

disposed mixed with the stable waste streams, then all of the waste streams

would experience high percolation rates. However, if the unstable waste streams

were disposed segregated from the unstable waste streams, then only the unstable

waste streams would experience the higher percolation.

Percolation rates into disposal cells may also be increased through intrusion

by inadvertent humans, deep-rooted plants, and burrowing animals. During the

active institutional control period, the site owner would be expected to survey

and maintain the disposal facility, to prevent inadvertent intrusion by humans,

and to control and limit potential intrusion by deep-rooted plants and burrowing

animals. However, following the active institutional control period, breakdowns

in such surveillance and control activities are postulated to occur. Therefore,

for disposal facility designs which depend upon improved covers to reduce percolation (e.g., a walled trench, a compacted clay cap), a reduction in the

effectiveness of these disposal covers is assumed at a time 100 years following

license termination. The extent of this reduction in effectiveness is discussed

in Appendix G of the draft EIS. Briefly, however, 90% of the disposal area

experiences percolation equal to twice the previously assumed value for that

4-16
case. The remaining 10% experiences even higher percolation, the specific!

value of which depends upon the case considered.

As another example, the leaching of radionuclides from the disposed waste depends

upon the radionuclide content, whether the waste is solidified, and the chemical

content of the waste. Unsolidified waste streams are-assumed to leach at a

fraction corresponding to leach fractions measured under totally saturated conditions at the Maxey Flats, Kentucky and West Valley, New York disposal facili-

: ties. Solidified waste forms are assumed to leach at lower rates based upon

; an approximation derived from experimental data. However, increased leaching

of solidified waste forms is. assumed if chelating agents-or organic chemicals

are present. If wastes containing chelating agents or organic chemicals are

disposed in a segregated manner from other waste streams, then the higher

leaching fractions are only applied to the segregated streams; otherwise, the

higher leaching fraction is applied to all solidified streams.

Radionuclide leaching is also varied in this EIS by considering disposal designs

which reduce the amount of leaching. The amount of leaching is assumed to'be

proportional to the amount of water contacting'the waste and to the contact

time of the water with the waste. Disposal designs'that increase the speed

that percolating water flows past the waste reduce the quantity of radionuclides

leached for two reasons: (1) by reducing the amount of water having sufficient

time to dissolve the wastes 'into the water retained between successive infiltration events, and (2) by reducing the amount of water retained between successive infiltration events. This may be accomplished by using high porosity;

low specific retention backfill materials such' as a very coarse backfill (such

as sand and gravel) rather than a 'very fine-grained backfill (such as clay).

After the radionuclides have left the'disposal cell, the movement of radionuclides

* through ground water may be estimated by a number of calculational techniques--

many of which may be extremely complicated and require a great deal of sitespecific information. Given the generic nature'of this analysis, however,.a

simple approximation in this EIS is used which allows rapid consideration and

* comparisoniof a number of alternatives.' This'approximation solves the Darcy's

Law differential equations in terms'of error functions. Basically, however,

the disposed waste is modeled as 10 distributed sources or sectors as shown in

Figure 4.4.' Movement of radionuclides out ofthe sectors and to a biota access

location is calculated principally as a function of the ground-water travel

time from:the sector to the access location,'the Peclet number (basically the

distance to the access location divided by-the longitudinal dispersivity of

the medium), and the retardation coefficients of the medium.

Actual values for retardation coefficients at a specific site would be a strong

function of site soil and environmental conditions. Since a generic rather

than a site-specific analysis is-being performed in this EIS, retardation

coefficients must be assumed rather than measured.- In this EIS, 5 sets of,

retardatioln coefficients are assumed which'correspond to those which would be

expected from a range of soil conditions.--These 5 sets'are shown in Table 4.4.

The first set corresponds to retardation coefficients for very permeable sandy

soils, the fifth set corresponds to very impermeable-clayey soils, and the third

set corresponds to moderately permeable soils having a'moderate clay content.

It can be seen that the retardation coefficients for some radionuclides--i.e.,

3H, 14 c, 99Tc, and 129 I--are relatively low and do not appreciably vary under

4-17
I 860in I

I_-- >1

I I I I I 11

I DISPOSAL AREA .

I I/

E I...

BUFXER Z ( S BX xO O

V% I _. e \

BUFFER ZONE (30m) SITE BOUNIDARY

IIDIVIDUAL-WELL

/ BOUNDARY-WELL

POPULATI ON-WELL

POPULATIOON-SURFACE

WATER

MAIN STREAMLINE W

4:v

GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION

KEY:

*X SOURCES

(D ACCESS LOCATIONS

Figure 4.4 Geometric Relationships of Disposal Area and Ground Water Access Locations
' , Table 4 I . I

I .I

. I I .-.

': -- I Nuclide'

4.'4 'Sets of Retardation Coefficients

Used in Impacts Analysis '

-Assumed.Retardation Coefficients..

, I -

*Set I

; --'i 1j

-H-3. 1

- .. C-14 10:;

Fe-55. ,630

Ni-59t - 420

Co-60 420

Sr-90 .9

Nb-94 --1000

Tc-99 2 ^

:-129 2

Cs-137t '85

, . U-235t .840

Np-237 300

.Pu-238t 840

. Cm-243t, 300.

Am-241t' 300

- Set

. 1 .

10

1A29(

860-

860

- 18

215C

.3.

3,

.2 Set Z

.. 1

2640

1750

1750

3.6

4640

. 4

3 Set 4

10

5400'

3600

3600

.73'

10000

5

5

720

7200

2500

7200

2500

2500

-Set .5'

10.

11050

7350

7350

146

21500

.6

1460

14730

5000'

.14730

5000

5000

, 1, I I I I .

11 - r

I -- I. I

1'. -

- I 

i . I I

- - : I . I I

z . i . , . , I

'173 350

1720,, 3520

600 .1200

1720 3520.

-600 1200

.600 ;1200

.- j ;, - --,tCoefficientsfor other isotopes of these

elements are"assumed to be the'same. . .1. , . 1 . . I . ...

I, i "" ' : -  't . . _1 " , , - ;z  , , , I , I . , ;. I I I . , . , C . .. . - 11 I I . 1 - I . - , .1 . I I , .

I . I , . .

. : , . I " t . I

- , I - I

., - - i .

4-19
Uj.I'3

different soil conditions. For other radionuclides, the retardation coefficients are sufficiently large that the travel time of the radionuclide to a

biota access point may be on the order of thousands of years. Within that

time, considerable radioactive decay can occur. The result of this is that

the ground-water migration exposures calculated in this EIS are mainly dominated by the above four isotopes. Tritium is relatively short-lived but is

present in the disposed waste in relatively large quantities and is very mobile

in the environment. The latter three isotopes are present in much smaller

quantities, but are long-lived and are also assumed to be environmentally mobile.

At an actual site, retardation coefficients and other environmental properties

may be measured. There will be some uncertainties with these environmental

properties, however. In addition, no site soils will be completely homogeneous,

although it is recognized that it is desirable during siting activities to

select a site having as simple a substrata as is practical. Finally, although

site selection would be geared to avoiding discontinuities, it is always

possible that there will exist features such as continuous sand lenses or

fractured formations.

For the above reasons, it makes sense in this generic analysis to concentrate

on the above four nuclides which are expected to be very mobile in the environment. These nuclides move equal to or at about the speed of groundwater. The

significance of this is that actions taken on a generic basis to control disposal of mobile isotopes will also control disposal of the less mobile isotopes.

That is, if movement of the mobile isotopes can be minimized (and the mobility

of these isotopes are less dependent on specific site environmental conditions),

then movement of the less mobile isotopes such as Cs-137, whose mobility would

be normally expected to be less but would be a stronger function of site environmental conditions, would also be minimized.

The retardation coefficients assumed for the reference disposal site correspond

to set 3 on Table 4.4 (soils with moderate permeability). However, lower retardation coefficients (set 2) are assumed for radionuclides contained in waste

streams assumed to contain or be contacted by chelating agents or organic chemicals. That is, if waste streams containing chelating agents or organic chemicals

are segregated from other waste streams, then the second set of retardation

coefficients is applied to the streams containing the chemical agents and the

third set ij applied to the other waste streams. If no segregation is performed,

then the second set is applied to all waste streams.

Radionuclide concentrations are then determined as a function of time at four

principal downstream biota access locations:

1. a well located on the disposal facility and potentially used by an

inadvertent intruder following the end of the active institutional

control period;

2. a well located at the site boundary which is assumed to be used by a

few individuals;

3. a well assumed to be located approximately 500 meters down gradient

from the disposal facility and used by a small population of about

100 persons; and

4-20
4. a small stream located about one kilometer down gradient from the

disposal facility and assumed to be used by a small population of

about 300 persons IOnce the concentrations at the biota'access locations are determined, potential

exposures from consumption and use of the water-may be-determined-for seven

organs. "These' include-whole body, bone, liver, thyroid,-kidney,-lung, and the

gastrointestinal (GI) tract. '

As discussed earlier, the calculational procedure first'estimates'th6 source

term'Jo, in curies/year, leaving the disposal cell.' However, .the.concentrations of radionuclides at the biota access locations are also determined by

the volume of water with which the released and migrating radionuclides are

diluted. All other considerations being equal, the'larger'the Volume of'water

with'which the radionuclides are diluted, the lower therconcentration of the

radionuclides in the water. The dilution volume is a site-specific variable,

andis dependent upon'the attributes of the aquifer (thickness, flow rate, dis

persivity, etc.), the'distance from the release point (the further away from

the release point, the greater the mixing that would likely-occur), and man-made

perturbations such as pumping water'from a-well. - - '

Given the generic nature of thfe analysis in this EIS, reasonable yet conserva-

' tive assumptions-are-made regarding-the dilution volumes.----For-the first two

biota access locations (intruder well and boundary well), released radionuclides

are assumed to be diluted by a volume of water equal to that provided by natural

percolation of rainwater -upon the disp'osal area (about 87--acres). -(At the

reference facility, this volume of water is'equal to 63,400'm3 .) Of this volume,

the individual using the contaminated water is assumed to' withdraw'7700 m3/year

(3.84 gpm), which represents the basic annual needs of a single person living

in a rural area.

For the population'well, the dilution-volume is assumed to correspond to the -. annual -volume ofwater withdrawn from a water well pumping at a rate ofl100 gpm

;(200,000 m3/yr). Smallfariminig communities that'utilize-ground water for their

needs usually have wells that range' from 100 gpm to 1,000 gpm depending on the

population.. Forthe surface water"access'location, a stream isiassumed having

a flow rate of about 5 ft3/sec (4.'5 x'106 m3/yr). -' A' stream having a-flow rate

-of much below this value-is unlikely to be used for'human consumption.'

For flexibility in the analysis,''some of-the environmental properties associated

with the reference disposal facility are assumed to be variable> "tThis provides

-an insight in the generic analysis of ,the sensitivity of the results to site

parameters. - Inr'the EIS,''the reference site p'arameter's are as'sumed t:o range

from very permeable soil conditionstto very impermeable soil-conditions'- with

the reference case being moderately permeable soil conditions. The differing

environmental characteristics assumed include:

-. * I ' .- . . v

, , . .. S . -'^5 - 5' 1' ; ' ;

; : , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 2 , .ii 5. ''t ,':. ^'',

: .4-21
BiI"-

Site with Site with Mod. Site with

Perm. Soil Perm. Soil ImpermeableEnvironmental Characteristics (Ref. Site) Soil

Retardation coefficient set 2 3 4

Speed of percolating water (m/hr)* 1120 112 11.2

Ground water travel time from <<1 10 60

bottom of waste to aquifer (yrs)

Ground water travel time (yrs)** to:

intruder well 32 42 92

boundary well 56 66 116

population well 390 400 450

surface water access 790 800 850

Assuming that site soils are used as backfill

From the first sector closest to the access locations

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:

0

0

0

Gaseous releases from decomposing.waste;

Plant and animal intrusion; and

Wind and surface water erosion and transport.

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. These pathways are discussed in more detail in the draft

EIS, particularly Appendix M.

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

and are separated in this EIS into three components:

0

0

0

processing costs

transportation costs

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

4-22
with transferring the waste to the disposal.'.facility.; For the reference

facility, transportation costs are calculated based upon an average transport

di stance -of 400 miles.' - -

.. .y' , ~~ ,t ,1 ,de..-. s , gn .- an ope...r t..

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

; (2)'.post6perational c6sts. Design 'and operation cbsts-are those-costs associ-

'ated with-sitingddesigning, ;constructing, and operating the facility~over 20

years. These costs are a fun'ctibn'of'the'alternative',disposal facility designs

considered in the EIS. Design and operating costs are calculated using a present

value'analysis described-in Appendix'C of'this -final EIS.' In.the analysis, a

discount rate of,-15% is-used.' (Appendix C ill-ustrates the sensitivity of the

design and oper'ating co'sts" t6o'ther values of the 'disc'ourit rate.) - . . ., ., . ,. o,. , - *- , ,. * - , -.. . .. .. ~ .. 7

*.Postoperatiohal costs are divided into closure costs, observation and mainte-

'' nancecostsand;institutional control (long-term care) costs. Closure costs

'are calculated.as'suming that adequatewfunds for'closure tare provided for.by

-the licensee'through use'of"an'investment fund.(represented as a surcharge on

'received waste). ! Thfeavailability of funds for closure is-assumed to be ensured

by somemanner of surety-'mdchanism'which is -assumed to annually cost 1.-5% of

the principal.' Observation and maintenance costs cover costs that would be

borne by thedisposal facility operator during-the time. period followingsite

closure and prior t'o transfer:of the license to the site.owner-(which marks

the beginning of the institutional control period). For convenience, these

costs are calcuLated'as if a certain'sum of money were:set-aside-each year by

j the site operator for this purpose. These costs are of course assumed to be

passed on to th'e disposal facility customer. 'Institutional control'costs are

.cal ulated based on'the assumption that'a state-operated'sinking fund is estab-

*lished and that a surcharge is-levied upon the waste.received at the disposal

facility on a cost-per-waste-volume arrangement.' Costs-are calculated assuming

i 10%'interest rate and a 9% average inflation rate.' All-post-operational costs

are calculated'a-s'costs to a disposal facility customer.. -.-

Short-Term Radiological Impacts. Short-term radiological impacts include occuLpational exposures during waste processing, waste transportation, and waste

disposal. ThesearIcalculated as'whole'body exposures'.) Whole body exposures

- ito populations due to waste processing activities involving waste incineration

' are also calculated.'- Finally, radiological'impacts due.to possible water

accumulation problems'At:a' disposal'-facility are calculated.-These could involve

disposal cell overfl6w'nto-a-nearbylstream where the water-is consumed and . .used by'an'individual,'or airborne:releases due to evaporation of accumulated

! - leachate.'' In'this -EIS,''impacts from overflow'are calculated as exposures to

an indi'idual(innmillirem) whilet.impacts due to leachate-evaporation are calculated as exposures to the population-surrounding the disposal facility (in

man-millirem). A description of the methodology used to calculate impacts due to water accumulation'is provided -in AppendixC. -

. .- . .. .. . . ! : . - . t -^ .-

OtherImpact Measures. Other impact measures estimated include land use (in

m2) and energy use (in equivalent'.gallons-of fuel oil).:.''

4.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE-CASES:-; ;-z.. I 'Ose -ofI I -

- ' This section presents'a description ofAthe four principal cases considered in

this final EIS.

; .- 4-23
4.3.1 Past Practices (Base Case Alternative)

This first case is meant to provide a representation of past disposal practices.

This case provides a baseline of costs and other impact data against which today's

practices and improvements to today's practices may be evaluated. If through

this historical perspective former poor practices can be identified, then much

of the job of developing Part 61 requirements becomes one of identifying commonsense methods of avoiding such poor practices.

Basically, the disposal facility is assumed to be sited according to the siting

requirements contained in the proposed Part 61 regulation and operated with

adequate operational safety. However, the combination of poor waste form and

inadequate disposal facility operating practices results in high long-term

potential environmental releases as well as high costs and maintenance activities during the institutional control period. This approach follows since in

the past it was believed that only a "good site" was needed for waste disposal.

No credit was given to waste form or containers to reduce impacts. Safety

during operations was generally given greater emphasis than long-term costs

and radiological impacts. The fact that extensive maintenance activities would

be involved was tolerated since it was believed that as long as the disposal

facility was operating, there was little need to consider the economic impacts

of these maintenance activities after the disposal facility closed.

The assumptions made for this case include the following:

1. The waste disposed into the facility is composed of mostly structurally

unstable waste forms. This is represented in the analysis by waste

spectrum 1. In this case, for example, light water reactor ion-exchange

resins and filter sludge are shipped to the disposal facility in a

dewatered form. Several other 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.

2. The design and operation of the facility are not directed toward

minimizing contact of waste by water through achieving long-term

site stability. Waste is randomly emplaced into the disposal cell

and then backfilled with earth originally excavated from the disposal cell. A relatively thin (1 m thick) cover (cap) is then

emplaced over the backfill. This cap is also composed of the

originally excavated soil and is also subjected to indifferent

compaction techniques. There is no segregation of waste containing

compressible material nor segregation of waste containing chelating

or other chemical agents.

3. There are no radionuclide disposal limits, so anything (other than

high level waste) that can be transported to the site is disposed of

at the site. Thus, the site contains relatively high concentrations

of toxic radionuclides having long half lives.

4. There are some operational rules of thumb at the site to reduce

operational exposures which involve preferential emplacement of waste

packages exhibiting high surface radiation levels. Such preferential

4-24
disposal might involve disposal at the bottom of the disposal cells

or disposal at trench corners. However, this practice is not generalized to 'include waste packages-containing high concentrations of

radionuclides which may not exhibit high surface radiation levels.

These could include, for example, waste packages containing large

quantities of tritium or transuranic radionuclides.

-5. The reference disposal facility'is assumed to be operated for 20 years,

after which the site is closed and the site license is transferred

to the'site owner, which for purposes of analysis is assumed to be a - state. The site closure period is assumed to last two years, and

there is''also'assumed to be'no intervening period between the end of

the closure period and transfer'of the license to the site owner (no

observation and maintenance period).

4.3.2 Current Disposal Practices (No Action Alternative)

;Thiscase provides a representation of current disposal practices. It represents -'the improvements'in disposal facility design and operating practices, as well

.:as improvementsin waste form and packaging requirements, that have been implemented at disposal facilities over the last several years. :~ ~ ~ i -r a

The assumptions made for-this case include the following:

1. A limit of 10 nCi/gm is placed upon the transuranic content of

received waste. License;conditions at currently operating disposal

facilities'generally allow transuranic nuclides in waste up to the

10 nCi/gm limit as long as-the transuranics exist-as trace contaminants homogeneously distributed through the waste. Surfacecontaminated materials are generally given a more'strict-interpretation. In practice, homogeneously contaminated waste streams such

as ion exchange resins are occasionally found to'exceed the .10 nCi/gm

limit, -almost always due.to the shorter lived transuranic isotopes.

'In such cases, waste generators will either dilute such waste with

lower-activity waste (still remaining a-homogeneous mixture), thus

lowering'the transuranic -content to less than 10 nCi/gm, or allow

-the short lived radionuclides to decay prior to shipment. These

subtleties of license interpretation and waste management practices

are accounted'for in the-analysis by (for puirposes'of waste classification only) decaying'Pu-241 'concentrations within light water reactor

process waste streams and isotope production waste to its alphaemitting daughter equivalents.: No such decay is performed for trash

or, other waste strean'~which cannot be assumed to be-homogeneously

contaminated. ' " ' ; ' ;

2.' Several waste streams having radionuclide'concentrations exceeding

one pCi/cm3 of any radionuclide'having a'half life exceeding5 years

are required tobe stabilized prior to disposal. These waste streams

include light water reactor'ion'exchange resins;' filter sludge, and

cartridge filters, as-well aswaste from medical isotope-production

facilities, Waste stabilization may be carried out by any of a number

of methods.' Such methods could include processing the waste into a

stable-form (e.g., solidification with a media such as' cement, asphalt

,or vinyl ester styrene), placing the waste into a container providing ,

4-25
. . 1, -

structural support (e.g., use of a-high integrity, container), or special

disposal facility design. For this EIS, waste solidification is esti-.

mated to cost in the range of $1280 to $1450 per m3 of input waste.

Use of a high integrity'container to'achieve stabilization is estimated

to cost in the neighborhood. of'$450 per m3 of waste. For purposes

solely of analysis in this case study, compliance with the waste stabilization requirement for this case is assumed to be principally achieved

by solidification of some waste streams (e.g., LWR concentrated liquids,

isotope production facility waste, some LWR ion exchange resins and

filter sludge) and by emplacement of. other waste" streams (e.g., most

LWR ion exchange resins and filter sludge) into HICs prior to disposal.

All things equal, most waste generators would be expected to adopt

the least expensive approach to meeting a particular requirement.

All compressible waste streams are compacted,'either at the waste

generator's, facility or at a centralized processing center.

3. Several improvements are made in the ability of the disposal facility

to minimize contact of waste by water and to improve long-term site

stability.- Waste emplaced into the disposal cells is backfilled with

a very permeable material such as sand or gravel. An improved cover

is placed over the disposal cells. This'improved-cover may take a

number of forms. For purposes of cost/impact analysis, the improved

cover in this EIS is assumed to consist of a 2 meter thick earthern

cover having a high clay content. The backfill and disposal cell

cover are compacted by improved compaction techniques such as use of

vibratory compactors or'sheepsfoot rollers. (The compaction technique

which would be used for an actual-site would be dependent upon site

specific soil and environmental conditions.)

4. There is no segregation of unstable waste streams. However, there

is segregation of waste streams containing chelating or chemical

agents.

5. As in Case 1, there is assumed to be operating practices involving

preferential emplacement of waste packages having high surface

radiation levels. However, there is assumed to be no such similar

operating practices for layering of other high activity wastes.

6. As in the preceding case,'the site is operated for 20 years, followed

by a two-year closure period prior to transfer of the site license

to the site owner. Again, no observation and maintenance period is

assumed.

4.3.3 Part 61 Requirements (Preferred Alternative)

This case provides a representation of'disposai practices which would minimally

meet the requirements of the final Part 61 regulation.' In this case, waste

streams determined to be acceptable for near-surface disposal are classified

into three waste classes: Class A, Class B','and Class C. A summary of the

classification limits assumed in the analysis for this case is presented as

Table 4.5. This case is summarized below:

1. All higher activity (Class'B-and Class C) waste streams are required

to be stabilized prior to disposal. -As the previous case, possible

waste stabilization methods could include processing the waste into

a stable waste form (solidification), placing the' waste into a container providing structural support (e.g., an HIC), or by special

4-26
t r a e

Table 4.5 Waste Classification Limits Assumed for

the Part 61 Case

Class'Limits (pCi/cm3)

Isotope Class A Class B Class C

H-3 4.OE+1* **

C-14# 8.OE-1 8.OE-1 8..OE+O

Fe-55 7.OE+2 **

Ni-59# 2.2E+0 2.2E+0 2.2E+1

Co-60 7.OE+2 ** **

Ni-63# 3.5E+0 7.OE+1 7.OE+2

Nb-94# 2.OE-3 - 2.OE-3 7.OE+2

Sr-90 4.OE-2 1.5E+2 7.OE+3

Tc-99 3.OE-1 3.OE-1 3.OE+O

1-129 8.OE-3 8.OE-3 8.OE-2

Cs-135 8.4E+1 8.4E+1 8.4E+2

Cs-137 1.OE+1 4.4E+1 4.6E+3

U-235 4.OE-2 4.OE-2 4.OE-1

U-238 5.OE-2 .5.OE-2 '5.OE-1

TRU 1.OE+1## :1.OE+1## 1.OE+2##

Pu-241 3.5E+2## ;3.5E+2## ,3.5E+3##

*The notation 4.OE+1 means 4.0 x 101. - **No limit is set for these isotopes and classes.

#For'activated metals-,"'the limits for these

isotopes are raised'by 'a'factor of -10. . ##The'limits-for these isotopes are given in units

of nCi/gm'ratherithan pCi/cm3

: r

j , .

disposal facility design. 'As before, it is assumed that some waste

streams are solidified and other are emplaced into high integrity.

containers. -This is-assumed-solely for this case analysis in order

to achieve a common basis for'comparison with the previous case (i.e.,

if different stabilization techniques were~assumed'for this case than

for the previous case,';then the-results'of the-two'cases could not

be conveniently compared and the cost/impact attributes of the Part 61

rule easily assessed).

'2. Concentrationlimits for~disposal are placed upon a number of radionuclides. For example, a limit of 100 nCi/gm is placed uponi alphaemitting transuranic elements (except for Cm-242). Concentrations

less than'10 nCi/gm are treated as Class'A'waste,-while concenitrations between 10 and 100 nCi/gm are treated as Class C waste.

3. Disposal facility design is'the same"as the previous case,'with the

exception of'segregation of-compressible waste.' That' is, compressible

(unstable) Class A waste streams are disposed in separate. disposal

units' segregated from stable Class A,,Class B, and Cl'ass C waste

4-27
streams. Waste streams containing chemical or chelating agents are

segregated from other waste streams.

4. High activity (Class C) waste streams, which may include waste streams

with or without high surface radiation readings, are preferentially

placed upon the bottom of the disposal units.

5. As in the previous case, the site is assumed to be operated for

20 years, followed by a two-year closure period. However, a 5-year

observation and maintenance period is assumed between the end of the

closure period and transfer of the site license to the site owner.

4.3.4 Upper Bound Requirements (All Stable Alternative)

This case explores some possible variations on waste disposal in which all

wastes are stabilized. In this case, stability is assumed to be principally

achieved through waste form and packaging, the principal means of doing this

being emplacement of waste into high integrity containers. Costs and other

impacts associated with other possible ways to stabilize the unstable waste

streams are also explored. Other assumptions are as follows:

1. Limiting concentration limits for waste classification and disposal

are placed upon radionuclides in the same manner as the previous

case. However, since all waste streams are to be stabilized, the

Class A limits listed in Table 4.5 are all assumed for this case to

be set equal to zero.

2. The disposal facility design is the same as the previous case. However, since all waste streams are stabilized, there is no segregation

of compressible waste. Segregation is carried out, however, for waste

streams containing chemical or chelating agents.

3. High activity (Class C) waste are preferentially layered upon the

bottom of the disposal units.

4. As in the previous case, the site is operated for 20 years, followed

by a two-year closure period. A five-year observation and maintenance period exists between the end of the closure period and transfer

of the license to the site owner.

4.4 RESULTS OF THE CASE ANALYSIS

The results of the four cases analyzed in this chapter are presented in

Table 4.6.

4.4.1 Past Disposal Practices (Base Case Alternative)

In this case, the disposal facility is calculated to accept one million m3 of

waste over its 20-year lifetime. All waste is assumed to be mixed together

during disposal and no waste is determined to be unacceptable for near-surface

disposal. Of this waste, almost 75% of the waste is in an unstable waste form.

The rest of the waste, including such waste streams as solidified concentrated

liquids, is considered to be inherently stable. The practice of codisposal of

4-28
unstable and stable waste forms, however, plus the inadequate site operations,

tends to negate the potential gain'brought about by the stable waste streams.

The results are about the same as if all waste was in an unstable form.

Long-term environmental impacts for the base case are projected to be high.

As-shown in Table 4.6,'potential impacts to an inadvertent intruder are projected to be on the order of 2.2.to 4.5 rem at a time period equal to 100 years

---following the end of the two-year-facility closure period. At this time, much

of the potential exposures are due to the presence of gamma-emitting isotopes

having short to moderate half lives (e.g., Cs-137).' At-500years, potential

inadvertent intruder exposures have been reduced, but are-still on the order

of 0.6 to 1.6 rems to the bone. These exposures are due to the relatively longer

lived radionuclides such as Pu-239. This level of'inadvertent intruder exposure

can persist'for long time periods. At-1000 years following site closure, for

7example,,potential inadvertent intruder exposures are in the range of 0.5 to

1.1 rem to-the-bone.

Offsite impacts that-could'occur from-the above intrusion events are also listed

in Table 4.6. "'For this- case, recall that impacts due to potential inadvertent

intrusion would naturally be expected to be largest for the persons directly

contacting the disposed waste. However, a portion of the contaminated soil/waste

mixture 'may.be'.transported offsite.- .Waterborne impacts involve impacts that

could result2 if rainwater washed the contamination down to a nearby stream and

the water in'the stream 'is'consumed'and used by an individual. As shown, these

calculated impacts run at about 0.7 millirem/yr to be bone. Airborne impacts

are to the surrounding population.--:Both airborne and waterborne impacts are

''calculated'at 100 years following closure and transfer of the license to the

site owner.

* Groundwater impacts are considered over a 10,000 year time period following - disposal facility closure and are also high. As shown, 'thyroid exposures are

-on'the order of 1.5 rem at the intruder and boundary wells, 470 mrem at the

population well and 22-mrem at the surface water location. These exposures

are principally due to migration of 1-129. Whole body exposures are also

relatively high at the boundary well--160 mrem--and are principally due to the

.:migration of.tritium.

These high-levels of impacts'are caused by a number of interrelated factors.

Much of the waste is in an easily compressible, readily degradable waste form

with relatively high leaching characteristics. All waste streams are randomly

disposed together into the disposal facility, and rather indifferent backfilling

techniques-are performed;'resulting in much void volume'in the interstistial

spaces between disposed waste packages. The disposal cell covers are composed

*of originally excavated soil and are-relatively thin (1 m thick). Little or no

compaction is performed on the backfill and disposal cell covers other than

that provided by the weight of waste delivery vehicles. As a result of the

above, severe subsidence problems'are assumed to occur. The facility is assumed

to be characterized by'potholes'and-subsidence depressions, leading to concentrated sources of rainwater infiltration. Percolation--into the waste cells is

assumed to be twice as high (360 mm/yr) as the surrounding undisturbed soils.

It is not likely that doses to actual individuals could ever be-this high,

however, notwithstanding the conservatism of the analysis. For one thing,

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

4-29
Table 4.6 Results. of the Case Analysis

Upper.

No action Part 61 bound

Base case case case case

I. Long-Term Individual

Exposures (mrem/yr):

Intruder-construction

o 100 yrs -

o 500 yrs -

Body

Bone

Thyroid

Body

Bone

Thyroid

2. 30E+3*

4.49E+3

2. 16E+3

1. 14E+2

1.55E+3

2.70E+1

1. 79E+3

1. 80E+3

1. 78E+3

2. 61E+0

1. 16E+1

2. 29E+0

1. 84E+2

1. 87E+2

1. 84E+2

3. 02E+0

1.63E+1

2. 42E+O

1.75E+1

1. 77E+1

1.74E+1

3.07E+0

1.67E+1

2.45E+0

Intruder-agriculture

o 100 yrs

o 500 yrs

- Body

Bone

Thyroid

- Body

Bone

Thyroid

2. 68E+3

3. 64E+3

2. 60E+3

6. 66E+1

6. 41E+2

3. 93E+1

2. 21E+3

2. 32E+3

2. 17E+3

2.77E+0

7.19E+0

9. 08E+0

2. 02E+2

2. 08E+2

2;. O1E+2.

3.04E+0-

9. 17E+0

9. 02E+0

0.

0.

0. . 3.09E+0

9.38E+0

9.23E+0

Intruder well

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

Boundary well

o Body

o Bone

o Thryoid

Population well

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

Surface water

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

3. 06E+1

5. 61E+0

1. 50E+3

1. 58E+2

5. 61E+0

1.50E+3

7.90E-1

1.13E+0

4. 74E+2

3.16E-2

4. 92E-2

2. 16E+1

8. 50E-2

4.53E-2

1. 11E+1

4.39E-1

4.49E-2

1. 11E+1

6.57E-3

1. 04E-2

3. 51E+0

2.90E-4

4.29E-4

1.50E-1

2. 15E-2

3.72E-2

4. 16E+0

1. 11E-1

3.70E-2

4. 16E+0

3.33E-3

8.24E-3

1. 32E+O

1. 44E-4

3.37E-4

5.99E-2

2. 11E-2

1. 58E-2

3. 31E+0

1.09E-1

1.47E-2

3. 31E+0

2.02E-3

3.41E-3

1. 05E+O

8.80E-5

1. 36E-4

4.77E-2

4-30
Table 4.6 (continued)

Upper

No action 'Part 61 'bound .. Base case case case case

II. - Other.Lo6ng-Term

txposures:

Offsite releases from

intrusion

..- n - Waiterbnrne (mrem/vr.)

.o.- Airborne

Body L21E-1

Bone 6.80E-1

Thyroid '2.84E-3

(man-mrem/yr) . Body 5.87E+1

Bone 9.'66E+2

Thyroid 5.93E-1

9..67E-2

'2.34E-1

2.32E-3

1.82E+O

1. 19E+1

5.09E-1

1.16E-2

.''2.42E-2

4.78E-4

2.39E-1

2.25E+O

' 8.62E-2

4.46E-4

1.14E-3

1. 07E-5

9.05E-3

6.16E-2

2. 34E-3

III. Short-Term Whole Body

.Exposures (total man-mrem

over 20 yrs):

Occupational

o Process by waste

generator

o Process by

regional

process' center

-0 Waste transport

o Waste disposal

To population

o Process by. waste

generator

o Process by

'regional

I process center

o. Waste'-transport',.

IV. Costs (total $i'over

20 yrs):

Waste'generation and

: transport

-o- Process-by waste

generator

o Process by

regional

process center

o Waste transport

**

0.

" 7.58E+6

,3.33E+6

0.

+2.50E+5 .

1.25E+5 -.

. 4.99E+6

2.15E+6'

+0.

0. ..

' 4.78E+5

+4.50E+5 +4. 90E+5

II1.25E+5

,4.97E+6

2. 14E+6

+1.26E+2

1. 25E+5

4. 97E+6

2. 15E+6

+8. 93E+1

-' 0. .. .-

7.49E+5 4.76E+5 ''4.84E+5

Fr Il

.** +5.90E+7

0. 3.63E+7

+8.20E+7. +2.14E+8

3.63E+7 7.17E+7

2. 64E+8 1. 73E+8 1.72E+8 1.70E+8

4-31
I UL

Table 4.6 (continued)

Upper

No action Part 61 bound

Base case case case case

iIV. Costs (total $

over 20 yrs): (cont'd)

Waste disposal

o Design & op.

o Post operational

Closure

Obs. & maint.

Inst. control

Total post op.

o Total disp. cost

o Unit cost ($/m3)

V. Energy Use (equivalent

gallons of fuel oil):

3.25E+8

3.87E+6

0.

4. 16E+7

4.55E+7

3.71E+8

3.71E+2

**

3. 41E+8

k,1

3. 87E+6

0.

1.90E+7

2.29E+7

3. 64E+8

5. 61E+2

3.50E+8 3.42E+8

3.87E*6

1. 13E+6

1.57E+7

2. 07E+7

3. 71E+8

5. 73E+2

3.87E+6

5.86E+5

9. 32E+6

1. 38E+7

3.56E+8

5. 64E+2

-2.40E+6 -1.42E+6 +4.30E+6

VI. Land Use (m2): 3.47E+5 2. 25E+5 2.25E+5 2.19E+5

VII. Waste Volume (m 3 ):

Volume acceptable

o Unstable

o Stable - Regular

o Stable - Layered

o Total volume

acceptable

Volume not acceptable

7.47E+5#

2. 52E+5#

0.

1.OOE+6

4.42E+5#

2.05E+5#

0.

6. 47E+5

4.23E+5

2. 21E+5

3.47E+3

6. 48E+5

0.

6.27E+5

3.83E+3

6. 31E+5

0. 2. 56E+4 2.20E+4 2.20E+4

*The notation 2.30E+3 means 2.30 x 103.

**In this EIS, population exposures due to waste processing by waste

generators, occupational exposures due to waste processing by waste

generators, costs due to waste processing by waste generators, and energy

use are presented as impacts and costs in addition to those associated

with the base case.

#Although much of the waste is or has been stabilized, the fact that for

these two cases all the stable waste is disposed comingled with unstable

waste tends to negate the potential gain of waste stabilization. The

result is about the same as if all waste was in an unstable form.

4-32
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. This is discussed'inmo're"idetail later.

The above impacts are calculated for the reference disposal facility-site

assuming soils with moderate permeability and moderate ion exchange capacity.

It is also useful to consider variations on the environmental properties of

the reference disposal facility site. These variations-wereidiscussed in

Section 4.2.3 and'are referred to as a variation assuming very impermeable site

soil conditions and a variation assuming very permeable site soil conditions.

Relative'to the reference site, the-impermeable site variation assumes greater

contact time between waste and percolating water, longer groundwater travel

times to biota access locations, and higher isotopic retardation coefficients.

The permeable site variation assumes, relative to the refererce'site, shorter

contact time between-waste and percolating water, shorter-groundwater travel

times to biota access locations,'and lower isotopic retardation coefficients.

The results of this analysis is shown in Table 4.7., Listed are groundwater

impacts from the boundary well, population well, and surface water access

location. Also listed are impacts due to potential leachate accumulation as

well as waste disposal costs.

Impacts listed in Table 4.7 for trench overflow/leachate treatment require some

interpretation. As discussed, ground-water migration impacts -may be calculated

for a variety of disposal site environmental conditions. 'The'r-eference disposal

site assumes moderately permeable soil conditions. 'For sites having very impermeable soils, however, and assuming unstable disposal'cell.-conditions leading

to severe cell cover subsidence and slumping problems, it'is'm6re likely that

the rate of percolatin into a disposal cell will exceed'the rate of percolation

through the bottom of the disposal cell and into the groundwater. If this

happens, the trench may fill up with'water like a bathtub. This phenomenon

has been in fact observed at both the Maxey Flats, Kentucky and West Valley,

New York disposal facilities. It is possible that the disposal cell may even

fill up to the point that the disposal cell overflows,'leading to environmental

releases and human exposures. -

In Table 4.7, impacts are approximated assuming that-one million gallons of

contaminated leachate per year overflows the disposal cells and is carried

down to a nearby stream. The water in this stream is then assumed to be consumed and used by an individual. The impacts are 6calc'ulted:in'ia very conservative manner (for example, no credit is taken for radioactive decay during

facility operations) and as shown'are rather high--on the'-order of 6 rem/yr.

Similarly to the groundwater case, however, it is-unlikely that the site owner

or the appropriate health department (state or federal)'would-ever allow such

impacts to occur. Rather, a remedial action program would be implemented in

which-leachate would be removed from the disposal cells and processed. Annual

impacts from processing one million gallons of'leachate by evaporation are also

shown. Impacts are calculated as annual exposures (in man-'millirem/yr) to the

surrounding population. Such remedial action programs, involving leachate treatment and solidification as well as restabilization of the disposal site to reduce

infiltration are anticipated to last several years.. Such actions are also4-33
Table 4.7 Variations on the Base Case Analysis

Ref. site Imperm. site Perm. site

Groundwater Impacts (mrem/yr):

Boundary well

o Body 1.58E+2 3.09E+O 1.45E+2

o Bone 5.61E+O 1.34E+1 2.98E+O

o Thyroid 1.50E+3 1.44E+3 4.74E+2

Population well

o Body 7.90E-1 1.88E+0 9.94E-2

o Bone 1.13E+O 9.24E+O 1.94E-1

o Thyroid 4.74E+2 1.11E+3 4.74E+1

Surface water

o Body 3.16E-2 8.65E-2 5.38E-3

o Bone 4.92E-2 3.58E-1 1.31E-2

o Thyroid 2.16E+1 6.21E+1 2.16E+O

Leachate Accumulation Impacts:

Disposal cell

overflow (mrem/yr)

o Body 0. 6.38E+3 0.

o Bone 0. 2.28E+3 0.

o Thyroid 0. 5.97E+3 0.

Leachate treatment

(man-mrem/yr)

o Body 0. 6.26E+4 0.

o Bone 0. 7.53E+1 0.

o Thyroid 0. 6.26E+4 0.

Waste Disposal Costs (total $

over 20.yrs):

Design and op. 3.25E+8 3.25E+8 3.25E+8

Post operational

o Closure 3.87E+6 3.87E+6 3.87E+6

o Obs. and'maint. 0. 0. 0.

o Inst. control 4.16E+7 5.42E+7 3.68E+7

o Total post op 4.55E+7 5.80E+7 4.07E+7

Total disposal costs 3.71E+8 3.83E+8 3.66E+8

Unit cost ($/n3) 3.71E+2 3.83E+2 3.66E+2

4-34
anticipated to be quite expensive for the site owner. (A further discussion

on costs is provided below.)'

Short-term environmental impacts include exposures to radiation workers during

waste processing, transport, and disposal, as well as population exposures due

to waste processing and transport. All impacts are given in units of man-

*millirem and are summed over the 20 years.6f site operation.

Population exposures from pro'cessing wastes at waste generating facilities are - not.calculated for the base'case as'the'base case is meant to represent'conditions-in which little or no waste'processing i.s performed otherthan that

required to meet'safety requirements 'for'transportation and disposal facility

waste handling operations. In addition, such impacts"are'already-con'sidered

as.part'ofilicensing such facilities. (This EIS is interested in the incre- - mental exposures above' the base case exposuress;) Potential'impacts'from proc-

.essing wastes at a regional processing center are'also,'zero for 'the base case.

*(No regional waste processing isassumed to occur. for the base case.) :

Total transportation population exposures are.an.estimated 749,000 man-millirem

for 20 years deliveryof waste'to the disposal facility.. This exposure was

calculated assuming an average waste'transport distance 'of 400'miles.(one way)

and an assumed population dose of 0.018,man-millirem per'shipment'per mile.

In addition,-each.shipment is assumed-to make one stop during the-400-mile

,trip, .'resulting in a-population dose' of2.O'man-mrem'per shipment stopover.

*The total'population exposed is.assumed to' be 1.5 x'10s persons during transit

and 500 persons per stopover. '-

Short-term occupational exposures are calculated a's the total exposures over

.20 years.of (1) waste processing 'activities, (2)-.waste transportation, and

(3) waste disposal. Occupational exposures from'normal waste handling and

packaging to meet Department of Transportation (DOT) trans~portation require-

* ments and to meet.safety requirements at disposal facilities (e.g., specific

packaging criteria for biological"wastes,'solidification 6f.'liquids) are not

estimated. for the base case. These-would.be expected to vary widely among the

many~thousands of NRC and Agreement State'licensee's. ''However,"-additional

potential exposures due' to the ,additional'waste'tre'atment'processes considered

in the'subsequent cases are estimated as pdrt.'of the impacts' of these cases.

Occupational'exposures'due'.to wa'ste'transportation are' estimated as about

7.58 man-millirem per m3'of waste transported. Again, as no~waste processing

activities are assumed to take place at a regional processing center for the

base case, no.occupational doses 'due'to waste processing at the regional

center are calculated.

Disposal facility occupational exposures 'are calculated as approximately.

-167,000 man-millirem/year, or about.3.'33 man-millirem'per'm3 of waste disposed.

Assuming a 'total exposed working crew of'about 50.persons,, this calculates as

an average estimated 3.33 rem per year per individualworker,' which is an

-approximate upper bound of-the general range of occupational exposures currently

experienced at operating disposal facilities.

Costs are divided into processing costs,. transportation-costs,'and disposal

costs, and are presented as total costs over 20 years of disposal facility

operation. For the base case,,minimal waste processing is assumed to occur.

The actual costs experienced by a'waste'generator'are a function of many

.. 4-35
variables, including the characteristics of the waste processed, the volume of

the waste processed, and the design of the waste processing equipment, 'if any.

Processing costs are presented in this EIS as additional costs to those associated

with the base case.

Transportation'costs may vary widely for different waste generators depending

upon the distance from the waste generator to the disposal facility and the

characteristics of the waste disposed. Information regarding the assumptions

used to determine these costs are provided in'Appendix C of'the draft EIS.

For this final EIS, a base case transportation cost of $264-million is estimated for transportation of about 50,000 m3 of waste per year over 20 years

($264 per m3 of waste).

As shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, disposal costs are divided'into (1) disposal

costs charged for facility design and operation,'and (2) post-operational costs.

Disposal de'sign and operation costs are calculated to be on the order of $325/M3

(9.20/ft3). Postoperational costs are calculated as the total amount of money

that would have to be collected over the operating life of the site to have

sufficient funds to close'the site and to' carry'out a particular level'of site

care. In the base case, post-operational 'costs required to be collected from

disposal facility customers are projected to be quite high--i.e., on the order

of,$45.5 million for the reference disposal facility site. For a site having

very impermeable soils so thatia large-scale leachate accumulation'problem could

exist (and as currently exists at some formerly'operated disposal facilities),

postoperational costs would be even higher--i.e., on the order of $58 millon.

Better than 90% of the postoperational funds thus collected would be for the

100-year institutional control period. These costs translate to a charge to a

disposal facility customer of fromri$1.29/ft3 to'$1.64/ft3. These changes assume

a total waste volume of one million m3; if only 500,000 m3 of waste was delivered,

the post-operational change would range from approximately $2.58/ft3 to $3.28/ft3 .

The shear magnitude of the funds that would need to be collected over 20 years

to, ensure long-term care for the base case deserves special consideration. As

discussed earlier', significant potential'ground water impacts are estimated.

These large calculated impacts result from'the assumed practice of indiscriminately disposing of easily compressible, degradable waste'streams (which frequently have only very low levels of'contamination) with higher activity waste

streams. These easily degradable waste streams (e.g., trash) frequently contain chemicals whichimay increase leaching and reduce retardation of radionuclides during migration through ground water. As discussed earlier, these

calculated levels of exposures are not likely to be actually realized. -However,

to prevent such potential exposures from occurring, a considerable amount of

active site maintenance could be expected on the part of the site owner. It

is difficult to predict how long this extensive site maintenance would be required

*or how much it would cost, although it is seen that many millions of dollars

could be potentially involved.

It could be argued that it would be a simple matter to merely charge sufficient

postoperational fees to provide for the required care. However, this concept

has a number of drawbacks, including:

o There is no assurance that sufficient funds will be available for

long-term care, or that funds collected will not be spent for other

putrposes. For example, the disposal facility may close prematurely

and prior to collection of sufficient funds.

4-36
o' There is no assurance that the extensive kinds of maintenance activities

that would be required would actually be carried out in a timely manner.

For example, at a site with very impermeable soils, subsidence could

lead to disposalitrenches filling:up with water.(the bathtub scenario)

which could potentially bej'ignored-until large expenditures were

required to rectify the problem.

ou Extensive site maintenance activities can lead to.releases of quantities

of-radionuclides offsite. For. example, if extensive water management

activities such-as removal and evaporation of large quantities of

trench leachate are required, then offsite exposures will result.

Leaving a disposalfacility in a condition so that extensive active maintenance

,activities-are required to-ensurepublic health andsafety could result in a

considerable financial burden to the site owner.-and tofuture generations.

Such active maintenance activities can continue for long time periods, and in

fact tend to:becomecself-perpetuating. Active maintenance.activities such as

leachate pumping and treatment representa.,large.source of expense without a

tangible corresponding economic gain. Under such conditions, human nature

dictates a tendency to try and maintain the site spending as little money as

possible,.and without addressing more expensive measures to eliminate the need

for .such active maintenance..-;-This is believed.to be especially true if insufficient.funds were collected during the operating life of the site.. In such a

case;,funds for maintaining the-site would need to be provided by funds appropriated through the legislative process. .Experience has shown that it would

probably prove to be much easier to yearly appropriate the minimal amount of

Jfunds.necessary to maintain the status quo than to appropriate sufficient funds

to stabilize the site. This is.true.even if the yearlymaintenance costs.

following stabilization would be expected to be reduced.

Also shown inTable ,4.6 is the estimated land area (347,000 M2 , or about 86 acres)

required to-dispose.'of approximately-one million m3.of.waste. In this EIS,

-energy usei,;s.'presented in incremental-,gallons.of equivalent fuel from that

*-associated with the base case.

4.4.2,:.Current Disposal Practices (No Action Alternative)

This case represents the level of costs and impacts resulting from a continuation of current waste management.practices.. .. . -

Inithis case, a total of.670,000.m3 of waste is generated. This reduced volume

;ofwaste relative,.to the previous case is due to the greatly-increased use of

volume reduction techniques projected to be utilized now and in the future.

These.volume reductiontechniques are utilized on compressible trash streams

as wellas!on light water reactor processliquids. ,Of this volume,.25,600 m3

of waste is classified as being unacceptable. This waste-includes.the.L-DECONRS

,andN-SOURCES waste streams, which are,projected for.the purposes .of this EIS

to contain-,high concentrations,oftransuranic nuclides. '(For further-information

on the assumed radionuclide content of these streams consult Chapter 4 and

Appendix D of the draft EIS.) Small portions of LWR process waste streams

(ion-exchange resins, filter sludge, and concentrated liquids) are also determined

to be unacceptable, as is most of the F-PUDECON waste stream. These waste streams

are determined to be unacceptable for near-surface disposal mainly based upon

their transuranic content.

4-37
Of the waste accepted (647,000 m3 ), about 32% is or has been stabilized prior

to disposal. 'Again, however, stable and unstable waste streams are disposed.

comingled, which negates much of the benefit provided by the stable waste. Of

the waste streams stabilized according'to the 1 pCi/cm3 criteria, most are

assumed to be stabilized using high integrity containers. Some are stabilized

through solidification.

As shown in Table 4.6, individual intruder exposures are reduced over the

previous base case alternative. This reduction in intruder exposures is

principally due to the 10 nCi/gm limit on transuranic radionuclides. As shown,

the potential waste volume-weighted inadvertent intruder exposures are still

somewhat high at 100 years--on the order of 1.8 to 2.3 rem--but drop to only a

few millirem by 500 years. As before, much of the calculated exposure at

100 years is due to short to moderately lived gamma-emitting isotopes. These

decay away rather quickly, however.

As would be expected, impacts to surrounding populations due to intrusion are

also reduced over the previous base case.

Relative to the previous case, groundwater impacts are also greatly reduced.

These impacts run at approximately 11 mrem/yr to the thyroid at the intruder

and boundary wells, 3.5 mrem/yr at the population well, and 1.6 mrem/yr at the

surface water access location. Whole body'exposures have also been greatly

reduced from the previous case--i.e., 0.4 mrem/yr at the boundary well as

opposed to the previous 158 mrem/yr.

It is possible that these impacts are nonconservative. As commenters on the

proposed Part 61 rule and EIS have noted, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of improved disposal cell covers when disposal cells are filled with

compressible waste. Although a number of improvements in waste form and packaging are implemented,'resulting in stabilization of many of the higher activity

waste streams,'all waste streams are still disposed intermingled together.

Given the possibility'of slumping and subsidence associated with the presence

of the unstable waste streams, it is possible that too much credit has been

given to the improved disposal cell covers to reduce percolation into the

disposal cells. Assuming that only reduced credit could be taken, calculated

groundwater impacts would be increased.

For the impacts listed in Table 4.6'for the reference site no action case,

percolation through the improved disposal cell covers was assumed to be 60 mm

over the first 100 years following closure of the disposal facility'and transfer

of the facility license'to the site owner. This percolation is assumed to

increase at the end'of this time period, due to-the possibility of a breakdown

or removal of institutional controls and to theipossibility of intrusion by

burrowing animals and deep-rooted plants. Ten percent of the disposal cells

are assumed to experience percolation equal to 180 mm while the remaining 90%

are assumed to experience a percolation equal to 120 mm.' This is equal to an

average percolation rate into the disposal cells after 100 years of 126 mm.

4-38
The effects of assuming increased percolation into the disposal cells is modeled

by assuming a percolation rate equivalent to that associated with the base case - -- disposal cell covers assuming improved compaction. As-discussed above, these

base case covers are relatively thin (1 m thick) and have only a small to moder-

',ate clay content. In this high percolation case, percolation into the disposal

cells is taken to be 270 mm both during-and after the 100-year institutional

control period.

The effect of increased percolation into the disposed waste compared to the

-:reference site no action case is shown in Table 4.8, as are two variations on

:,the higher 'percolation case assuming impermeable and permeable'site'soil conditions, respectively. As shown, boundary well whole body impacts for the reference site are raised from less than one mrem/yr to nearly 9 mrem/yr. Thyroid

impacts at the boundary well are raised from about 11 mrem/yr, to about 41 mrem/yr.

Thyroid exposures at the population well and surface water access-location are

similarly raised. Higher exposures are calculated for the two variations on

the reference site environmental conditions.

The impacts listed in Table 4.8 for trench overflow/leachate treatment again

require some interpretation. Given the soil conditions at the'reference disposal site-'it'is not likely that such a water accumulation problem would occur.

The listed impacts would only be for the case if the disposal facility was

sited in very impermeable soils. In this case, the impacts from trench overflow and leachate treatment are somewhat reduced over the previous case. Some

of this reduction in calculated impact is due to the.fact that some volumes of

waste have been determined to be unacceptable for near-surface disposal. In

addition, some of the waste streams in this case have been stabilized by

solidification.or by using high integrity containers.

Much of the impacts thus calculated are due to tritium, and it is useful to

examine the potential reduction in such impacts if waste streams containing

large quantities of tritium (the N-TRITIUM and N-TARGET streams) are'placed

into high integrity containers prior to disposal. If this is the'case the

leachate accumulation impacts are reduced to the following:

Body -- Bone- Thyroid

Disposal cell overflow (mrem/yr) 3.55E+2 5.85E+2 2.68E+2

Leachate treatment (man-mrem/yr)' 2.90E+2 1.22E+0 2.90E+2

As can be seen, the potential-difference.,in impacts is about an order of magnitude.

- Short-term wholebody occupational and populational exposures exhibit a number

of changes relative to the-base case. For example,.occupational exposures due

to waste processing are calculated to increase over the base case. This is

- naturally due :to the increased wasteprocessing performed for this case. Some

of these additional impacts are due to the requirement to-stabilize LWR proc-

_,essing wastes 'containing radionuclides having half lives greater than 5 years

and -in concentrations greater than-one microcurie per cubic centimeter. However,

a very significant portion of these additional occupational exposures are due

-- 4-39
AuMTable 4.8 Variations on the No Action Case Analysis

Ref. site Ref. site Imperm. site Perm. site

low perc. high perc. high perc. high perc.

Groundwater Impacts (mrem/yr):

Boundary well

o Body 4.39E-1 8.83E+0 1.48E+O 8.13E+1

o Bone 4.49E-2 1.65E-1 4.75E-1 8.88E-1

o Thyroid 1.11E+1 4.08E+1 1.29E+2 1.29E+2

Population well

o Body 6.57E-3 2.41E-2 2.35E-1 2.80E-2

o Bone 1.04E-2 3.82E-2 3.52E-1 5.76E-2

o Thyroid 3.51E+0 1.29E+1 1.29E+2 1.29E+1

Surface water

o Body 2.90E-4 1.09E-3 1.03E-2 1.53E-3

o Bone 4.29E-4 1.68E-3 1.39E-2 3.92E-3

o Thyroid 1.60E-1 5.87E-1 5.87E+O 5.88E-1

Leachate Accumulation Impacts:

Disposal cell overflow

(mrem/yr)

o Body 0. 0. 5.56E+3 0.

o Bone 0. 0. 5.85E+2 0.

o Thyroid 0. 0. 5.47E+3 0.

Leachate treatment

(man-mrem/yr)

o Body 0. 0. 6.21E+4 0.

o Bone 0. 0. 7.32E+1 0.

o Thyroid 0. 0. 6.21E+4 0.

Waste Disposal Costs (total $

over 20 years):

Design and op. 3.41E+8 3.41E+8 3.41E+8 3.41E+8

Post operational

o Closure 3.87E+6 3.87E+6 3.87E+6 3.87E+6

o Obs. and maint. 0. 0. 0. 0.

o Inst. control 1.90E+7 4.16E+7 5.42E+7 3.68E+7

o Total post op. 2.29E+7 4.55E+7 5.80E+7 4.07E+7

Total disposal costs 3.64E+8 3.87E+8 3.99E+8 3.82E+8

Unit cost ($/m3) 5.61E+2 5.97E+2 6.15E+2 5.89E+2

4-40
to compaction of compressible waste streams. Such compaction techniques are

used'as a cost-saving device by licensees and are unrelated to the waste stabilization requirement.' In this 'case,.a portion of the exposures due to wastecompaction are assumed to be due to operation of a regionalized center for

compacting compressible wastes generated by small entities.

Occupational exposures due to'waste transportation

significantly reduced over the base case. "This is

volume of waste'delivered to the disposal facility

use of volume reduction techniques.

I . ~ I I I .

and'waste disposal are :

principally due to the reduced

resulting from increased

Population exposures due to waste incineration'are calculated to be zero.,.

Population whole body exposures due to waste transportation are reduced over

that of the base-case', which'is again 'a result of the increased use of volume

reduction for this case. ~~s Lse...

*Waste'generation and transportation costs show both increases'and decreases

relative to'the'base c-ase'. 'As expected,'waste processing costs have increased,

both due to the requirement for'stabilization of some.wastes as well as compaction of compressible waste streams. Costs due to processing at the regional

processing center are entirely due'to.volume'reduction considerations. None

of these costs are due to the waste stabilization requirement.' Transportation

costs, due to'the' lower volume of waste delivered to-the disposal facility,

are reduced over the baseL-case.

Relative'to the base case, total disposal facility design-and.operation costs

.,over 20 years have increased from $325 million to.$341 million. ' This increase

is due to the many improvements-in'site'operation assumed for the existing case

relative to the base case. These improvements include segregation of.waste

containing chemical igents'(no segregation of unstable waste, however), use of

a sand/gravel'backfill," improved disposal cell covers, and improved compaction

of. backfill .and disposal cell covers. The $341 million ih design and operation

costs' when divided by the total volume of waste delivered to the disposal

facility, corresponds to about'$527/m3 ($14.93/ft3).' Much of-this high unit

cost relative to the baaseCase6'is chiefly the result''of. the lowered volume of

waste delivered to the disposal facility. If these same costs were divided by

one million m3 whichis 'the volume of waste'assumed;for the base case,.unit

costs would'.only'bea-ab6ut'$34i/m3 ($9.66/ft3),' or about $16/m3 ($0.45/ft3)

greater than the'base case.:

Postoperational costs'for this case are rather 'difficult to determine.- Although

a number of.improvements in facility design and operating practices-are incor-

.'po'rated, the fact that stable waste'streams are still 'disposed'mixed-with

unstable waste streams may still result in subsidence and slumping.problems

..duringthe institutional control period. Therefore,.postoperational costs

'shown inTables'.4.5:and 4.7 as arrange of costs.; In this'case,'total postoperational costs for the reference'-facility (total-funds that would-have to

'be collected fromnw'ast'ge'he'rators over 20 years inforder to 'provide for-site

":'cl6sure. and for the'as'sumed amount' of 'long-term care) are again projected to

range from' $229 million'to $45;5'million. :-Due to the reduced-volume of-waste

delivered to the disposal facility, unit costs to the disposal facility customer

would be in the range of $35.39/m3 to $70.32/m3 ($1.00/ft3-$1.99/ft3). For

- 4-41
! I 111t LUMsites having a potential for leachate accumulation, postoperational costs are

projected to range up to $58 million, or $89.64/M3 ($2.54/ft3). The uncertainty

regarding these costs is a direct result of the uncertainty over the long-term

stability of the site.

Both land use and energy use are calculated to be decreased over the base case.

Land use for this case drops from 347,000 m2 to 225,000 M2. This is due to

the reduced volume of waste delivered to the disposal facility. Relative to

the base case, many of the compressible waste streams have been compacted. In

addition, some 25,600 m3 of waste have been determined to be unacceptable for

disposal for this case. This is due to 10.nCi/gm limit on transuranic waste

disposal assumed for this case.

Energy use is very difficult to estimate. Relative to the base case, however,

energy use associated with waste processing would be increased while 'energy

use associated with waste transport and disposal facility operations would be

decreased. To the extent that post-operational costs are reduced for this case

relative to the base case, energy use associated with post-operational activities (closure, institutional control) would also be reduced.

4.4.3 Part 61 Requirements (Preferred Alternative)

This case represents the level of costs and impacts resulting from implementation of the requirements in the final Part 61 regulation.

In this case, a total of 670,000 m3 of waste is generated. Of this volume,

22,000 m3 (3%) of waste is classified as being unacceptable for near-surface

disposal. This waste again includes the L-DECONRS and N-SOURCES streams plus

small portions of LWR processwaste streams (e.g.,'ion-exchange resins, filter

media, etc.). Of the remaining 650,000 m3 of waste accepted at the 'disposal

facility, 423,000 m3 (63%) is classified as-Class A unstable waste, 221,000 M3

(33%) is classified as stable Class A and Class'B waste, and 3,500 M3 (1%) is

classified as Class C (layered) waste. Similar to the no action case, the

Class B and Class C waste streams are assumed to be stabilized through emplacement into high integrity containers and through solidification.

As shown in Table 4.6, intruder impacts at 100 years are considerably,'reduced

over the previous case., This results from the practiceof stabilizing higher

activity waste and segregating them from unstable Class' A-waste, and from layering Class C waste. Impacts at 500 years are comparable to but'slightl'y higher

than those of the no action case. This slight increase in intruder impacts at

500 years'is due to the raise in the limit for transuranic waste disposal from

10 nCi/gm to 100 nCi/gm for alpha-emitting transuranics and'3500 nCi/gm for

Pu-241. Recall that in the no action case, the transuranic disposal'limit was

assumed to be 10 nCi/gm for all transuranic nuclides.' For the Part 61.case,

the limit for Class A disposal of transuranic waste is assumed to be 10 nCi/gm

for alpha-emitting radionuclides and 350 nCi/gm for'Pu-241 (a beta.emitter).

Above these limits waste must.be stabilized and disposed at greater'depths

(layered). An overall limit for near-surface disposal is set at 100 nCi/gm

for alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides and 3500 nCi/gm for Pu-241.

4-42
This increase in impacts, however small, is probably overconservative. As

discussed previously in this chapter, after 500 years, no credit is taken for

the reduction in intruder impacts provided by layering waste streams. This is

probably'overconservative, since at least some of the effectiveness should be

still retained. Assuming a factor of 10credit for layered waste results in

the following impacts'for this'case--at'500 years.

-Body Bone Thryoid

Intruder-construction

scenario (mrem/yr) 2.37E+0 1.09E+1 2.04E+O

Intruder-agriculture

scenario (mrem/yr) -2.52E+O 6.70E+O 7.75E+0

; Ground water impacts are also reduced over the no action case.' In this case,

thyroid impacts .run at'about'4.4 mrem/yr-at the intruder andboundary wells,

1.3 mrem/yr at' the population well and less than 0.1 mrem/yr at the surface

water access location. Most of these impacts are from migration of the segregated stable waste streams. This means that efforts to-reduce'such impacts

can proceed with a reasonable potential for success.' -

The beneficial effects of segregating stable high activity waste streams from

unstable low-activity waste streams are also shown in Table-4.9. In Table 4.6

and in the reference site low percolation case shown in Table 4.9, the improved

disposal cell covers placed over both the stable and unstable disposal cells

are assumed to be reasonably effective. In the high.percolation cases in Table 4.9,

however, this effectiveness is only assumed to be effective for the covers over

the disposal cells containing stable wastes. Little or no such improvement is

assumed for the disposal cells containing unstable wastes.. To summarize, the

average percolation rates assumed in the analysis are given'by the following:

Average percolation into disposal cells (mm)'

high perc. case low perc. case

Time period Unstable Stable Unstable Stable

During' institutional

control period 7270 - 30 - 60 30

After institutional .- control period -- 270 y- : 72 126 ' '72

As shown in Table 4.9, impacts for the reference site high percolation case

are not significantly raised over'the reference site 16w percolation case, and

are less than those calculated for the no-action case. -

4-43
Table 4.9 Variations on the Part 61 Case Analysis

Ref. site Ref. site Imperm. site Perm. site

low perc. high perc. high perc. high perc.

Groundwater Impacts (mrem/yr):

Boundary well

0

0

0

Body

Bone

Thyroid

1. 11E-I

3.70E-2

4.16E+O

1.48E-1

1. 27E-1

7.77E+O

1.03E-1

3. 58E-1

2.46E+1

1.36E+O

7. 1IE-1

2.46E+1

Population well

0

0

0

Body

Bone

Thyroid

3.33E-3

8. 24E-3

1. 32E+O

* 8.70E-3

2.79E-2

2.45E+O

8.18E-2

2.52E-1

2.45E+1

1. 20E-2

4.44E-2

2.46E+O

Surface water

0

0

0

Body

Bone

Thyroid

1.44E-4

3.37E-4

5.99E-2

3.89E-4

1.23E-3

1. 12E-1

3.39E-3

9.80E-3

1. 12E+O

7. 69E-4

3.13E-3

1.12E-1

Leachate Accumulation Impacts:

Disposal cell overflow

(mrem/yr)

0

0

0

Body

Bone

Thyroid

0.

0.

0.

O.

0.

0.

6. 65E+1

1. 14E+2

4.48E+1

0.

0.

0.

Leachate treatment,

(man-mrem/yr)

0

0

0

Body

Bone

Thyroid

O.*

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1. 78E+2

6.71E-1

1. 78E+2

0.

0.

0.

Waste Disposal Costs (total $

over 20 years):

Design and op.

Post operational

o Closure

o Obs. and maint.

o Inst. control

o Total post op.'

3.50E+8

3.87E+6

1.13E+6

1. 57E+7

2.07E+7

3.50E+8

3.87E+6

1. 42E+6

3. 04E+7

3. 57E+7

3. 50E+8

3. 87E+6

1.42E+6

3.86E+7

4.39E+7

3. 50E+8

3.87E+6

1. 42E+6

2.73E+7

3.26E+7

Total disposal costs 3. 71E+8

5.73E+2

3.86E+8

5. 96E+2

3. 94E+8

6. 08E+2

3.83E+8

Unit cost ($/m 5.91E+2 3)

4-44
Again, the level of impacts listed for trench overflow/leachate treatment are

unlikely to be achieved, but are included to illustrate the level of impacts

that could result at a site having very impermeable soils. This also ignores

'the'reduction in percolation that would result from imp'roved disposal'cell covers.

Credit is takenlfor waste stabilization, however. In this case, 'the'water accumulation problem only exists for disposal cells containing unstable waste streams.

A proportionately lower volume of leachate is generated under such conditions.

'Short-.term whole body occupational exposuresfor this case'are generally'similar

to'those of the'no action case. Since higher volumes of waste are processed

by waste renerators, occupational exposures due to waste processing are higher -- than the-no action.case. Some of the additional occupational exposures..from

waste processing are due to the somewhat increased use of volume reduction

technologies relative to the no action case, and are unrelated'to'exposures

achieved from waste stabilization. This increased use of volume reduction

a technologies for the Part 61 case is attributable to the assumed raise'in the

transuranie disposal limit relative to the no action case. Occupational expo-

-sures-due to waste transport and waste disposal are aboutthe t same as those of

* the previous case.

* Population ; exposures follow a similar pattern. Population exposures 'dueto

waste incineration are very small but are increased over'the'previous'case. .-This is.in keeping with the expectation that at least some waste generators

* over the next-twenty years will install and use incinerators to'process compressible waste-streams. All such incineration is projected-to be'carried out

.by the waste generators at the waste generator's facilities. Population exposures due to waste transport.are slightly increased'duelto the' slightly

:.increased volume of waste transported to the-disposal facility. .

.Waste generation and transportcosts show a similar pattern to the'calculated

occupational exposures. Relative to.the previous.case, total waste processing

costs are estimated to be raised by about $23 million. Most of these additional

costs are due to stabilizing higher activity waste streams prior'to disposal.

Some.of the additional waste processing costs for this case.-are due to the somewhat increaseduse of volume reduction technologies by waste generators.. In

addition, .the waste processing costs include costs for.stabilizing smallvolumes

of waste.-streams which for the no-action case were determined to-be ,unacceptable

* -for near-surface disposal.' The potential'-savings to waste generators .that would

'result from disposal by :near-surface disposal.'rather'tlhan some alternative means

(such as -geologic repository) have not.been included in'the calculations. Costs

due-to volume reduction at the regional.'processing facility are essentially

the same as the no action case.. Essentially'the'sam'e costs are calculated for

waste transportation as were calculated for the no actionlcase. '

* Waste disposal costs are divided .into design andoperation costs and postoperational costs.- Relative~to the no action-cas6e, design and operation costs

are somewhat increased while the institutional control component of postoperational costsare reduced.. The increased design'iaid operation costs are

due to the additional operational practice of segregating Class A unstable

.waste-and layering Class C.waste.

Post-operational costs are divided into closure,.-observation and maintenance,

and institutional control. Closure costs are the same as the previous case.

* 4-45
a 

Observation' and maintenance costs are costs passed on to the disposal facility

customer which would be required to fund a 5-year observation and maintenance

program carried out by the site operator. This five-year period follows the

closure period and is used to ensure the disposal facility is in a stable condition prior to transfer of the disposal facility to the site owner. These

costs are presented in Table 4.9 as a range of costs.

Institutional control costs, similarly to observation and maintenance costs,

are presented as a range to reflect uncertainties in long-term maintenance

requirements. A low level of maintenance is projected to be required for stable'

waste streams, since these waste streams are segregated from unstable waste

streams. A higher level of maintenance is projected for unstable waste streams.

Since the degree and timing of the slumping and subsidence expected to be associated with disposal cells containing unstable waste streams is uncertain, the

level of maintenance required for the unstable waste disposal cells is projected

to range from'a moderate to a high level of maintenance. This is believed to

be conservative. It does illustrate a basic quandary regarding low-level waste

disposal. The waste streams having the least radioactivity contribute the most

to long-term maintenance and institutional control costs. The fact that these

unstable waste streams are segregated from the stable waste streams, however,

greatly reduces the environmental consequences of such disposal cell instability.

As shown in Table'4.9,-total postoperational costs for the Part 61 case are

projected to range from $20.1 million to $35.7 million for the reference disposal

site. This'translates to a unit postoperational charge to be paid by disposal

facility customers of 'from $31.94/m3 ($090/ft3) to $55.09/M3 ($1.56/ft3).

Higher postoperational costs would be associated with a site having very impermeable soils. For the preceeding no action case, total postoperational costs

were projected to range from $22.9 million to $45.5 million. These costs did

not include costs fo'r an observation and maintenance period following disposal

facility closure, and reduced to unit postoperational costs of from $35.39/m3

($1.00/ft3) to $70.32/M3 ($1.99/ft3).

The differences between postoperational costs for the Part 61 versus the no

action case are probably even larger'than those calculated. This is because

the environmental consequences of the uncertainty over the effectiveness of

improved disposal cell covers is much more significant in the no action case

than in the Part 61 case. In the no action case, potential increased percolation due to disposal cell subsidence'ove'r time'is projected to effect all waste

streams. In the Part 61 case, such potential increased percolation due to

disposal cell subsidence is projected to only effect low activity unstable waste

streams. Thus, postoperational costs are lower for the Part 61 case.

Land use is the same as the previous case. Somehwat more extensive volume

reduction activities are carried out for the Part 61 case as were carried out

for the no action case.' Conversely, an additional 3600 m3 of waste is accepted

at the disposal facility relative to the no action case. The result is similar

waste volumes being disposed for the two cases, resulting in similar land use

requirements. Energy use is still reduced relative to the base case but increased

relative to the no action case. Relative to the no action case, somewhat less

energy use would be expected for post-operational activities. These reductions

are counterbalanced by the expected increase in'energy use associated with disposal operations (i.e., for waste segregation and for layering) and for waste

processing activities.

4-46
4.4.4 Upper Bound Requirements (All Stable Alternative)

This case illustrates the costs and impacts associated with a case representing

an extreme level of disposal facility stabilization.' This maybe accomplished

in a number of different ways but for this case, waste streams which for the

Part 61 case were disposed in an unstable manner are assumed to be emplaced

into high integrity containers. The result is that all.waste is.disposed in a

-stable manner.

In this case, 653,000 m3 of waste .are generated,- of which. 22,-000' m3 (3%) of

waste is determined to be unacceptable for near-surface disposal. Of the

remaining 631,000 m3, none of the waste is disposed in an unstable manner.

(That is, the volume of Class A unstable waste is zero.) About 627,000.0m3 of

waste is disposed as stable Class AVand-Class B waste-and 3,800 m3 (3%) is

classed as Class C (layered) waste. - , .

As shown, the intruder and groundwater exposures are the lowest of the four

cases considered.: Since-all waste is stable, potential intruder exposures at

100 years are limited to those received during accidental discovery of the

waste (the intruder-discovery scenario). Exposures due to the intruderagriculture scenario are-therefore not received. Intruder.exposures at 500

*years, however,, are-very similar to those observed for.the previous case.

Again, these exposures are p'ossibly overconservative sincenocredit':istaken

after 500 years for the effectiveness of intruder barriers to reduce-exposures

. to-Class C layered waste. -. . ..

- Groundwater. impacts are' estimated to lie in the range of 3.3 mrei/yr' to the thyroid

*.at the intruder and.boundary wells,. 1m'rem/yr at the population well','and about

0.05.-mrem/yr at-the surface water-access location. .TheseimPacts 'are believed to

.be conservative, however. Since all,.waste streams are stable,'ithere is believed

to be support against;significant'subsidence of disposal cellrcovers. Given

this, it is believed that further improvements-in reducingIpercolation can be

implemented with some'confidence of their success. These could"include, for

example,.barriers against deep-rooted plants and burrowing animals. Jit is

believed-that without-a stable disposal site,' such improveddisposal covers

would likelybe ineffective. 'The conclusion.is that.if.one wishes'to lower

potential long-term radiological.impacts'to levels as low as 'reasonably

-achievable,-then disposal site stability..is a place.tostart.

Other potentialblong-term impacts are also reduced.., For.example, offsite

intruder impact.at 100 years is-reduced by-one to two orders of magnitude over

the-previous case.' Impacts ats a site h'iving 'ey impermeable.soils from trench

overflow and leachate treatment are estimated to..be zero for,'this case. Since

all waste' streams 'are disposed min a's'table manner, '-ie possibility. of leachate

accumulation problems 'at' asite are. jutdged to 'be 'remote. '

,.Occupational exposures for this case .,areijudged to be somewhat greater than

''..theprevious case. TheAdifference.in~occupational ex'posures-for waste process- .ing for','this case anhd the previous'case'are'entirely,'due''to the additional waste

stabilization req'uirements. As shown,_this .differ~ence isinot'significant.

Waste processing costs are significantly increased over the previous case.

These increased costs are principally due to emplacement of Class A unstable

waste streams-into high integrity containers at an assumed average cost of

$450 per cubic meter of waste ($12.74/ft3).

4-47
-~ g | M

Waste disposal costs are reduced relative to the, previous .case. Since all

wastes are stable, there is no disposal change for segregated disposal of

unstable'waste streams. Post-operational costs are the lowest of the four

cases considered.

As shown, land use for this all stable case is somewhat reduced--i.e., to

219,000 m2--over the'previous two cases. This is because the increased use of

waste stabilization techniques for this case has resulted in somewhat decreased

volumes of waste being delivered to the disposal facility. Energy use, on the

other hand, is increased significantly over the previous three cases. This is

again due to the increased use of waste stabilization techniques for this case.

4.4.5 Variations to the All Stable Alternative

In the previous case an option was considered in which all- unstable waste streams

are emplaced within containers providing structural support. The cost for such

a container was'estimated in this EIS to be on the order of $450/m3 based on

cost estimates for a high integrity container currently being marketed. Another

option could be to incinerate compressible waste streams and solidify the

resulting ashes prior'to disposal. This optionlis also projected at this time

to be rather expensive--i.e., on the order of $927 per m3 of solidified waste--

although with the current interest in volume reduction technology these costs

could be reduced in the future.

Another option might be to provide stability through variations in disposal

facility design and operation--e.g., through such possible techniques as

grouted disposal, disposal into grouted concrete-walled trenches, or extreme

compaction. Such'possible techniques would have to be developed and tested

for a specific disposal facility, since past'experience regarding these techniques at low-level waste disposal facilities has ranged from occasional to

none. Nonetheless, the projected costs (and some other impact measures)

associated with these alternatives may be briefly considered.

For these alternatives, stable waste is assumed to segregated into stable and

unstable waste streams, and stable waste streams are assumed to be disposed in

the same method as'the all stable-and Part 61 cases. Unstable waste streams,

however, are assumed to be subjected to more extensive alternative disposal

practices. These'alternatives include (also see Appendix F of the draft EIS):

1. Disposal i'nto concrete-walled trenches. In this case, waste''packages

are stacked into concrete-walled disposal trenches. The interstitial

spaces between the waste packages are grouted,'and finally a concrete

cap is poured over the grouted waste mass. This is followed by a

compacted thick clay cap which is mounded and seeded to promote growth

of a short-rooted grass 'cover.

2. Use of cement grout. In this case, waste packages are stacked into

standard excavated disposal cells and cement grout is poured'into

the interstitial spaces between the waste packages. This is followed

by'a compacted thick clay cap which is mounded and seeded to promote

growth of a short-rooted grass cover.

4-48
3. Use of extreme compaction techniques. This case is represented.by a

technique termed dynamic-consolidation (or dynamic compaction).. In

this case, the unstable waste-is assumedto be randomly'emplaced in . ,.the disposal cells, backfilled,,and a thin.(e.g., one meter) earthen

.cover the disposed waste. Ailarge (5-40 ton).weight

is then dropped from a significant height.(e.g, 20-100'ft) several

times over.a;limited area. i.At.the site, an'optimui weight and drop

height would first be determined.' Then, a'crane' would drop the weight

a number of times at severallocations in'a pattern across the disposal

cell cover surface. Depressions left by the weight are filled in

and additional passes over the disposal cell surface may be made as

* desired and'dependihg upon site-specific conditions. A clay.cap

would then be placed over the compacted earth/waste mass, mounded,

and seeded.

The disposal costs estimated for the above three alternatives are compared below,

compared with'those associated with the-Part 61 case. The disposal costs are . divided into (1) design'and operation costs, and (2) post-operational costs.

Costs'are also divided into costs for disposal of unstable waste streams as

well as for all waste streams (total costs). Unit costs are based upon an

unstable waste volume of 423,000 m3 and a total disposed waste volume of

648,000 i 3. Post-operational costs for the Part 61 case are based on those

projected in'Table 4.6 for the reference disposal site assuming a moderate

level of post-operational activities and costs. 'These respective costs are:

.Design and Op. Post-Operational

Cost Cost Total Cost

Unstable All ; Unstable All Unstabie All

Case Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste

Part 61 228* 350 1 15.9 -20.7 '24 .' 371

(539)** (540). (37.6). (31.9j) (577) (573)

Walled Trench 384 507 9 13.8 393 521

'(908) (782) (21:3) (21.3) (929) . (804)

Grout 262 384 9 13.8 271 398

(619) (593) '(21.3)' (21.3) (641', (614)

Extreme compaction. 240 363 9 13.8 249 377

(567):- (560) (21.3) (21.3) (589) (582)

* AUnits are $ x 106 (total over-20 years operation) **Units are $ per-m3 of disposed waste. ..

As shown'for the above three alternatives, stabilizing unstable wastezstreams

by implementing special disposal'practices is projected to'raise facility design

and operation costs. Conversely, post-operational costs would be reduced.

4-49
1

Total disposal costs for the three alternatives, considered are still, however,

larger than the total disposal costs for the reference site Part 61 case.

The above costs for the reference site Part 61 case are for a situation in which

a moderate level of post-operational activities and costs are projected. This

is believed to be a reasonable projection; however, it is also useful to inspect

a worst case (i.e., unlikely) condition in which a high-level of post-operational

costs and activities are estimated' in the Part 61 case for unstable waste disposal.

These estimated worst case costs are given for three site environmental

conditions: the reference site assuming moderately permeable soils, a variation

on the reference site assuming very permeable soils, and a variation on the

reference site assuming very impermeable soils. These costs are given below:

Design and Op. Post-Operational

Cost Cost Total' Cost

Unstable All Unstable All Unstable. All

Case Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste

Mod. perm. site 228* 350 30.9 35.7 259 386

soils (Ref. site) (539) (540) (73.1) (55.1) (612) (596)

Perm. site soils 228 350 27.8 32.6 256 383

(539) (540) (65.7) (50.3) (605) (591)

Imperm. site soils 228 350 39.1 43.9 267 394

(539) (540) (92.4) (67.8) (631) (608)

*Units are $ x 106 (total over 20 years operation)

"*Units are $ per m3 of disposed waste.

Assuming a worst case situation, the total disposal costs for the site assuming

very impermeable conditions are comparable to the costs for the grout alternative.

Even more interesting, the total disposal costs for each of the variations on

disposal facility site soil conditions are greater than the total disposal costs

for the extreme compaction alternative.

The above appears to imply that techniques such as grouting waste packages or

extreme compaction may be cost-effective methods to reduce post-operational

costs associated with segregated unstable waste streams. However, it must be

also observed that experience with the above three alternatives at low-level

waste disposal facilities has ranged from little to none. There has been some

experience both in the United States and abroad with use of concrete walled

disposal cells. However, to NRC staff's knowledge, there has been no prior

experience with either grouting or extreme compaction at low-level waste disposal

facilities, although there is experience with extreme compaction at nonradioactive

solid waste landfills.

4-50
There are other drawbacks as well. Use of the concrete-walled trench or

grouted disposal of waste are projected to raise occupational exposures at the

disposal facility (compared to the Part 61 case) by about 65 man-rem per year.

Conversely, there is expected to be few additional occupational exposures due

to waste handling for the extreme compaction alternative. The principal drawback to this compaction technique is the-potential for expulsion--of contaminated'soil-and waste. Depending upon the characteristics of the soil, the

weight employed, and the'drop height, depressions having depths of up to several

feet may be produced. Care would have to be taken so that-the dropped'mass

did not penetrate the cover material-to the point that the-waste is contacted

and/or expelled into the air. This would cause a contamination problem for

personnel and equipment, not to mention an airborne hazard both onsite and

offsite. One way to reduce the potential for airborne spread of contamination

would be to restrict the mass of the weight and the dropping-height. However,

-this.would also diminish the effectiveness of the compaction technique in that

the'depth of compaction would be reduced.

4.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceding section of this chapter analyzed four LLW disposal case alternatives: 2a'base case, a no action (existing disposal practices) case, a

preferred (Part 61) case, and an upperbound case in which all waste is disposed in a stable manner. The results of the analysis of the cases have been

presented in Table 4.6. Of these four cases, the base case is representative

of disposal practices carried out several years ago. The environmental and

'long-term cost impacts of this case are clearly excessive and reversion to

disposal facility practices typified by this case is an unacceptable alternative. The impacts listed in Table 4.6 for the remaining three cases are condensed, renormalized, and presented as Table 4.10.. This allows a reference

point to summarize some salient points-raised by the'previous analysis.

The impact~measures are listed in Table 4.10 in three sections: (1) long-term

individual exposures (in millirem/yr),-(2)-short-term whole-body exposures in

addition to those associated with the no action case (in man-millirem/yr), and

(3) total costs (in dollars over 20 years of disposal'facility operations) in

addition to those costs associated with the no action case. -

Long-Term Individual Exposures

Impacts to a potential inadvertent'intruder are given as waste volume-weighted

impacts to the bone for-the two intruder scenarios considered.(intruderconstruction and intruder-agriculture) for time periods equal to 100 and 500

years following closure of the site' and'transfer of the site license to the

site owner. As shown for the no action case,.intruder impacts run at about 2

rems after 100 years.

4-51
'll.-

Table 4.10 Condensed Renormalized Comparison of the No Action,

Part 61, and All Stable Cases

Upper

No action Part 61 bound

Impact Measures case case case

I. Long-Term Individual

Exposures (mrem yr):

Intruder-construction

0

0

100 yrs - Bone

500 yrs - Bone

* 1.80E+3* 1.87E+2 1.77E+1

1.16E+1 1.63E+1 1.67E+1

Intruder-agriculture

0

0

100 yrs - Bone

500 yrs - Bone

2. 32E+3

7.19E+O

2.08E+2 0.

9.17E+0 9.38E+O

Boundary well

0

0

0

Body

Bone

Thyroid

4.39E-1

4.39E-2

1. 11E+1

1. 11E-1

3.70E-2

4.16E+O

1.09E-1

1. 47E-2

3. 30E+O

II. Short-Term Whole Body Exposures

(man-millirem/yr):

Total Occupational Exposures ** +8.50E+3 +1.10E+4

Total Population Exposures **. -9.50E+1 +3.05E+2

III. Total Annual Costs ($/yr) +1.45E+6 +8.95E+6

*

The notation 1.80E+3 means 1.80 x 103..

Total occupational exposures, total population exposures, and total

annual costs are given as increments to those exposures and costs

associated with the no action case.

4-52
Given the added operational -practices of segregating stable,waste streams from

unstable waste streams and placing certain.high activity waste streams at the

bottom of the disposal cells, potential intruder exposures at 100 years for

the Part 61-case are reduced by an order of magnitude. Waste segregation is

*anoperational-practice-that has been;and is currently being carried.out for

particular waste streams, so-implementing-this alternative is well within current

waste disposal technology. Similarly, layering (or other special handling) of

certain'waste streams has long-been~a standard practice at disposal facilities,

-and so this-alternative.-is also judged to be well within current waste-disposal

technology. -Further reductiohs:in impacts are observed for'the all stable case

in which all- waste streams are stabilized prior to disposal. .

At 500 years, however,-comparable intruder-impacts (ranging from 10 to 17 mrem/yr)

are.observed for-the three cases. In fact,-due to the raise-in the-trans'uranic

disposal limits for the-last'two cases from 10 to 100 nCi/gm, intruderimpacts

'for the Part'61 and all-stable cases:are slightly higher than those -for the no

action case.-- As discussed in Section 4.4, however,-'even.this.small.difference

in impacts is probably exaggerated. Waste streams containing transuranic

nuclides in concentrations between 10 and 100 nCi/gm are required in the last

: two -. cases to'be layered."-As discussed earlier, waste streams disposed with a

minimum of.5'meterstcover of earth-and/or low activity waste streams would still

-be difficult to-contact after:500 years. In addition, the analysis conservatively

..takes no credit for the reduction in exposures that would result in:.stabilized

waste-forms which would.tend to reduce potential airborne dispersion and'plant

root-uptake.: : . :- . - . * , ,1- ,;.-.. ; , -

Groundwater impacts for the three cases.are shown for three organs at a well

assumed to be located down gradient of the disposed waste at the boundary of

the disposal facility. --In.the analysis,-an -individual is.assumedto pump

contaminated water from the well and use it for consumptioniand other purposes

such as irrigating crops. The impacts are listed as the maximum'calculated

potential impacts over 10,000 years following-disposal facility closure. As

shown,; the impacts -for the Part 61.case-are about a factor of three lower than

the no action case for-exposures to the thyroid and ajfactor of about four lower

for exposures to the whole body. For the all stable case potential exposures

are somewhat lower than the Part 61 case, but the reduction is not as much as

previously.

There is:more to the above, calculated impacts,- however, ,then is apparent at

* first-glance.-- As observed.in-Sectioni4.4 :for. the no action and Part 61 cases, -I - most of the radioactivity contributing to the calculated impacts is contained

in the stabilized.waste streams.,,-One of-the main purposes of.stabilizing such

high activity waste is to provide structural support for disposal cellicovers, ,.. thus reducing trench;cover subsidence and minimizing contact of.-waste by percolating

* -water. 'mIf, however, the waste streams thus stabilized-are disposed comingled

-with:other unstable waste:streams (as is the'-situation for the no action case),

':-then much-of the benefit-to be achieved by waste stabilization can be lost.

* This-wascillustrated in.Section 4.4 by-the variations;in the no-action and

* Part'61.case.analysis~in which reduced effectiveness was-assumed for improved

covers-over disposal cells containing unstable. waste streams. --For the no action -. -case,_.in which all-waste is.disposed -comingled, the increased percolation raised

the calculated thyroid impacts at-the reference~site-to 41;mrem/yr.. For the

Part 61 case, the increased percolation--into the unstable waste-disposal cells

- :- -4-53
~1 I I nM.

raised the calculated thyroid impacts at the reference site to only 7.8 mrem/yr,

or better than 5 times less than the no action case.

It is recognized that the above is only a generic analysis and that actual

percolation rates into disposal cells at an actual facility.(and associated

impacts) would need to be determined on a site-specific basis. The point,

however, is that at the present time there is interest in developing improved

methods of reducing the contact of waste by water, including improved disposal

facility designs and disposal cell-covers, with the aim of further reducing

potential waste disposal impacts to levels as low as reasonably achievable.

One example is the work conducted by the Department of Energy to develop

biological barriers against intrusion by burrowing animals and deep-rooted

plants. The'effectiveness of current or possible future improved methods to

reduce percolation into disposed waste, however, is believed to be linked to

the degree of structural support provided by the disposed waste and backfill.

Putting it another way, a stable disposal situation gives methods designed to

reduce percolation a chance of working. Otherwise their long-term effectiveness

is in doubt.

The analysis also suggests that waste stabilization reduces the dependence upon

specific site characteristics to minimize radiological-impacts. This was

illustrated by the variations in the analysis performed for the no action and

Part 61 cases. This is an important consideration,'since there will always be

some uncertainty associated with measurements and predictions of site.

geohydrological properties. A stabilized disposal site reduces the concern

regardiing the impact of these uncertainties on the potential radiological

exposures arising from waste disposal.

It may also be noted that for both the'no action and Part 61 case, there is

still a possibility (however small) of a water accumulation problem at-a

disposal site having very impermeable soils. The relative radiological impacts

and costs of this phenomenon, however, are much reduced for the Part 61 case

relative to the no action case. The potential for such impacts is believed to

be reduced to minimum levels for the all stable case.

Short-Term Whole Body Exposures

Short-term whole body exposures are presented as yearly exposures (in

man-millirem/ yr) in'addition to those-associated with-the no action case.

These exposures persist only during the 20-year period of operation of the

disposal facility. Two 'such potential exposures are listed: total occupational

exposures and total exposures to population.

'Total occupational exposures are the sum'of occupational exposures received - M . _ . .- . * .A. .* ..*,v.s

01-

I ,_ ____ _i

&
-'function of the layout of the waste'generating facility, the.type of waste

processing performed and design of-the-waste processing equipment, and on'

several other factors. The most important consideration at a specific facility

is-often the level of management attention to reducing.exposures.

Somewhat larger total occupational exposures.are projected to occur for the

-Hall stable case. This'relatively small difference between. the Part 61 case

and-the-all stable case is due to the assumption that high.integrity containers

.(or-some othercontainer providing structural support) are used to stabilize

unstable waste streams. As.long as one is merely -substituting-once container

for another, there would be expected to be little difference in occupational

'exposures received. . .

Total population exposures include potential exposures to populations from

incineration of:combustible waste at waste generating facilities, possible

compaction of combustible waste at'a regional processing facility, and transport

of waste to the disposal facility. These are calculated as additional exposures

in man-millirem/year and as.shown,'very little difference.is projected from

;those exposures expected for.the-no action-case.

Total Annual Costs . -- -- : -, ). . .

;Total 'annual costs are presented.as total annual costs that would be incurred

by waste generators in addition to those associated with.the no action case.

Summed are total- annual costs for waste processing,..waste transport, and waste

-disposal. ' Costs for waste disposal.include a basic disposal charge (design

'and operation costs) as.well as a charge to disposal facility, customers for

post-operational.activities (closure, observation, and institutional control).

Relative to the no action case, costs incurred for the Part 61 case are projected

-to include increased waste processing costs, somewhat increased disposal facility

-design and operation costs, and decreased post-operational costs. ,(These costs

I do not include the cost savings to disposal facility customers for raising the

near-surface.transuranic disposal.limit from 10 to 100 nCi/gm.) Most ofthese . additional costs 'are attributed to-additional waste processing costs associated

with stabilizing-some additional high activity waste streams. Thus, these

-:additional costs.would 'only be incurred by.disposal .facility, customers generating . the high activity waste and not by. small waste-generators'such as hospitals

who mainly generate 'waste with only low.levels of activity. .The additional

disposal facility design and operation costs are associated with the additional

disposal facility operating practices for the Part 61 case of segregating -

unstable waste streams from stable waste streams, and of layering certain high

activity (Class C) waste streams. Of these additional disposal facility costs,

segregation costs are projected to be incurred by all disposal facility customers.

These costs are estimated to run at about an additional $12.30/m3 ($0.35/ft3)

indesign and operations costs. ,,Costs for layer-ing certain high activity waste

streams.are projected.to be.only incurred by disposal facility customers.

generating the-high activity streams.-, -- . . .

-Due to the-increased disposal facility stability-for the Part,61 case, the

'-level of -long-term site maintenance is.reduced for the-Part 61 case-relative

*to the no action case.- Corresponding long-term institutional control costs to

be borne by the site owner are.also reduced. This means.that the funds collected

from-the disposal facility.customers .to provide for post-operational activities

4-55
could be reduced.. Thus, lower post-operational costs to the disposal facility

customer are projected for the Part 61 case.

The annual cost differential between the all stable case and both the no action

case and the Part 61 case is projected to be more significant. These additional

costs are principally due to the increased costs to stabilize all waste streams.

Such costs would be passed on to all disposal facility customers. Conversely,

disposal facility design'and operating costs for the all stable case would be

reduced relative to the Part 61 case (there would be no waste segregation charge).

Post-operational costs would be less than either of the other two cases.

The fact that the large additional costs that are projected to occur for the

all stable case would be expected to be passed on to all disposal facility

customers is believed to be significant. Many disposal facility customers are

small entities such as hospitals or small research facilities. The waste

generated by such facilities is generally of very low activity.

One has to be concerned about the impact of such additional costs on small

entities, although it is also possible that the magnitude of the estimated

costs is exaggerated. In the all stable case, all Class A unstable waste

streams were assumed to be stabilized by emplacement into containers providing

structural support. Such containers are estimated in this EIS to cost on the

order of $450 per m3 of waste, which is based upon estimated costs for high

integrity containers. At the time these unit cost estimates were developed,

however, there was only one company marketing high integrity containers.

Since that time, additional companies are marketing high integrity containers.

It may very well be that given business competition and future manufacturing

savings, future costs for high integrity containers (or some equivalent

container providing structural support) may be significantly reduced.

Another option might be to provide stability through variations in disposal

facility design and operation--e.g., through such possible techniques as grouted

disposal, disposal into concrete-walled trenches, or extreme compaction. The

additional disposal facility design and operating costs for these alternatives

;are projected to run'at about $80, $369, and $28 respectively per m3 of unstable

waste disposed. Post-operational costs, however, would be reduced. Such

possible techniques would;:also have to be developed and tested for specific

disposal facilities, since past experience regarding these techniques' at lowlevel waste disposal facilities has ranged from occasional to none. In addition,

there are some occupational safety concerns regarding some of the above

alternatives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NRC staff judge that the generically preferred cage is the one

representing the Part 61 requirements. Although the Part 61 case involves

somewhat higher costs than the no action case, the potential in the Part 61

case for minimizing long-term environmental releases and costs to'the site owner

is enhanced. Minimum environmental impacts and costs to the site owner are

associated with the all stable case. However, NRC staff belive that there are

sufficient uncertainties associated with the cost impacts to disposal-facility

customers that it cannot be implemented generally at this time. This decision

may change in the future, depending upon cost considerations 'and the maturation

of newer waste management technologies. During licensing of specific disposal

4-56
facilities, however, special attention will be given tp the possibility of

leachate accumulation within disposal cells. At specific sites where such a

possibility can occur, additional measures intended to eliminate this possibility

will be considered.

4-57
Chapter.5!

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS

This Chapter presents the final conclusions reached as part of the Part 61

rulemaking action. The final'conclusions are presented as the basic principles

and concepts that should be set out as the-minimum requirements in the final

Part 61 rule. The performance objectives derived as a result of the analyses

are first addressed, followed by the principal technical requirements which.

follow from the'performance objectives. These are followed by.a discussioniof

waste classification requirements,'which are then followed by a discussion and

analysis of the final administrative, procedural, and financial requirements.

In preparing this chapter, use is made of the comparative 'analysis performed

in :the previous chapter,' the analyses performed in the draft EIS, comments .

received on-the draft EIS and comments received on the.proposed Part 61 rule.

Thus, also highlighted in this chapter are any.significant modifications'--

'-incorporated into the final Part 61 rule due to comments received on the proposed Part 61 rule. Although technically,_this final EIS need only consider

public comments received on the draft EIS, it is believed in keeping with the

spirit of this EIS as a decision and information document to~indicate the impact

of comments on the proposed Part 61 rule on the final Part 61 EIS and rule.

In developing these conclusions, NRC considered and applied several criteria.

The principal criteria used include whether the requirement would: (1) reduce.

short- and long-term -health, .safety and environmental impacts without major,

new short-term increases in the costs for disposal; (2) reduce uncertainty and

long-term costs for disposal; (3) contribute significantly to helping ensure

< that;the performance objectives would-be met;.(4) establish minimum.technical

requirements leaving maximum flexibility in how specific-designs and.^operating

practices could be applied by an applicant or licensee; and (5) establish

-specific controls where needed.based on past-.experience.and present knowledge.'

-* 5.1 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES VERSUS PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS.

-In developing specific regulations for LLW disposal,.two basic types of

requirements can be-established: performance.objectives :and prescriptive

requirements.- . x .-

A performance objective regulation would establish-the overall,-objectivesjthat

should be achieved in the disposal.of LLW and leave flexibility in-how the-.

'objectives would be achieved.. The performance objectives would-establish

.,general technical requirements on the design and operationoof an LLW disposal

facility and would include.a standard or-standards to specify the level of,

radiological hazard which should not-be exceeded at an LLW.disposal facility. :,1 i . .. . -- ;. -

A prescriptive regulation would set out specific detailed requirements for the

design and operation of an LLW disposal facility. Prescriptive standards would

specify the particular practices, designs, or methods which are to be employed--

for example, the thickness of the cover material over a shallow land burial

disposal trench, or the maximum slope of the trench walls.

.5-1
- ____ 4

Based on the analysis in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS (§ 2.2), the preferred

approach selected and followed by NRC in the preparation of the proposed

Part 61 was to develop both performance objectives and prescriptive requirements. Overall performance objectives were developed to define the level of

safety that should be achieved in the land disposal of LLW. Minimum technical

performance requirements were also developed for each of the major components

of an LLW disposal system that should be considered in all cases in the disposal of LLW to help ensure that the overall performance objectives for land

disposal would be met. Finally, prescriptive requirements were established

where they were deemed necessary and where sufficient technical information

and rationale were available to support them'.

Based on public comments on the Part 61 rule, draft EIS, and NRC's analysis of

these comments, NRC has made no change to this approach. It has been followed

in the development of the final Part 61 rule.

5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

As part of the analysis performed in the draft EIS, NRC analyzed a range of

alternative performance objectives for low-level radioactive waste disposal.

This analysis involved an extensive series of case studies plus an extensive

examination of the case study results. From the analysis NRC staff identified

four such overall performance objectives:

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

term;

2. Protect the inadvertent intruder;

3. Protect workers and the public during the short-term operational phase;

and

4. Long-term stability to eliminate the need for active long-term maintenance

after operations cease;

There were few comments from the public on the overall numerical analysis performed in the draft EIS to arrive at the preferred performance objectives.

There were, however, some comments on-the specific details of the analysis such

as assumptions on environmental monitoring costs. Based upon the comments,

NRC made a number of revisions to the numerical inputs to the impact analysis

methodology including an'improved method of cost-analysis;-,a more extensive

analysis of the impacts of waste classification and analysis of a new pathway

(trench overflow and leachate treatment). The effect of the revisions to the

analysis methodology had no effect on the overall conclusions but, rather, confirmed-NRC's original conclusions. To provide greater clarity, an effort~was

made to reduce the number of cases considered and this resulted in the analysis

performed in Chapter 4 of this final EIS. Based on public comments on the proposed rule, no new areas were identified which should be addressed in the

Part 61 rule as 'overall performance objectives for land disposal of LLW.

Commenters generally supported development of performance objectives in the

above four areas.

5-2
One'rule commenter'challenged the performance objectives in Part 61 as being

premature in advance of relevant EPA standards and beyond the agency's authority

to the extent that they-are not already embodied in 10'CFR Part 20 and that

they are unduly stringent and unsupported. With respect to this comment, EPA,

.under:its ambient environmental standards setting authority assigned by

'-Reorganizati6nzPlan.NO.-31of'1970 has the authority to prepare a standard that

will-set'limits for releases of radioactivity to the general environment from,

disposal facilities.- Presently there is.no such.EPA standard.'.In the absence

of such a'standard, the Commission examined a range of limits which Lbound that

expected for-the EPA standard and selected a proposed performance objective

that establishes'a release limit for-the site boundary, a regulatory action'

v':`within the limits of NRC.authority. .In a rulemaking action, the Commissio'n' is

not solely limited to existing standards-in Part 20 and the Commission does'

not intend to withdraw any portion of the rule that may be related to-the.-.,'.

performance objectives.

With- regard to the specific performance objective for releases to the :

environment,;the Environmental -Protection-Agency commented that-the establishment of an individual exposure limit at the site boundary.for releases as

proposed in §61.41-is.appropriate. :They stated that the 25 mrem/yr limit..'is.

-in-the correct rangeiof values (1 to:25 mrem/yr was analyzed by the Commission)

which should encompass any future EPA standard for low-level waste'disposal

facilities. Based on'the analysis, NRC does not anticipate any need to change

the'technical requirements of Part.61-to meet a future EPA standard. In their

'comments, EPA stated their opinion that it was inappropriate-to apply the EPA

drinking water standard as proposed in §61.41; Accordingly,-thispart of-the

performance objective has been deleted. However, this does not diminish the

Commission's concern over protecting sources of drinking water. The Commission

will assess the potential impact on drinking water-supplies as part of its

licensing review;- - - . . .

Reaction:to the proposed performance objective to protect potential inadvertent

':intruders was mixed. There were some -who felt the proposed 500 mrem whole :

*bodyidose to the-intruder was too high, some felt that it was the right value

for a standard, and others felt that higher -values were in-order.' Those that

felt'that the'standard'should be-higher.-suggested values of 5 rem or 25 rem to

correspond to limits for occupational-exposure or one-time exposures to workers

from potential accidents. A number of commenters, in their comments about

': considering~the probability that-.intrusion-will occur, expressed concern about

weighting too heavily the;protection-:against inadvertent intrusion in determining disposal requirements for waste. Based on these comments, the'Commission

believes that the-primary concern of those-:who.feel that the-intruder protection

objective is too restrictive is the'e'ffect that this 'has on the concentrations

of-certain'nuclides that are'acceptable for disposal in a near-surface.facility

*-'and the need to meet waste:form.requirements such as-stability for some'wastes.

With this in mind, and in response to other comments,-the Commission has -

reevaluated the calculations that.establish.the waste classification-concentration-limits to'eliminate:unnecessarilyiconservative assumptions -with the

result that the analysis is more'realistic~and the -limits forseveral important

isotopes have been raised. With this action, the.Commission believes that

most of the concerns of those who encouraged higher exposure limits or less

emphasis on protection of intruders-will have been met. .-

5-3
1

With respect to those who suggested that lower limits would be appropriate,

there were no.'compelling arguments or technical demonstrations presented that

persuaded the'Commission to lower the dose limit for intruders.

The EPA commented that it was not appropriate to state the 500 mrem (whole body)

dose limit as a regulatory limit in the Part 61 rule, since~the licensee would

not be able to monitor or demonstrate compliance with a specific dose limit

that applies to an event that might occur hundreds of years from now. They

did recognize use of the 500 mrem whole body dose limit as the basis for

determining the concentration limits in Table 1 of Part 61. Noting that,

given ALARA, actual exposures to an inadvertent intruder would be lower than

500 mrem per year, the 500 mrem dose limit has been deleted from the performance

objective but has been retained as the basis of the waste classification

concentration limits.

EPA asked for a clarification of the intent of the performance objective in

§61.43 as it pertains to effluents from the site. This performance objective

states that operations at the land disposal facility must be conducted in compliance with the standards for radiation protection set out in Part 20.

Part 20 contains standards for concentrations of radioisotopes in air and water

released from a licensed facility. Section 61.41 sets forth limits on concentrations of radioisotopes released from aland disposal facility which are lower

than those in Part 20. It is the Commission's intent that the provisions. of

Part 20 will apply to all aspects of radiation protection during operation except

for releases of radioactivity from the site which will be governed by the more

stringent requirements of §61.41. The rule has been modified to clarify this

point.

Commenters pointed out a need to be clearer in the rule on how the principle

of maintaining radiation exposures to a level that is as low as reasonably

achievable (ALARA) will be handled. The Commission intends that the ALARA

principle apply to the performance objectives for long-term environmental ,

release and protection of individuals during site operations. It cannot apply

to the intruder performance objective, since Part 61 sets out requirements for

intrusion protection which are beyond the disposal facility licensee's control.

Appropriate changes have been made in §§66.41 and 61.43 to reflect the ALARA

principle.

Based upon the EIS analysis, and comments provided on the proposed Part 61 rule,

the following performance objectives were derived for the final Part 61 rule:

5.2.1 Protection of the General Population From Releases of Radioactivity

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. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain

releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment to levels as

low as is reasonably achievable.

5.2.2 Protection of Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion

Design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must ensure protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site

5-4
and occupying the site or'contacting the waste at'any time after active

institutional controls over the disposal site are removed.

5.2.3 Protection of Individuals During Operations

Operations at thelaind disposal-facilityrmust be conducted in compliance with

the standards for'radiation protection set out in Part' 20 of this chapter,

.except for.releases of radioactivity in effluents from the land disposal

facility, which''shall be governed'by §6L 41of 'this "part. Every reasonable

effort shall be made to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably

* achievable. ~ ' '' ' ;-'- .

5.2.4 Stability of the Dispos'al"Site After Closure

The disposal facility must b6e'sited, designed, used, operated- and closed to'

achieve long-term'stability ofthe disposal site and to eliminate to the extent

practicable the need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal site

following cldsure so that' only 'surveillance, monitoring,' or minor custodial,'

care are required.

5.3 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 forth in Subpart D of the

:APart 61 rule. They specifically addressed the four principal components which

-- collectively-make up an LLW disposal ..system. These are:

(1) Site Characteristics.- The geohydrological, geomorphological, climatological-'.

-and other natural characteristics of the site where the disposal facility.

Jis located. . -

* - (2). Design and Operation - The methods by which the site is utilized, the disposal facility design, the methods of waste emplacement and closure of

the site.

(3) Waste Form and Packaging - The characteristics of the waste and its

packaging. - -'

(4) Institutional Controls - The actions, including assurance of adequate

' financial resources, which involve a government agency maintaining

surveillance, monitoring, and control over access and utilization of the

site after closure. . - .. .

Based on public comments filed on the rule and EIS, no new major areas were

'identified in addition'.to the above that should be addressed in'the development.

of the technical requirements. New topics identified'by commenters which

should be addressed in the EIS fell into one of the above areas.

The technical.requirements set forth in the.proposed rule were generally derived

either directly from the analysis to determine the performance 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.

5-5
LUZMost 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. Stability

helps reduce trench cap collapse, subsidence, water infiltration, and the

need to actively care for the facility over the long term.

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, 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 helping to

assure achievement of each of the performance objectives.

Performance Objectives

Migration Maintenance Intruder Operations

Long-term

stability of

waste and

facility

Contact of

water with

waste

Reduces water infilfiltration and thus

the potential for

migration.

Reduces potential for

migration and offsite transport of

waste.

Reduces uncertainty and need

for long-term -

maintenance.

Reduces longterm care costs.

Reduces need for

active maintenance during and

after operations.

Reduces likelihood

for inadvertent

intrusion.

Reduces impacts

to inadvertent

intruder.

Reduces waste

degradation and

thus impact to

intruder.

Reduces

potential

occupational

Reduces offsite releases

in the event

of an accident

Reduces

potential

hazards.

Reduces

potential

for offsite

releases.

Reduces

potential

occupational

hazards.

Institutional

and other

intruder

controls

Custodial care during

institutional control

reduces potential for

water infiltration.

Assures proper

maintenance.

Reduces likelihood for

inadvertent intrusion. Reduces

impacts to

inadvertent

intruder.

As discussed below, safety during disposal facility operations and proper

disposal facility siting are also important considerations.

5-6
5.3.1 Stability

In translating these principles'into technical requirements, NRC found that in

general many, were already.being addressed 16'one way or-'another at one- or more

of the existing operating sites.' For example, methods 'to.,improve 'site.stability

which are either already being carried out or may be readily implemented include

.improved, more stable waste forms and packaging-for higher activity wastes,.

reducing void spacesbetween packaging'placed in.trenches,' compactionoof' backfill material and'trench covers, and use 6f institutional controls''to continue

to maintain and co'ntrol site ac'cess'after active operations'cease.

.The preferred alternative selected as'a technical requirement:will result in

the least disruption of existing p'ractices'and'will leave maximum flexibility

in how stability can be achieved. -The.preferred alternative is'to require that

higher activity wastes must'be placed into 'a-sta'ble form and'disposed'in a

'segregated'manner'from unstable-waste. Lower activity-wastes which are also

stable may. beemplaced with the higher'activity' stable waste. This isa '

desirable practice since it helps' to redjcelong-term environmental releases'

as well as operational exposures at the disposal facility.'

Waste segregatio'n'is estimated to cost an approximate $12.30/m3 ($0.35/ft3) in

additional disposal costs. Offsetting these additional costs will'be the:reduced

need to change customerscosts for long-termcare. These'reduced costs' charged

to the disposal',facility customer can range from $3.40/m3 ($0.10/ft3) to

$21.80/m3 ($0.62/ft3). Stability of the'waste'form can'be achieved by several

means:

1. The waste form as generated may'already be stable (results 'in'no increase

in costs over 'those today)'; '

2. _Processing the wabte to a stable form through techniques such as improved

stable packaging, use'o'f,'high -integrity'containers, or waste solidification.

(The costs' for this .can''range from negligible additional costs 'for stable

packaging'to an approximate additional'$450/m3 for high integrity containers

.up'to about'an' additional $2000/m3 in solidification costs. The costs

are believedto be conservatively high. In-addition, the industry is

generally already moving toward this alternative .in' response'to license'

conditions in effect at existingloperating sites and it 'is, therefore,'

not a significant change fromexistingpractices);,.

3. Use of engineering design atthedisposa1 facility.. Many engineering Oesign

alternatives,which can pr6videstability are possiblefincluding caisson's , filled with 'concrete and concrete-walled'trenches . (The cost for'-a

concrete-walled trench'in'cluding 'use -.of concrete grout as a ba'ckf'ill material'w'as estimated'to'cost'an approximate additional $232/m3 ($6.60/ft3.)

in total disposal 'costs.:)' ' " ' . - "

Given'.the need-f6orwaste stability and'-the'requirement that Class B and Class C

,wastelbetstabiliied, an obvious question'~is how does one comply with the

technical details-of the requirement: For,.example, 'for'how long-must a waste

remain stable and whht constitutes a stable waste ,form? 'Based'upon' the 'draft

EIS analysis'and other'.considerations,'NRC proposed a.number of specific''-

requirements in the proposed Part 61f rule regarding waste''stability. Theseincluded a statement thatthe requirements were intended'to provide stability

5-7
for at least 150 years, that a stable waste-form maintain its physical dimensions within 5 percent, and that the stability of the waste be maintained

under a compressive'load of 50 psi. There was also a statement that void

spaces within waste containers be reduced to the extent practicable. Several

comments were received on these draft requirements.

NRC staff has'reviewed the 150-year stability requirement with respect to the

scenarios used to calculate the waste classification values. The property of

stability contributes to meeting successfully the performance objectives set

forth in Part 61. A waste that is stable for a long period helps assure' the

long-term stability of the site, eliminating the need for active maintenance

after the site is closed. This stability helps to assure against water infiltrati6n due to failure of the disposal unit covers and, with the improved '

leaching properties implicit in a stable waste form, minimizes the potential

for radionuclide migration in groundwater. Stability also plays an important

role in protecting an'inadvertent intruder, since the stable waste form is

recognizable for a long period of time and minimizes any effects from

dispersion of the waste upon intrusion.

The 150-year period was initially chosen to approximate the active life of a

near-surface disposal facility, along with the periods of post closure observation and institutional' control. At the end of this period, the intrusion

scenario is based on the intruder readily recognizing any uncovered waste as

something out of the ordinary with the result that no further attempts at

construction or agriculture would be attempted. When other aspects of the

performance objectives are considered, however, a longer design life is called

for. The waste should continue to maintain its gross physical properties and

maintain a measure of its identity for several hundred years more to provide

site stability and to keep the Class B waste recognizable and unsuited to the

construction and agriculture scenarios postulated. Consistent with the

objective of avoiding prescriptive requirements'where possible, the 150-year

specification has been removed from the requirement; It is the NRC staff's

belief, that to the extent that it is practicable,"'waste forms or containers

should be designed'to maintain gross physical'properties and identity over

300 years, approximately the time required for Class B waste to decay to

innocuous levels. This is reflected in the draft Low-Level Waste Licensing

Branch Technical Position on Waste Form (Ref. 1).

A number of commenters on the proposed rule indicated that the proposed

requirement that a stable waste form maintain its physical dimensions within

five percent was' overly restrictive and impossible to achieve due to the

impracticality of filling containers to 95 percent capacity. Commenters also

noted that asphalt and polymeric solidification agents would be incapable of

meeting this requirement because of their visoelastic creep properties.

Commenters also observed that the limit could entail added expenses.

Upon review of the proposed requirement, NRC staff has concluded that there is

not sufficient basis at'this time to support a'strict numerical limit in the

Part 61 rule on deformation of stable waste. The five percent value has been

removed from ,this requirement. NRC staff will instead address the issue

through technical positions on.waste form. The intent will be to work through

existing waste solidification capabilities with the aim of steadily improving

such capabilities over time. In the meantime, reliance will be placed on the

5-8
'-requirements:that void spaces within packages must be minimized and the requirements that wastes must be emplaced in a manner that permits void spaces between

containers to be filled. - . , . . - .

Several commenters objected to the specific :requirement'that the'-stability of

the waste be 'maintained under,'a compressive load of 50 pounds per square inch

(psi). Most felt that the specific requirement should'be deleted a'nd'replaced

by~a more general requirement to reflect actual disposal site conditions and,

operations. . .

In response to these comments,,the 50'psi specification-has been removed from

the rule. -The specification was based on conservatively assuming'maximum

burial-depths up to 45-feet andia waste or'overburden density-of 150 lb/ft3. Testing performed on acceptable solidified waste specimens indicate that'a

50 psi compressive strength should be easily obtained. NRC staff believes

that whilethis is achievable, some latitude should.be allowed.forthe design

-of waste forms and containers to reflect-site conditions where burial 'depths

may be less..*- ,. . ' . .

Therewas some question.regarding the rule statement that void spaces within

waste containers should be reduced to the'extent-practicable. Several requested

specific-criteria on how thi's wouldbemret and if filler materials were needed.

-Two felt that economics would drive waste generators to package the maximum,

,volume of wasteinto a container and'that-this requirement'in the rule is

unnecessary. . . , . . - .,

Due to the highly variable nature of wastes, NRC'staff believes that it is not

possible or desirable!to include specific;criteria for minimizing voids. To

the extent~that void spaces can contribute' to eventual instability of the

waste, they~should be eliminated or reduced as much as possible.' This might

be done in s'ome cases by filling void'spaces with other wastes or inert--

materials. No change was made' to the requirement.'

Since the rule permits the stabilityof waste to be achieved by placing the,"

waste in a suitable container for disposal, a number of comments addressed the

properties such a container should exhibit and the'uses to which it'should'be'-

put. Itwas suggested that the Commission.reexamine design criteria for a .. high integrity container for highly dispersible forms,. and'tone'suggested that

such a container should be used for both high'and low concentration wastes. 'A

-major supplier of waste'solidification ,technology questioned 'whether'the'use

of a container reflected the conce'its of reducing potential exposures to

levels as low asireasonably achievable (ALARA).

NRC'staff has prepared a technical.-position on wasteform'criteria, including

design criteria for such a container. Draft'copies have been'made-available

to interested parties for their review'and comment'(Ref.'1).'In-short, the

technical.position states that the container must provide equivalent assurance

of. stability as a stable'waste form or' product.. Itshould'ibe''designed,'to'the

extent-that it is practicable, to maintain'-grossphysical'' properties and -

identity over 300.years,. under'the conditions'of dispos'al. ,The staff'believes

- that the use of.containers to'achieve'stability is consistent'wiith the concept

of ALARA and the use of the best available technology.' Occupational-exposures

in using such containers are expected to''be'similar to or'less'tha'n'waste

solidification, either with mobile or installed systems.

5-9
I LUEL

NRC also evaluated in the draft EIS'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 specific

facility on a case-by-case basis as' part of licensing that facility.

In general, however, the overall objective is that waste placement and backfill

procedures should improve rather than reduce site stability. Comments on the

draft rule and EIS indicated that NRC staff was not sufficiently clear regarding this point. The draft requirement in paragraph (4) of section 61.52(a)

was that wastes must be emplaced in an orderly manner. Several commenters

objected to this requirement because of perceived increased operational

exposures.

The requirement that was proposed was intended to assure that the'placement of

packages into a disposal unit did not destroy the integrity of the package (in

order to minimize the possibility of releases of contamination) and also to

minimize the void spaces between packages so that this would not be a contributor to site instability.' It has been a common practice at waste disposal

facilities to dump some'wastes over the edge of a disposal'trench with the

packages falling and tumbling to the'trench bottom where they ended up inma

random arrangement. This practice jeopardizes package integrity and does not

permit access to voids between packages so that they could be backfilled. The

assumption by the commenters that orderly emplacement necessitates increased

handling by site operators which results in higher radiation exposures is not

necessarily the case. Lifting and'stacking devices are currently in use for

low-level waste disposal that permit remote lifting and emplacement in the

disposal trench without increased occupational exposure. The resulting

emplacement meets the intent of protection of packaging integrity and access

to void spaces. In any case, one of the penalties of not achieving site

stability is increased exposures to site maintenance personnel over the institutional control period. Since the term "orderly" was subject to misinterpretation,

the requirement has been rewritten to remove the term and'to specify the

objectives of waste emplacement.

Several commenters on the proposed Part 61 regulation pointed out the stability

problems (slumping, subsidence, etc.) that could still be associated with

disposal units containing the segregated and unstable Class A waste. It is

true that relative to the disposal cells containing'stable waste, greater site

instability and increased maintenance (and cost) during the institutional

control period would be expected. However as addressed in Chapter 4, the

level of activity in the unstable waste disposal units would be much less than

in the stable waste disposal units. Waste segregation reduces the long-term

impacts associated with the total site.

NRC's preferred solution in terms of minimizing groundwater migration and

reducing'institutional control maintenance activities would be to extend waste

stability requirements to all waste. However, much of the waste generated by

licensees is of very'lbw activity and furthermore generated by small entities.

Based upon the waste form and disposal facility'design alternatives considered

in the EIS, NRC staff concluded that extending waste stability requirements to

5-10
include all waste would have-too great of an economic impact to require generically

at this time, particularly to-small entities. NRC staff,.'therefore, intends'

that the site operator give particular attention to means of achieving greater

stability'to the design of that portion of'.the-facility'used for-disposal of

Class A -waste.'Innovative designs- should'belconsidered-in order to provide

long-term stability of the site,'considering the inherent 'instability of the

Class A waste and the potential for wateri-accumulation problems where-there is

potential for such problems to occur. Increased emphasis on identifying waste

streams that may be disposed by less restrictive means-("de minimis waste")

will also have'a beneficial'effect. -

5.3.2 Contact with Water

A number of specific requirements relating'to site characteristics, disposal

facility designs and operating-practices, and waste forms and packages are

established in the Part 61 rule which are directed at reducing the contact of

waste by water, both during operations and over the long term after closure

(see Sections 61.50; 61.51, 61.52, 61.56, and 61.59).-These include requirements that the'site&be free of areas of-flooding or frequent ponding,-and provide sufficient depth t'o 'the water table so that ground-water intrusion'into

the waste will not occur. They also include design features-such as trenchcovers being designed to minimize 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. - - -

A discussion 'of requirements related to-(I) site characteristics, (2) disposal

facility design and operating practices, and;(3) waste form and packages is'

provided below.' - - -

Site Characteristics.' Minimum requirements-for disposal site suitability (set

forth in-section 61.50 of the Part 61 rule) are primarily directed at site

characteristics' to be avoided rather than setting forth'areas which'would be.-

desired.:' The'-siting-requirements were developed based on past history and

recommendations from groups-such as the U.S.'Geological Survey (USGS), and are

believed -to represent, for the most -pairt, simple common sense.-. (See Appendix E

of the draft EIS.) The requirements .can be paraphrased as follows:' - * ;:_' . ' ,'! ,'*si.

1. The disposal -sitelshall be capable-of bein'g'characterized,-modeled,

analyzed, and-monitored. - -

; . . . . .. . .S,2 2 . . . - :. .

2.' Projected population growth and future developments should not affect the

ability of the site to meet the performance objectives.

3. Avoid areas having economically-significant natural resources.

4.: The'disposal ;site must be generallyiwellI drain'ed and free of areas of

flooding-or frequent ponding. Avoidswaste disposal in a 100-year-floodplain, coastal high-hazard'area, or wetland. ' ' -

5. Minimize upstream drainage areas; - ' - :

6. Sufficient depth to the waterstable must be provided-so that ground-water

intrusion, perennial or otherwise,:into the waste wi'll'not~occur.'- Exceptions will be considered if diffusion is the predominant means of radionuclide movement.

- 5-11
7. Any ground water discharge to the surface within the disposal site must

not originate within the hydrogeologic unit used for disposal.

8. Avoid areas of tectonic processes such as faulting, seismic activity, or

vulcanism which occur with such frequency and extent that either the performance objectives are compromised or defensible modeling and prediction

of long-term impacts are precluded.

9. Avoid areas of surface geologic processes such as mass wasting, erosion,

slumping, land sliding, or weathering which could either cause the performance objectives to be compromised or preclude defensible modeling and

prediction of long-term impacts.

10. Avoid areas where nearby facilities or activities could cause the performance objectives to be compromised or significantly mask the environmental

monitoring program.

A discussion of NRC's intent regarding these site suitability requirements, as

well as applicant procedures for site selection and characterization which are

acceptable to NRC staff, is presented in NUREG-0902 (Ref. 2). This discussion

on site suitability requirements is presented below along with public comments

received on these requirements. (Approximately two dozen commenters offered

comments on various aspects of the proposed disposal site suitability

requirements.)

The first requirement implies that the proposed site should be geologically

and hydrologically simple. Eight comments were received on this requirement

primarily directed at the perceived vagueness of the requirement--i.e., what

does it mean to be capable of being characterized, modeled, analyzed, and

monitored? Since site characterization investigations can sample only a small

fraction of the surface area or subsurface volume of the disposal site, NRC

intends that the site characteristics must be such that these limited

investigations can adequately define the site characteristics spatially across

the disposal site. Since most modeling tends to homogenize the hydrogeologic

units and average the hydrologic properties for such units, the site characteristics should vary within a sufficiently narrow range so that the input to the

modeling is representative of the hydrogeologic units and the assumptions

underlying the modeling are valid. For example, the hydrogeclogic unit used

for disposal should not have continuous permeable or impermeable anomalies

such as faults or fracture zones, sand lenses, weathered horizons, or karstic

features that provide preferential pathways for or barriers to ground-water

flow.

The first requirement also implies that natural processes affecting the

disposal site should be occurring at a consistent and definable rate such that

the modeling of the site will represent both present and anticipatable site

conditions after closure. Finally, since monitoring programs can sample only

a small fraction of the surface area or subsurface volume of the disposal

site, site characteristics must be such that a reasonable number of monitoring

points can adequately monitor site performance.

The second requirement, related to population growth, is tied to the potential

for eventual use of the site. Disposal sites should be located in an area

5-12
which has l.ow population.density and limited population growth potential. - -

Consideration should be given to the potential for future land use activities,

such as residential, industrial, agricultural, and recreational development,

that could adversely affect'the disposal site.

'The third'requirement, related to known.natural resources, includes~s'uch

-,resources. as mineral, coal or hydrocarbon deposits,,geothermal energy sources,

timber and water-resources. ;The-requirement applies to resource recovery that

'may occur.-at-.the ground-ssurface, in the hydrogeologic units used for disposal

;and-isolation, and at-greater depths which require excavation or drilling'

through the disposal units. Potential indirect-effects caused by nearby

resource development, such as increased infiltration rates or.steepened hydraulic gradients; should.beevaluated.: The primary concerns with respect toethe

presence of exploitable-natural resources are the likelihood.of inadvertent..

intrusion through resource development as well as the effects of such;development on the performance of the site after the period of active institutional ;control. - : . . - . : -.-

The .fourth requirement-consists of two components...-The first component, -related

to-drainage crossing:the disposal site, :primarily applies to the disposal site

after construction of the near-surface disposalfacility. However, natural.

areas of:poor drainage or frequent ponding can be indicative of.seasonally high

ground-water. levels" and.should be so noted by the applicant. In .addition, areas

offlash-flooding, such as arroyos or-dry-washes,.should be avoided. The second

component, related -to avoidance of.the 100-year floodplain, coastal.high-hazard

area or wetland; implements Executive Order 11988,..Floodplain Management Guidelines (Ref. 3). This requirement can be applied to the disposal site-at the,

site selection phase.

Commenters raised questions on~the siting requiremen'ts related to surface water

drainage.!-These can be-summarized asC(1) definition-of, certain terms such as

-..upstream drainage areas,'coastal high-hazard area and.wetland,,and (2) the.

adequacy-of.the exclusion oftwaste-disposal based on;the 100-year floodplain.

The 100-year,.floodplain is defined in the Executive;Order-(Ref. 3) as the lowland and.relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including

.. ,floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum,-that'area'subject

to a-one percent or.greater chance of flooding in -ay given year. e.asubec

.high-hazard area is defined as thearea subject.to high velocity waters including, but not limited to, urricane wave wshor .tsunamis. Wetlands are:defined

as those areas that are inundated or saturated'by surface water or ground water

at a frequency and.a duration.sufficient to-support and under normal circum7.

*.stances -do;or-would,fsupport aprevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that

requires-saturated or seasonally-saturated soil conditions.for growth-and

reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, tidal-flats,'marshes, bogs,

and-similar areas. .- - - . .

The 100-year floodplain is that land which would be inundatedby a flood having

a 1 in 100 chancetof occurring in any particular year.. The Commission feels'

the major hazard.due to flooding.;is associatedwith the period of site operations when disposal units are open. -Because of other provisions of the rule,

the disposal units will be open a-comparatively short time. Once closed,,the

covers and site drainage system will provide protection'against the effects of

.-5-13
flooding. The Commission considers 300 or 500-year floodplains to be unnecessarily restrictive'; and questions whether an adequate data base or standard

methods of determining such floodplains exist.

The fifth requirement, related to upstream drainage areas contributing flow

across the disposal site, can be applied to the site at the site selection phase.

The staff will consider engineering modifications or-diversion of natural drainage to lessen potential impacts to the upstream drainage area if these changes

are long-term (equivalent to the duration of the radiological hazard) *and will

not require ongoing active maintenance. The staff anticipates that diversions

of perennial streams would not, in most cases; be acceptable. The consideration of upstream drainage areas should include the impact of potential modifications by others to the upstream drainage area, such as land clearing and

cultivation or development of roads, which may occur after the near-surface

disposal facility is in operation.

The sixth requirement, related to the depth of the water table, indicates that

with few exceptions, near-surface disposal of low-level radioactive wastes will

be in unsaturated soil deposits. Exceptions could include dry disposal in

engineered facilities or'-structures either completely below, partially below,

or completely above natural site grade. Alternatively, as indicated in the

wording of the'requirement, waste disposal may be below the water table at some

sites if it can be conclusively shown that site characteristics will result in

molecular diffusion being'the predominant means of radionuclide movement and

the rate of movement w1l1result in the performance'objective being met. In no

case, however, should waste disposal occur within the zone marked by fluctuations of the water table.

At sites where disposal will be above the water table, seasonal fluctuations

of the water table and capillary fringe both prior and subsequent to waste

disposal must be considered. The bottoms of the disposal units must be, at

all times, above'the saturated zone in order to limit the water contacting the

wastes to that small portion which infiltrates through covers in disposal

areas. Reducing the contact time of the water with the waste by using

freely-draining granular'backfill should be considered. In addition, the

accumulation of water in the'disposal unit'(the bathtub effect) must be ' avoided. This can normally'be accomplished'if the bottom of the disposal unit

can drain at least as readily as water can infiltrate into the disposal unit

through the cover or sides and if there is no capillary rise of water into the

disposal units from the underlying soil deposits.

For sites where disposal will be below the water table, the hydrogeologic unit

used for disposal should have hydraulic properties (e.g., hydraulic conductivity

and effective porosity) which essentially preclude ground-water flow. The

hydraulic conductivity; as tested in-situ, should typically be less than

10-6 cm/sec. The effective porosity would be expected to be on the order of

0.01. Hydrogeologic units which meet these conditions generally cannot be

tested by normal techniques requiring addition or withdrawal of water in wells.

Methods of determining that molecular diffusion is the prevalent mechanism of

solute transport include age-dating of ground water by isotopic ratios and

radioisotopic methods to' show that there has been no active circulation of

ground water within the unit during the length of time-determined by the

age-dating.

5-14
The seventh requirement, related to ground-water discharge,lstipulates that

the hydrogeologic unit used for disposal will not discharge ground water to

the ground surface within the disposal site. Surface-water features sustained

by ground-water discharge, 'slich'as perennial and ephemeral streams', springs,

seeps,'swamps, marshes, and bogs, should not be present at the proposed disposal

site. This requirement will result in a travel time for most dissolved radionuclides atleast equal to the travel time of the ground water from the disposal

area to the site boundary. In addition, this requirement should provide sufficient space within the buffer zone to implement remedial measures, if needed, to

control releases7of radionuclides before discharge to the ground surface or

migration from the disposal site.' The-staff prefers long fl ow paths from the

dispos'al site to the point of ground-water discharge in order to increase the

amount of decay of the radionuclides, increase the hydrodynamic dispersion

within the aquifer, and increase the likelihood of retardation of reactive

radionuclides~in the aquifer.

.The 'eighth'and ninth'requirements, related:to tectonic and geomorphic processes,

respectively,'can be applied to the disposal site at the site selection phase.

These' requirements'relate primarily to the2'stability of the'disposal site.

The natural processes affecting the disposal site shouldbe'occurring at a consistent and definable rate. In addition, these processes should not occur at

a',frequency,;rate, or extent whichcansignificantly change the stability of

the site or'the ability'of the disposal"site to isolate low-level radioactive

wastes during'the duration of the radiological hazard (approximately 500 years).

-'Changes which occur due'to these processes should not invalidate the results

'of any modeling and prediction of long-term'-impacts..

The tenth requirement, related:to effects of nearby facilities or activities,

is included so that the evaluation of any proposed disposal site will include

not only the impacts of that disposal site on its surroundings but also the

impacts ofothe surroundings on-the disposal site. For example, damming ofdownstream rivers, blasting associated with quarrying activities, subsidence

and/or earth-fissuring caused by ground-water withdrawals, and ground-water

rises'6associated with heavy irrigation"may adversely affect the ability of the

site to meet the performance objectives. -

Several commenters suggested that radioactive waste disposal facilities could

be co-located with hazardous waste disposal'facilities. The.Commission does

not object to this as long'as the facilities are separated from one another

and the wastes are not comingled. The provisions of this requirement pertaining to nearby'facilities not adversely impacting the ability ofthe site to

meet the performance objectives or significantly masking the environmental

monitoring program would have to be met.:' :

Disposal facility design and operating practices. The requirements established

in the Part 61 rule regarding disposal lfacility design and operating practices

are primarily intended to minimize the contact of waste by water. As such,

they complement requirements intended to improve overall site stability. That

is, requirements which'are intended'to minimize contact of waste by water generally also help improve site'stability,s'and vice versa.'

Requirements:for disposal site design relating to contact of waste by water

'include: ' - -

-5-15
4

o Site design features must be aimed at avoiding the need for continuing active maintenance.

o Site design (and operation) must be compatible with the site closure

plan.

o Site design must complement and improve the site's natural characteristics.

o The design of disposal cell covers must minimize to the extent

practicable water infiltration, must direct percolating or surface

water away from the disposed waste, and must resist degradation by

surface geologic processes and biotic activity.

o Surface features must be designed to minimize water erosion.

o The disposal site must be designed to eliminate the contact of waste

by water during storage, the contact of waste by standing water during

disposal, and the contact of waste by percolating or standing water

after disposal.

The above requirements are design objectives. That is, NRC staff realize the

difficulties in proving that a given design will absolutely prevent or eliminate

an occurrence. However, the design should work toward achieving such prevention

or elimination, coming as close as practicable. Unfortunately, NRC was apparently

not quite clear on this point, and many commenters interpreted NRC's intention

as requiring absolute prevention, which was correctly pointed out by commenters

as being impossible to demonstrate. This point will be clarified in the final

Part 61 rule.

Requirements for disposal facility operation and closure relating to contact

of waste by water include:

o Unstable Class A waste must be disposed in a segregated manner from

other wastes so that there is no interaction between segregated disposal units.

o Void spaces between waste packages must be filled with earth or other

material to reduce future subsidence within the fill.

o The boundaries of each disposal unit must be locatable.

o A buffer zone of land must be maintained between any disposed waste

and the disposal site boundary.

o Adequate closure and stabilization measures must be carried out as

each disposal unit is filled and covered.

o Active waste disposal operations must not have an adverse effect on

completed closure and stabilization measures..

Many of these requirements are straightforward and received little or, no comment

except possibly for suggested clarifications or improved wording. Other requirements are directly related to disposal site stability and are discussed above.

5-16
Il

There were'some more'significant comments, however,"on' facility operation and

these included the need for segregation during transportation, the meaning and

intent of the term'"interaction;' and the need for'segregation in arid sites.

The intent' of the rule is not to prohibit waste from more'than one class from

being shipped'on'the same'transport vehicle. Consistent with appropriate

transportation regulations, NRC staff has no objection to comingling different

classes',of'waste in 'transport.

In identifying the need to clarify'the term "interaction," commenters' noted

that it'was vague and'unenforceable, could include migration, and could be

physical .or chemical interaction.'

The intent of;the rule'is to protect' Class B and C wastes. Class A wastes'

could interact with other wastes directly through the release of absorbed:

liquids, solvents, or other mobile components that might be present.in Class A

waste. ..Indirect interaction could result from degradatio'n of Class A waste

and'its'.lackof -stability.' Consolidation of Class A' wastes-would'provide a

less stable'support-which'could contribute to failure of the disposal unit'

cover leading to increased precipitation infiltration and surface'water :

intrusion'. The degree to'which these interactions could occur depends to a

large extent on site-specific characteristics and NRC staff does-notrbelieve

that it'is appropriate to'set a prescriptive requirement' in:this'area ils'the'

rule. The wording of this requirement has been changed to define the purpose

for the segregation and minimization of interaction between the segregated

wastes. ' -

,The .Statedof-Washington regulates the disposal site located;in an arid region

near ,Richland, Washington.. The 'State suggested that without the likelihood of

*.ground water 'orsurface'water being'factors at arid sitis,"segregation of

'.Class A'wastes s'eems'to.be unnecessary. They also suggested that-cominglingClass A and B wastes would dilute the Class'B wastes and have potential benefit.

The State's observations may have 'some merit' for arid sites but are difficult

to adopt in 'a rule that must address'sites located in all parts of the country.

NRC staff anticipated the need to'consider alternative disposal requirements'

and included proposed §61.54, "Alternative requirements for design and

operations" to provide for'consideratio'n of such alternatives.' 'In any case,

waste segregation will have'a beneficial effect on reducing potential slumping

and'wind erosion at an arid site, two'points with which the'State reported that

they were concerned.

Waste'form and packaging.. The requirements in the Part'61'rule regarding

waste form and packaging are primarily focused in tw'o'areas: 'safety during

disposal site 'operations 'and site stability. ' The'former is discussed'below'

,under "Safety During.Operations."' The latter requirements related to waste

form:stability have been discussed'previously'and also serve the beneficial

effect of reducing'contact'of waste by water.' An additional waste form

requirement related to contact of waste by water is the rule's limitation'on

freestanding liquid. ' '

.Several commenters addressed the proposed limitation'of free standing liquid

which.would 'require that such liquids be reduced-to as low'a level as is -

reasonably' achievable, but in no case to exceed '1%. Further,'the proposed

5-17
rule stated that the liquid should be non-corrosive. There were no requests

to increase the value. However, one waste solidification service supplier

recommended a limit of zero,.while the State of South Carolina recommended

implementing the limits in the license for the Barnwell disposal facility,

i.e., 0.5% for solidified waste and 1% for waste in high integrity containers.

Several commenters asked for a definition of the term "non-corrosive."I

NRC staff has reexamined the proposed limit on free standing liquid and has

concluded that existing waste solidification technology can produce a waste

form that essentially contains no free standing liquid. In order to compensate

for potential condensation of water vapor sealed in containers, NRC staff

believes that a limit of 0.5% by volume is appropriate for solidified wastes.

For dewatered products, such as ion exchange resins that are in a container

designed to ensure stability, it is very difficult to ensure that such products

would meet a 0.5% requirement following transport to a burial site. Therefore,

for dewatered products, a limit of 1% by volume should be allowed to account

for settling during the transport period. The non-corrosive properties of the

liquids will be defined and discussed in a staff technical'position,'rather

than in the regulation. To provide a degree of consistency between Class A

wastes and the Class B and C wastes, the limitations on liquids in Class A

wastes have been modified. Liquid Class A waste must be packaged at a minimum

with sufficient absorbent material to absorb twice the volume of the liquid.

Solid Class A wastes with incidental liquids must meet the 1% free standing

liquid requirement.

5.3.3 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 base

case (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) should 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.

It may be noted that no commenters to the draft EIS questioned NRC's numerical

analysis in determining the 100-year limit, other than remarking that since

there was no compelling analytical reason for one number over another, the limit

should be the last criterion chosen. There were, however, a number of comments

on the institutional control period in connection with the Part 61 rule. All

commenters expressed support in one way or another for defining a time frame

for institutional control related either to the hazard duration of the waste

or assurance of continued government stability or concern. It was generally

agreed that waste that was potentially-hazardous after the end of the assured

institutional controls should be disposed of by methods providing greater controls and assurances against potential exposure. These comments are judged to

support the provisions of Part 61 that combine institutional controls with waste

5-18
.r ! ,n v

form, site characteristics, and site design and operations to provide assurances

that potential exposures will be within acceptable limits. Class A waste that

is potentially accessible and unrecognizable is no longer hazardous after 100

years. Special provisionsifor waste being in a stable form and in some cases

buried deep assure against potentially unacceptable exposures or releases for

up to 500 years. .

There were a number of suggestions that.the period of'institutional control

should-be,-raised from 100 to,300,years. There appear to be two'basic reasons

for these suggestions. One -reason is.that institutions such-as a state or the

Federal government-can reasonably be expected to survive for much longer than

100 years. A second reason is that the 100 year restriction on institutional

control affects the waste concentrations acceptable for disposal as Class A

waste with resultant higher costs to the.waste generator.. With respect'to the

firstreason,.NRC staff believes that it is not-a question'of. how long the

government can survive, but how long should they be expected to provide custodial care. In addition, initiation of the intrusion scenari6-is not linked

to the survivability-ofthe government structure but is rather linked to the

possibility of bureaucratic error. Based on work done'by EPA,'public comments

on a preliminary draft of Part 61 and-an~advanced notice-of proposed rulemaking,

and four regional workshops, a clear consensus was developed'which supported

the 100-year limit. -.In-,addition, a stable waste form-isneeded for other reasons

than-intruder protection--partic-ularly.in regard to'minimizing migration and

enhancing site stability.' Use of the 100-year institutional control period

results in limits on waste stability similar to those already in 'effect at

existing disposal facilities. NRC staff has not seen any compelling-reasons

.to change its view~on the 100-year limit. . -

Some commenters expressed the view that-the government landowner should6have

flexibility in controlling site access-during-the institutional control,.period

and that productive~uses of the land.which would not affect'site integrity :,

should be permitted.- NRC staff agrees;:this point was'addressed'in the draft

EIS.- - - - ,

5.3.4,- Safety During Operations . ' .

An applicant's or licensee's operational procedures and programs for compliance

with theoperational-safety performance objective would,be evaluated on a caseby-case basis. NRC staff. .believes-ithat this', approach w-uld be pr'eferable'- tb

setting out-a number of prescriptive requirements for safe facility operation.

Measures which could be used to minimizepotential operational'releases and

exposures will be..influenced by site-specific'&condition's'at the'particular dis-

.posal facility-considered. Detailed prescriptive requirements would also

inhibit incorporation of potential improve'mentsinsite-safety. Some 'of'the

procedures and programs which would be analyzed'as part of a specific application would include the following:g :- i ---- ;

o.. The applicant's radiation safety program.for control and monitoring

radioactive effluents, occiu'ational'and-public''radiatiori exposure'to

-,demonstrate-compliance with the Part 20 -and 61 requirements and to

.. control-contaminationiof.disposal facility personnel, yehicles,

I equipment,;buildings, aid.grounds.' Both routine','operations and

accidents would-be addressed,'and the program descriptionwould

include procedures, instrumentation, facilities, and equipment.

5-19
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 hiealth 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 presented in the final rule

as minimum waste form and packaging requirements.

These requirements are also summarized below:

1. Wastes must not be packaged for disposal in cardboard or fiberboard boxes.

2. Waste containing liquids must be packaged in sufficient absorbent material

to absorb twice the volume of the liquid. Solid wastes-containing liquid

shall contain as little free standing or non-corrosive liquid as is reasonably achievable but in no case shall the liquid exceed 1% of the volume.

5-20
3. 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-.

4... Wastemust not contain, or be capable of.generating, quantities'of'toxic -gasesvapors, orfumes.harmful to'persons tran'sporting,,-handling- 'or disposing of the waste. This would.not'apply to radioactive' gaseous waste .covered by number 6 below.

5. Wastes must not be pyrophoric.' Pyrophoric'materials contained in''wastes

:,shall be treated, prepared, and packaged to-be nonflammable.

6. Wastes ina gaseous form must 'bepackaged at a-pressure that does not

exceed 1.5 atmospheres at 200C., Total.activity'must not'exceed 100 curies

'per container.:

7. Wastes containing hazardous, biological pathogenic, or infectiobs material

must be treated to reduce to the~maximum'extent practicable the potential

hazard from the nonradiological materials.

A large number of comments were received addressing the minimum requirements

.for waste form characteristics. The following summarizes the comments on the

minimum requirements. '

Several.commenters stated that therequirement (proposed in'Table 1, §61.55)'

to obtain specific 'approval'to dispose'of wastes'containing'greater than'?

0.1 percent chelating agents was too restrictive,'and stated that utilities

might.decideagainst performing decontamination operations which'could reduce

occupational exposures. Several commenters requested'the'basis for the

.0.1% limit. One commenter recommended that no chelating agents be permitted.

Since chelating agents have been shown to'increase the migration'of certain'

radionuclides at icertainhsites', NRC 'staff desired to evaluate the disposal 'of

large quantities of wastes containing'-high'concentrations'of chelating agents

on a-case-by-case basis.' This.approachwas used when theCommissio'6 staff:'

reviewed the disposal of wastes'thatwould be generated in the decontamination - operations at'the Dresden'Unit itStation., Because the dis'posal of'waste's

containing chelating agents is dependent on the.characteristics of the disposal

facility and on the~properties of'the.waste form,''the Commission'staff has

modified the chelating~agent disposal'requ'ireme'nts'to reflect this." TheCommission staff has placed on the disposalsite license'applicant'theresponsibility for describing the conditions for disposal of waste containing

chelating agents.. If'approved'by the Commission,'site-specific requirements

will be.placed on the disposal'facility.licensee.' At this' time the waste'

generator will.be required,'ohly to'identify.such'wastes in the'information ' contained on the shipping- `anifest. ; -

At the request of comments', definitions have been added to the'Part'61 rule

for the terms, "hazardous," "pyrophoric," and "explosive."

Of.five comments'received on the prohibition against packaging waste in

cardboard or-fiberboard boxes,'fourifelt'the prohibition is unnecessary. The

Department ofEnergy,,for example',''stated"thatthey hid successfully used

cardboard contain'ers ,for. disposal of.waste generated at their facilities for a

5-21
a 

number of years. One commenter supported the provision. After reviewing the

comments, including'the reasons presented, NRC staff still believes that such

a prohibition is needed. The experience cited by the Department of Energy of

successfully using cardboard containers for waste packages at their sites does

not include extensive handling and transportation that commercially generated

wastes would encounter. The existing prohibition against cardboard and fiberboard containers at existing disposal facilities'came about as a result of

unfavorable experience in receiving, handling, and disposing of wastes in such

containers. No change has been made in this requirement.

Ten commenters addressed the requirements relating-to waste packaged in a

gaseous form. Several noted an inconsistency between the provisions in proposed Section 61.56(a)(5) that prohibits wastes capable of generating toxic

gases, and 61.56(a)(7) that permits up to 100 curies of activity in waste in a

gaseous form. Several requested the basis for the 100 curie limit. A recommendation was made that gases should be processed into liquid or solid forms,

and another felt that gases should be'limited to several micrbcuries-. The

Department of Energy recommended that krypton-85 immobilized by zeolite encapsulation or ion implantation into metal be permitted with concentrations up to

five million curies per cubic meter.

The intent of proposed §61.56(a)(5) was to prohibit the disposal of wastes that

are chemically reactive under ambient conditions and produce toxic gaseous reaction products. This section is not intended to prohibit the disposal of properly

packaged gases such as H-3 or Kr-85 which occasionally require disposal. This

section has been reworded to clarify the intent'. The 100 curie limit derives

from the existing limits at commercial disposal facilities. The Commission

has studies underway to determine whether higher limits would be appropriate.

Such limits, if justified, would be proposed in'a future rulemaking. In lieu

of a requirement that'gases be converted to a liquid or a solid, the Commission

staff is evaluating the significant generators of tritium wastes and investigating improved package designs for tritium wastes which would be capable of

retaining the contents until they had decayed to innocuous levels. The

requirements of Part 61'do not contemplate the disposal of millions of curies

of Kr-85 as suggested by the Department of Energy. The Commission is not prepared to set disposal requirements for this waste at this time, and since this

waste is not liable to be generated by Commission licensees in the near'future,

the Commission staff believes there is ample time to'assess the'still emerging

technology for krypton fixation and'establish suitable disposal requirements

through future technical guidance or rulemaking action.

Some commenters felt that the requirement in proposed §61.56(a)(1) that waste

packages presented for disposal must comply with NRC and DOT transportationregulations implied that the packaging must also be disposed. This was not

the Commission's intent. Since proper packaging for transportation purposes

is specified in regulations elsewhere, the Commission feels that it is not

necessary to restate them in Part 61, particularly in view of the confusion

created. This requirement has been deleted.

As discussed earlier, the Commission is concerned with the possible hazards

presented by non-radiological components of the radioactive waste. Thiswas

recognized in the'requirement proposed that wastes containing biological,

pathogenic, or infectious material must be treated to reduce the potential

hazard to the maximum extent practicable. The Commission believes it is prudent to add hazardous properties to this requirement and has done so.

5-22
5.3.5 Waste Classification-.

Of the 107 commenters responding to the proposed Part 61 regulation, over half

i--ofthe commenters offered comments on one aspect or another of:the waste

classification provisions. Many of-these-comments had:to with clarification

of statements-or other:procedural items.which did not involve-reconsideration

of-the technical bases for-the requirements... Given this interest, it was

deemed useful to reconsider in the final EIS a number of majorlissues raised

in the comments on the regulation.

These are'discussedlbelow.- First, a background is provided which sums up the

overall basis for the-waste classification provisions. -Next, the following

issues are discussed in order:- . - -

o Calculated waste classification limits.. . . . -

o Isotopes considered for waste classification purposes.

o Volume reduction.

-o Compliance with waste classification..

o - Manifest . Tracking System.

o Classification by Total-Hazard. - o "De minimis" levels for waste. ; : .

Background . -

In developing the Part 61 regulation, NRC'staff followed an approach of tiering

technical-requirements from the more general to the more specific. NRC staff

first developed four overall-performance objectives for land-disposal of lowlevel waste. Based upon the analyses for the performance objectives, a number

of technical requirements were developed:to help ensure that the performance

objectives-w6uld be met.. Given the performance objectives and technical

requirements, it is-necessary-to combine-and unify them~so that they may be

uniformly implemented. In so doing, one of the factors that must be considered

is that disposal -facility 'operators must accept waste asldelivered to.them.

Thus, to ensure that the performance objectives and technical criteria are

achieved,-:it is necessary to set requirements'on waste- characteristics that

must be met by wastelgenerators. Particular waste characteristics -important

to the performance objectives and technical criteria must be identified and

relevant information provided to disposal facility operators so that waste may

be-properlydisposed. -All- of-the above'considerations may be-accomplished

through the concept of waste classification ..' - , -;

The waste classification' system (and waste classes).developed.for the Part 61

regulation follow directly from the Part 61 performance objectives and technical criteria. The classification system is intended,.to ensure as-far as-..

pos'sible'on-a non-site-specific basis that the Part 61 requirements are met.-,

This does not mean that site-sp2cific analyses would-notibe required, however,

merely that the classification system goes as far as judged generically possible

on-accost basis to ensure that-the.requirements'are-achieved.. . .

Three classes' of waste are determinedt by the Part 61 requirements:

1.- Wa'stes for which there are no-stability requirements but which must be

' disposed of in a segregated manner from other wastes. .These wastes,

termed Class A wastes, are defined in terms of maximum allowableconcen-

- --5-23
I a&NL

trations of certain isotopes and certain minimum requirements on waste

form and packaging 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 wastes

are also defined in terms of allowable concentrations of isotopes and

requirements for a stable waste form as well as minimum handling

requirements.

3. Wastes which need to be placed into a stable form, disposed in a

segregated manner from nonstable waste forms, and disposed so that a

barrier is provided against potential inadvertent intrusion after institutional controls have lapsed. These wastes are termed Class C wastes

and are also defined in terms of allowable concentrations of isotopes and

requirements for disposal by deeper burial or some other barrier.

It can be seen that the three waste classes address all four of the performance

objectives and technical requirements developed from the performance objectives.

Minimum requirements on waste form and packaging are established which apply

to all waste classes. They are intended to help achieve operational safety.

Probably one of the more important requirements is that of stability for

Class B and C wastes. Waste stability helps to achieve all four of the performance objectives. For example, waste stability helps to:

o Reduce long-term potential environmental releases through such

possible processes as groundwater migration, wind or water erosion,

or intrusion by deep-rooted plant roots and burrowing animals;

o Reduce short-term potential environmental releases through such

possible processes as operational accidents (e.g., a fire or a

dropped container) or waste decomposition gases;

o Reduce institutional control costs to a site owner;

o Provide insurance against possible contingencies (e.g., early site

closure) which could involve increased costs to a site owner over

those originally projected;

o Reduce concern over uncertainties in site environmental, geological

and hydrological properties; and

o Reduce impacts to a potential inadvertent intruder.

As discussed in Chapter 2, a lack of waste and disposal site stability has been

a fundamental cause-of most of the past problems that have been identified at

existing disposal facilities.

The draft EIS concluded that it would be preferable if all waste was placed

into a stable form. However, it was also judged that to implement such a

requirement on'a-generic basis would impose a hardship on many licensees.

Low-level waste may contain a wide variety of radionuclides which may range in

concentrations from extremely low to moderately high-levels. It is difficult

to justify at this time expensive additional waste form and packaging requirements for radioactive wastes which are not particularly hazardous. This is

5-24
particularly true since many of the licensees who generate such wastes are small

entities.

Asfa compromise,-NRC staff adopted the ;approach of establishing a category of . low activity waste (Class A waste) for which no.waste stability, requirements

are-implemented. '.This waste'class is tobe disposed in a segregated manner.d

from higher activity wastes which must.be in a stable form. ,The limits for

this class may be reevaluated after consideration of de minimis levels. (See

discussion below.). 'To determine the concentration limits for'.Class.A.waste,,.

antanalysis was made based-upon -limiting-exposure to a potential inadvertent

intruder. 'The results of~the analysis showed that using the derived limits

for intrusion protection resulted in :about the-same volume of waste requiring.:

stabilization as that according to existing.license conditions at existing disposal facilities.- Thus the-only realkchange in'existing disposal requirements

involves the requirement for segregation of low activity waste. NRC staff

analyzed the potential.groundwater impacts associated with this decision and.

determined'that given reasonable.disposal facility siting, design, operation,

and closure,. .the performanceobjective-for long-term environmental releases , would be achieved. rHowever, four isotopes were identified--3 3H, '4C, -9oTc, and

129I--which would'require~close examination on-a-site-specific-basis for groundwater migration considerations.

Wastes that require stabilization are further separated into two additional

classes: Class B and Class.C. Class C wastes!are required to be disposed with

a barrier.of at'least 5 meters thick between the top of the waste.and the sur'

face of the.earth' This barrier may be composed of-earth,1lower activity waste

(Class B waste and/or Class A waste which meets thestability requirements),,

-,or other similar material. This requirement serves two principal purposes. , First,.it provides protection to-a potential;,.inadvertent intruder. Second;,.-

since most Class C-wastes are also expected to have high levels of gamma.radiation at~the'package:surface, disposal according'to',this.requirement will help

to reduce personnel-exposures at the disposal facility.--.In';fact, .special procedures (such as deeper disposal) for disposal-of wastesihaving high surface: -.

radiation levels has been common practice for several years at all operating

waste:disposal,-facilities. It is believed, then, that in alarge part requiring

special-disposal procedures-for, Class-C waste conforms to existing disposal,

practice.': Finally, establishing the-Class C-;wastes ,helps to reduce.potential

long-term environmentalreleases from such possible occurrences as intrusion

by deep-rooted plants and burrowing animals-or wind or,:water erosion.:..,., - *~~~~~~~~ - ' - ' a' i ,!.;|; -s :,' t *-

Finally, a.".fourth". class-of waste is established which is generallyconsidered

unacceptable for,.near-surface disposal...The acceptability.for disposal of such

waste at near-suface disposal facilities will require case-by-case determinations.

Calculated Waste Classification Limits >, ;- - X j a ,, -' . LC.,3 ..

The numerical basis for the limits calculated for the three waste classes is.

presented in Chapter 7, Volume 2 of the draft EIS. The principal basis used

for setting the classification limits.was limiting exposures to, a potential , inadvertent intruder, 'although as-discussed earlier, a number of~other-consid--

erations went into setting the values--principally long-term environmental-;

impacts, disposal facility stability, institutional control costs, and financial

impacts to small entities. . . . ;,. . . .. - .. : .

-.-5-25
Briefly, the radionuclide limits for Class A waste disposal were calculated

based upon an assumed limit of institutional control of 100 years. This does

not mean that institutional controls may not last longer than 100 years. Nor

does it mean that assuming a limit to institutional controls requires assuming

a large social disruption. Rather, the 100-year institutional control limit:

(1) recognizes that it is possible that at some time in the future a disposal

site may be mistakenly temporarily released for inappropriate use, and (2) is

intended to help provide a boundary on long-term costs and social commitment.

Given the combination of 100 years of institutional control, an acceptable site,

and disposal of waste without any regard to its waste form, NRC staff calculated

what the upper concentrations of certain isotopes would be such that if, at

the end of the 100-year institutional period, an intruder came onto the site

and engaged in typical near-surface activities (lives on the site), he would

not receive more than a 500 millirem (whole-body) exposure.

It was assumed that the waste by then is indistinguishable from surrounding

material (soil) and that the intruder does not recognize it as low-level waste.

From this analysis NRC staff derived the values listed in Column A of Table 1

of the proposed Part 61 rule. These limits are the maximum concentrations for

isotopes that are acceptable under that combination of conditions. Wastes containing higher concentrations would exceed the 500-millirem limit, and at that

point become Class B waste.

Class B waste must be in a stable waste form. That is, the waste form must

last a long time and not change its size and shape significantly during that

period of time. The analysis at the end of the 100-year period assumes that

upon intruding on the site, and attempting to carry out typical construction

activities during which the waste is contacted, the waste does not look resemble

soil or other natural material. Rather it still looks like waste--i.e., chunks

of concrete, vinyl ester styrene, or other such material. Carrying out

construction and agriculture activities given this condition is difficult, and

it is assumed the intruder leaves upon discovery of the waste. Thus, this is

termed the intruder-discovery scenario.

There comes a point, however, for higher activity wastes at which even the

intruder's discovery of the waste would cause him to exceed the 500-millirem

(whole-body) limit. One way to prevent that from happening is to take the waste

that has higher activity and dispose of it at greater depths (put it down at

the bottom of the trench), covering it up with stable lower activity waste or

using some other barrier to intrusion. This waste is called Class C waste.

In the draft EIS, 500 years was the limiting time period for allowing credit

for an intruder barrier. The values in Column C represent the maximum values

that are acceptable for disposal under these conditions.

Waste classification thus represents a combination of waste form, radioisotope

characteristics, radioisotope concentrations, the method of emplacement, and

to some extent site characteristics.

Based on comments received on the proposed Part 61 rule, two items were reevaluated in the final EIS: (1) the limits for Class A waste disposal and (2) the

limits for Class C waste disposal.

Limits for Class A Waste Disposal. As discussed earlier, there were a number

of suggestions by commenters on the draft rule that the period of institutional

5-26
control should be raised from 100 to 300 years. There appear to be two basic ' reasons for these suggestions. One reason is that institutions such as a state,

or the Federal government can reasonably be expected to survive for much longer

than 100'yeari.' -A 'second reason is that-the 100-year restriction on institutional control affects the waste concentrations acceptable for disposal as

Class A waste. If the institutional control limit were raised to 300 years,

then the Class A waste concentrations would be higher and less waste would be

required'to bLe stabilized, and overall costs-would be-reduced:- With respect

to the first-,reason, the Commission believes that it is not'a question of how

long the government can survive,'but how long should they be expected to provide custodial care. In addition, initiation'of the intrusion scenario is not

linked to the survivability of the governmental structure, buttis rather linked

to the possibility of bureaucratic error. Based on work doneby EPA, public

comments on a preliminary draft of Part 61 and an advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking, and four regional workshops, a consensus was developed which supported the 100-year limit.. NRC staff has not seen any compelling reasons to

change its views on the consensus achieved.

Moreover, there are other technical reasons for the Class A waste limits than

those related to the institutional control period and protection of a potential

inadvertent-intruder. Among other things, a stable waste form is desirable

for limiting long-term environmental releases and institutional control costs.

If one wished to base Class A waste limits on environmental releases and institutional control costs, one place to start would be current license conditions

at the disposal.facilities- -located near Richland, Washington and Barnwell, South

Carolina. -License conditions-at these sites, which affect over 90% of the waste

disposed in the country, require that ion exchange resins, filter media and other

LWR process waste streams having concentrations over 1 pCi/cc of any radionuclide

having a half-life exceeding 5 years be either solidified or. disposed within a

high integrity container. 'At the Barnwell site, this requirement has been

extended to waste from medical isotope production facilities.' If one compares

the costs-an'd'environmental impacts of a limit based'onthe existing license

conditions with the limit based on consideration of intrusion, one sees several

similarities. This is illustrated in Table 5.1 below. '

-Table 5.1 Comparison of Impacts of Class A Limits Based

Upon the' Final Part 61 Rule-and Existing

License Conditions

' - Existing

Part 61 License

:-Conditions Conditions

I. Long-Term Individual ' ' ' ;

Exposures (mrem/yr):- _

Intruder - construction .

o 100 yrs Body 1.84E+2* 2.04E+2

Bone 1.87E+2- 2.07E+2

Thyroid 1.84E+2 -" 2.04E+2

See footnote(s), last page of table. - ' -

* i

--5-27
Table 5.1 (Continued)

Existing

Part 61 License

Conditions Conditions

o 500 yrs - Body 3.02E+0 3.12E+O

Bone 1.63E+1 1.65E+1

Thyroid 2.42E+O 2.55E+O

Intruder - agriculture

o 100 yrs - Body 2.02E+2 2.22E+2

Bone 2.08E+2 2.31E+2

Thyroid 2.01E+2 2.21E+2

o 500 yrs - Body 3.04E+0 3.15E+O

Bone 9.17E+O 9.33E+O

Thyroid 9.02E+O 1.01E+1

Boundar well

o Body 1.11E-1 1.11E-1

o Bone 3.70E-2 3.88E-2

o Thyroid 4.16E+0 5.22E+O

Population well

o Body 3.33E-3 3.85E-3

o Bone 8.24E-3 8.69E-3

o Thyroid 1.32E+0 1.65E+O

Surface water

o Body 1.44E-4 1.67E-4

o Bone 3.37E-4 3.55E-4

o Thyroid 5.99E-2 7.52E-2

II. Other Long-Term Exposures:

Offsite releases from

intrusion

o Waterborne (mrem/yr)

Body 1.16E-2 1.33E-2

Bone 2.42E-2 5.21E-2

Thyroid 4.78E-4 5.07E-4

o Airborne (man-mrem/yr)

Body 2.39E-1 2.36E-1

Bone 2.25E+0 2.44E+O

Thyroid 8.62E-2 9.35E-2

III. Short-Term Whole Body

Exposures (total man-mrem over 20 yrs):

Occupational

o Process by waste** +4.50E+5 +2.70E+5

generator

o Process by regional 1.25E+5 1.25E+5

process center

o Waste transport 4.97E+6 5.15E+6

o Waste disposal 2.14E+6 2.22E+6

5-28
' Table 5.1 (Continued)

''''' 'Part 61

"'Conditions,

Existing

'License

Conditions

To population

o Process by waste** ! . 1.26E+2

generator

o Process by regional 0.

process center

'.o Waste transport, 4.76E+5

-'- IV. Costs (total $ over 20 yrs):r.

Waste generation and

transport -

o Process by waste* -

generator

o Process by regional , *process .center

o Waiste6transport .

" ! . Waste disposal

< : o. Design & op.

o Postoperational

Closure

; ;. . ,' : Obs. & maint.

Inst. control

Total post op. - o Total disp. cost.!

; o- Unit cost ($/m3)

+4.39E+1

0.

4. 91E+5

++6. 1OE+7

3. 63E+7

+8. 20E+7

3.63E+7 -'

I

U .. . .

.... V

II. . .

Enerry Use (equivalent',"

.gallons of-fuel oil)xx: - :'

VI.' -Land Use (m2):

VII. Waste Volume (m3): ,

Volume-acceptable.,

o Class A unstable :

o Class A stable

o Class B

-o Class C

-o Total volume.,

acceptable

.,I

1.72E+8 -1.76E+8

3.50E+8 3.50E+8

3.87E+6 3.87E+6

1..13E+6 - - 1.15E+6

1.57E+7. 1.59E+7

2.07E+7 *2.09E+7

3.71E+8 3.71E+8

5.73E+2 5.69E+2

-1. 42E+6' --2.32E+6

2.25E+5 2.27E+5

-4.23E+5 4.43E+5-

1.61E+5- * 1.98E+5

5.95E+4 8.89E+3

3.47E+3 , 3.06E+3

6.48E+5 6.52E+5..

"Vnounme nntrrcpcntahblp - ' -'09+4 P 2.14F+4

* ' The notation'1.84E+2 eans;1.84 x102. ' ' ' " ' ** '5 -.' . '*. ;'. .' , ,s.

In this table, population exposures due to waste processing by -

;;waste generators, occupational.-exposures-due to waste.processing,

by waste generators, and energy use are presented as-impacts

and costs in addition to those associated with the base case

as set forth in Chapter 4.

5-29
Table 5.1 compares the costs and impacts of waste Class A limits based upon

consideration of potential inadvertent intrusion with waste Class A limits based

upon existing disposal facility license conditions. In both cases, unstable

low activity (Class A wastes) are disposed in a segregated manner from Class B

and C wastes: Emplaced wastes are backfilled with a sand/gravel backfill, compacted with improved compaction techniques, and covered with improved disposal

cell covers. Maximum limits for near-surface disposal are the same for both

cases.

As shown, differences are relatively small, and are principally due to small

differences in the two cases regarding methods used to achieve stability. This

influences the volumes of waste determined to be stable Class A, Class B, Class C,

and unacceptable. These small volume differences in turn influence the calculated impact measures such as, individual intruder exposures, occupational

exposures or waste transportation impacts. In general, however, basing Class A

limits on existing license conditions would appear to involve somewhat higher

long-term environmental impacts than the Part 61 case in which Class A limits

are based upon potential inadvertent intrusion. These additional environmental

impacts are seen for both the intruder and ground water migration impacts, and

are calculated for a case in which a moderate amount of percolation into the

segregated unstable waste disposal cells is assumed. If under a worst case

situation, the improved cell covers placed over the unstable waste disposal

cells are assumed to have reduced effectiveness, then additional percolation

into the unstable waste disposal cells would occur. In this situation, the

difference in ground water impacts between the two cases presented in Table 5.1

would be larger.

Conversely, waste processing costs for the Part 61 case are higher than similar

costs for the case in which Class A limits are based upon existing license conditions. These additional costs are calculated to be about $21 million over

20 years, or about an additional $1.05 million per year. One reason for these

additional costs is that the Part 61 case is more general than the case based

upon existing disposal facility license conditions. That is, in the Part 61

case, the Class A waste limits are applied to all waste streams while in the

existing license condition case, the Class A waste limits are applied to LWR

process waste streams as well as waste from isotope production facilities. If

the Class A limits based upon existing license conditions were applied to all

waste streams, then the calculated cost differential between the two cases would

be reduced. As a matter of fact, a trend at existing operating disposal facilities to extend the requirements for waste stabilization to additional waste

streams has been observed.

Otherwise, postoperational costs are seen to be somewhat reduced for the Part 61

case relative to the case representing existing license conditions. This is

because a lower percentage of the waste-in the Part 61 case is in an unstable

form. Under a worst case situation, in which a high level of maintenance is

assumed for the unstable waste disposal cells, then the difference in postoperational costs would be about four times larger. This is given higher importance than the small difference in costs would otherwise indicate, since postoperational costs are difficult to predict over the long term. Based upon past

bad experiences, minimizing post-operational costs to the site owner has been

given high priority in this EIS.

5-30
'Limits for Class C Waste Disposal. The second item concerns the limits for

Class C waste disposal. A number of comments were received on the calculated',

limits, including the following:' I - . - I

0

.. .:

. I .I ..

Rather than setting restrictive limits based on protection of a poten-

'tial-inadvertent intruder, NRC should consider requiring warning devices

which would warn an intruder against excavating into thedisposal ;

' facility. go '.- . m.-; - - , _, - .1 ;,i.:

.o NRC should .consider.and incorporate a probability~that intrusion will

occur. ' .. , , ,

o' NRC should-consider that at the end of 500 years,' Class 'C waste-dis-

'posed under-5 meters of.cover-would still-be difficult to contact;

'-and that if someone-did contact the waste, it would beconsiderably

* diluted by lower activity waste.

o NRC should consider that actual waste.concentrations will ;typically

exhibit an activity distribution with average concentrations'well

below the maximum'permissible concentration. . . . .

'o ,The' fact that Clas's C waste will be in an-improved waste form will - , help to lessen the likelihood that-extensive intrusion.activities

' ;will :occur; 'and if they do. occur, will ,lessen the potential for airborne' dispersion or uptake'by plant roots. ,

o Since Class C limits have been raised byea factor of.10 for Cs-137,-.

why not do the same for other radionuclides? . !

' 4 . .' '',: '' ', ' ' , ' 4 . . '.' '

NRC staff has evaluated these.comments.and has.concluded that anincrease in.

the Class C limits by a factor of 10 is'warranted for all radionuclides. except

for Cs-137.

'It is very.difficult to set a.numerical value on the probability that'an intrusion event will 'occur,'and:on-the probability of the event's extensiveness.

One can say',-however, that'the probability will probably increase with the

'passage'of time...:Given the.uncertainty, somej.udgment.jisfrequired as to the

.'likelihood and-extensiveness of intrusion. Based upon.much consideration, the

best approach was judged'by:NRC. staff.to first conservatively assume~that an

intrusionfievent occurs, and after that, to try and assume,a range ofreasonable

activities on-the-part of the intruder. .As.commenters have observed,,one way

to further reduce the possibility for intrusion is to establish long lasting

warning markers on the disposal site..The staff.feels that;this is a reasonable suggestion'that canibe implemented inexpensively and it has been incor-.

porate'd into the final, Part 61 rule. ,:. *' . -

It is also believed to be true that waste which-has been disposed beneath a

cover at least 5 meters thick would be difficult to contact extensively even

afte'r.500 years. In the calculations-for the draft EIS,,it-was assumed that,-

'at the end of(500 years the 5-meter intruder barrier was no,:1onger effective;

:The-scenario was'taken to'be the'same as that which was-used to determine-the

.Class'A waste limits. The onlydifference was that a.500-year radioactivity.

decay period was used instead of a 100-year decay period. This is believed to

5-31
*LUM..

be very conservative since if Class C waste was brought to the surface it would

probably be considerably diluted with soil and lower activity waste. The degree

of dilution is difficult to estimate but is believed to be at least an order

of magnitude.

It is also true that past data on waste streams indicates that the average

radioactivity concentration within waste would be expected to be well below

peak concentrations. For example, the authors of one reference (Ref. 4) refer

to survey of five major Department of Energy disposal sites in which it was

estimated that'greater-than 97% of the material disposed at these sites is

either only very slightly radioactive or is suspected of being radioactive

(due to the place where the waste is generated). The five DOE sites surveyed

cover 86% of the total DOE'waste volume and 99+% of the activity. The authors

state that if it was assumed that the 3% of the waste that is contaminated is

at a maximum level and 97% of the low activity or suspect waste was clean,

then a dilution factor on the order of 30 would occur (Ref. 4). The authors

(Ref. 4) also cite data obtained from room trash generated at a plutonium

facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The authors suggest caution in interpreting the data, however. They note that

the data is limited and that wastes such as sludges or oils would probably be

more uniform than waste such as trash (Ref. 4). "The use of incineration will

tend to increase the uniformity of the transuranium content of individual packages, and the sludges'from treatment of wastes have a similar characteristic

of relatively constant concentrations." In conclusion, the authors suggest

that two dilution factors be considered for DOE waste. A dilution factor of

about 20 is suggested for routine trash and decommissioning types of waste,

while a dilution factor'of 1 (no dilution) is suggested for ash from oxidized

combustibles, sludges from water treatment, and artifacts (either solid items

with surface contamination or trash types of waste contained in nondegradable

plastic containers).

Data more directly applicable to waste disposed in commercial disposal facilities

has been obtained and is presented in Appendix C of this final EIS. Table C.35

lists for wet wastes generated by light water power reactor plants, the volumepercent distribution of-gross concentration (Ci/ft3) as determined from two

years (1978 and 1979) of shipment records to disposal facilities. Six different

waste streams are shown: PWR resins, PWR filter sludge, PWR concentrated liquids,

BWR resins, BWR filter sludge, and BWR concentrated liquids. The data from

which Table C.35 was prepared covers 79% and 77%, respectively, of the' total

volume of waste disposed in the country during the two years (Ref. 5).

The data illustrates that most of the LWR waste process waste activity is well

below the maximum observed. For example, less than 0.1% of the BWR resin~volume

would exceed 10 Ci/ft3 (353 Ci/m3), while almost 70% of the volume is in a range

of .01 to 0.5 Ci/ft3 (.35 Ci/m3 to 17.7 Ci/m3). The average activity across

this distribution is in fact about 0.16 Ci/ft3 (5.6 Ci/m3).

It is apparent that the above considerations would tend to reduce potential

inadvertent intruder impacts and therefore increase the allowable concentrations.

However, there are",other considerations' which could also tend to increase potential inadvertent intruder impacts. Some of these include differences in waste

5-32
form'characteristics such as waste density or'the size and solubility class of

dispersed respirable particles. Another factor-is the observation that the

average activity across most commercial waste streams has been rising over

the 'past- several years.'' This is'due to the reduced aVailability of waste

disposal space in conjunction'with-rising disposal costs, resulting in much

increased use of-volume'reduction techniques. This phenomenon'is expected to

be even more pronounced in the future, since regional disposal facilities (or

disposal facilities serving a compact) are likely to be small operations

disposing of relatively small volumes of waste. These small operations will

likely need 'to charge 'higher disposal -fees 'than larger operations. The result

will be an incentive'for licensees'to drive concentrations in waste to the

allowable limits.

Another factor is the accelerated NRC program for identifying low activity waste

streams whichmay disposed-by less restrictive means. Such disposal will tend

to reduce dilution of higher activity waste streams by lower activity waste

streams.

Other considerations include the potential for future changes or improvements

in health physics methodologies and consideration of.'site-specif.ic environmental conditions. For example, dispersion of contaminated dust into the air

where it may be inhaled by'humans may be expected to be greater at arid sites

than at humid' sites. This will'probably be.'counter balanced to some extent

by an expecte'd-reduced rate of'waste degredation at arid-sites in comparison

with humid sites. In addition,--wastes can be generally disposed at greater

depths atlarid sites than'at'humid sites, thus-reducing the potential for

human contact.

Finally, there' is the potential for localized'areas of higher activity ("hot

spots") within'waste containers. However,, this' would tend to be mitigated

through averaging areas of higher concentration over areas of lower concentration. Whefilconcentration limits are calculated using the waste classification

methodology",- what is really being established 'is the average concentration

across the volume of waste contacted. This'could be several hundred cubic

meters of soil and waste material.

In conclusion,-the Class C limits have been raised by a factor of 10. This is

due to consideration of (1)'the' reduced likelihood of: significant intruder

exposures with incorporation of passive warning devices at the disposal facility, and (2) the difficulty of contacting waste disposed'at greater depths.

Another consideration is that the average concentrations-in waste would be

expected'to' bie'less than the peak concentrations, although iteis difficult to

totally account for this'given 'the other factors discussed above. The effect

of the change in the Class C concentrations is illustrated in Table 5.2.

Two cases-are.considered in Table 5.2. In the first case, Class C limits are

assumed which-correspond.lto-those established for the final Part 61 rule. For

example, the limit for disposal of alpha-emitting (except Cm-242) transuranic

radionuclides are set at 100 nCi/gm. The results of this case are in fact

obtained from the "preferred case" analysis performed in Chapter 4. The second

case corresponds to Class C limits which were proposed for the proposed Part 61

rule. In both cases, a low level of postoperational costs is projected for

the stable waste streams while a moderate level of postoperational costs is

projected for the unstable waste streams.

:5-33
. - 1L.MAs can be seen in Table 5.2, only slight.differences are observed between the

two cases. Most of the differences in the calculated impact measures appear

to be directly derived from the slightly reduced volume of waste delivered to

the disposal facility for the case corresponding to the limits proposed in the

proposed Part 61 rule. For example, groundwater impacts are slightly lower,

as are impacts to a potential inadvertent intruder and population exposures

due to waste transportation.

Table 5.2 Comparison of Impacts and Costs of the Proposed and

Final Part 61 Waste Classification Requirements

Final

Part 61

Proposed

Part 61

I. Long-Term Individual

Exposures (mrem/yr):

Intruder - construction

o 100 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

o 500 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

Intruder - agriculture

o 100 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

o 500 yrs - Body

Bone

Thyroid

Boundary well

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

Population well

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

Surface water

o Body

o Bone

o Thyroid

See footnote(s), last page of table.

1. 84E+2*

1. 87E+2

1.84E+2

3. 02E+0

1. 63E+1

2.42E+0

2.02E+2

2. 08E+2

2. 01E+2

3.04E+0

9. 17E+0

9. 02E+0

1. 84E+2

1. 87E+2

1. 84E+2

2. 31E+0

1. 03E+1

2. O1E+0

2.02E+2

2. 08E+2

2. 01E+2

2. 47E+0

6.46E+0

7. 65E+0

1. 11E-1

3.70E-2

4. 16E+0

3.33E-3

8.24E-3

1. 32E+0

1.44E-4

3.37E-4

5.99E-2

1. 11E-1

8. 23E-3

4. 14E+0

3.32E-3

8.23E-3

1. 31E+0

1.43E-4

3.36E-4

5.96E-2

5-34
I Table 5.2 (Continued)

Final Proposed

f I' Part 61 Part 61

II. Other Long-Term Exposures: , ' -

, Offsite releases from

intrusion

o Waterborne (mrem/yr)

Body

Bone

I * 1Thyroid

o Airborne(main-mrem/yr)

Body

-Bone - Thyroid

1. 16E-2

2.42E-2

4.78E-4

2.39E-1

2. 25E+O

8.62E-2

I I. . . ..

' '--- 1.17E-2 - I 2.43E-2

' 478E-4

! 2.39E-1

2.25E+O

8. 62E-2

III. - Short-Term Whole Body

Exposures (total man-mrem over 20 yrs):

Occupational

o Process by waste*"

generator

o Process by regional * process center

o Waste'transport

o- Waste disposal

' To population

o Process by waste** - generator - --

o Process by regional

process center

' Waste transport.

IV. Costs (total $-over 20 yrs):

Waste' generation and

transport

o Process by waste**

generator

o Process-by-regional

;process center

o Waste transport

Waste'disposal '

o Design & op.

o''Postoperational :

Closure

-Obs.-&-maint.

Inst. control

Total post op;

o Total disp., cost

' Unit'cost ($/m 3 )'

+4.50E+5

1.25E+5-

4.97E+6

2.14E+6.

+1.26E+2

0.

4.76E+5

+8. 20E+7

-- 3.63E+7

--1.72E+8--

+4. 60E+5

-1.25E+5'

4.92E+6'

'- 2.'11E+6

0. , ;.

0.

4. 72 E+5' i -.-

3.'50E+8'

'3.87E+6' '

--1.13E+6

1.57E+7

2.07E+7

3.71E+8 ,,

5.73E+2 I.,

. . .

: :

+7.70E+7

3.63E+7

- 1. 71E+8

'- 3.50E+8

3.87E+6

-1. 13E+6

1. 57E+7

2. 07E+7

3. 71E+8

5.76E+2 .- ; . . ., .-

5-35
AlU ..

Table 5.2 (Continued)

Final Proposed

Part 61 Part 61

V. Enerqy Use (equivalent -1.42E+6 -1.97E+6

gallons of fuel oil :

VI. Land Use (m2): 2.25E+5 2.24E+5

VII. Waste Volume (m3):

Volume acceptable

o Class A unstable 4.23E+5 4.23E+5

o Class A stable 1.61E+5 1.61E+5

o Class B 5.95E+4 5.95E+4

o Class C 3.47E+3 0.

o HWF 0. 0.

o Total volume 6.48E+5 6.44E+5

acceptable

Volume not acceptable 2.20E+4 2.74E+4

The notation 1.84E+2 means 1.84 x 102.

In this table, population exposures due to waste processing by

waste generators, occupational exposures due to waste processing

by waste generators, and energy use are presented as impacts

and costs in addition to those associated with the base case

as set forth in Chapter 4.

As discussed earlier, the calculated increase in intruder exposures at 500 years

for the final rule case is probably an overestimate, since no credit is taken

for an intruder barrier after 500 years. If a factor of 10 credit at 500 years

is assumed for layered waste, then individual intruder impacts associated with

the final rule case would be the following:

Body Bone Thyroid

Intruder-construction 2.37E+0 1.09E+1 2.04E+O

scenario (mrem/yr)

Intruder-agriculture 2.52E+0 6.70E+0 7.75E+0

scenario (mrem/yr)

As shown, if such credit is taken, the difference in potential'inadvertent

intruder impacts between the final and proposed rule cases is significantly

reduced.

5-36
AXreduced amount of waste processing is also pro'jected'for the proposed rule

case relative to the final rule case.' This'results in somewhat lower population

exposures :due to waste incineration for the-proposed rule'.case'as well -as lower

total waste processing costs and occupational'exposures.'' Most-of'these differences are due to' the increased use-of'volume'reduction technology for the'

final rule case. Unit disposal 'costs are' slightly' raised for'thte proposed-rule

case, however, which is due to the reduced v'olume of'waste'delivered'to the

disposal facility. ' . ';. ' '

Overall costs to'disposal'facility customers, howev'eZ,' would be'reduced.- Under

the'Fin:alPart 61-rule, -waste streams having.:a transuranic content between 10

and 100 nCi/gm must be stabilized-and disposed as Class-C waste. Approximately

*3500'm3 of waste'(after processing).is estimated to-fall within this class.;

If the limit were 10 nCi/gm, then this waste would be-projected to be'unacceptable'for near-surface disposal. -(The.difference between the non-acceptable

volumes for the'two' cases is-about 5400 m3, which is about'1900 m3 higher than

the*Class C waste volume.' This increase in volume is due to increased'waste.

processing'by volume-reduction assumed-for the final,.rule case.,'If~waste'

processing were to result in the waste stream being unacceptable .for nearsurface'disposal, then-the processing would.not be performed.) 'Costs.for'the

additional processing run at an average of about $1428 per m3 of packaged'waste,

much of which is' due to increased use of volume reduction technology for' the

final rule case. If the'waste streams in question were merely stabilized,'-then

stabilization costs could be as low'as $450/m3, althobbh 'disposal' costs '(due

-to -the -increased'.volume) would be somewhat raised;'"'This 'may be contrasted by

estimated costs'for disposal into''a geologic'repository. Based upon an estimated

5$200 perim3''of'waste,'which includes costs for retrievable s'torage','retrieval,

processing,'.transportati6n,''and-disposal, costs for geologic'disposal of '3500-

5400 m3 of waste would run at about $18.2 million to $28.1 million over.20.years.

Isotopes Considered for:Waste Classification.Purposes . '. - - ' -

:-In'the-draft EIS, a total of 23 different radionuclides werekco'n'sidered'in-the

numerical analysis. -These nuclides-were nearly all moderate-'or long-lived

radionuclides; "Based upon these 23 radionuclides, concentration limits'were

' proposed in the'proposed'Part--61..rule-for2 .11individual-'radionuclides'plus'-'

;.'' 'alpha-emitting transuranics', enriched;uranium and depleted''uranium;. The

individual 'isotopes included 3H, 14C-,- 59Ni,' HNi 1 6 2CO 94Nb 99Tc iI 35 Cs

1 37Cs, Sand !

2 ,

41 Put(a beta emitter). For the final rule, limits'for " 5Cs, -

enriched urainiium, and depleted'uranium are elim'inated, 'as~are limits-for 59Ni

and 94Nb except as'contained in activated metal.!` A'separate-limit for 242Cm,

a transuranic nuclide'with a 162.9'dayhalf-life,"is provided.. : --

',~ -'- ~ '; ' *' ', ' ; , * '_ * '- ,, r ,- ,

-The isotope deletions-came about principally in response-to commenters on''the

proposed 'Part;61'who were -concerned regarding the.costs,a'nd' impacts'of-cbmpliance - with the waste class'ification.requirements.:-In particular,- many commenters.

were 'concerned:that::they'wouldrhave to directly; measure'every isotope .'in 'every

waste package. This would be difficult since measurement of many of the listed

isotopes--which would-usually be present only in trace quantities--`c'ould not

be performed'except'bys'complex radiochemical e'- ration '-techniques by-laboratories.. '(Isotopes''which are pure-beta emitters,' for example.`)f-Commeniters were

.concerned that costs'and personnel'-radiatio'n'exposures'.would be significantly

increased..:' . ;- - -

- 5-37
Development of a workable approach to compliance with the waste classification

requirement received much attention between the'time of preparation of the draft

ElS and preparation of the final EIS. A preliminary'draft of a technical position paper on compliance was prepared and forwarded to a number of interested

parties. (Ref. 6) This technical position is discussed further below. To

further ease the burden of compliance, the number of isotopes listed in the

waste classification table were reduced to those judged to be needed on a generic

basis for waste classification purposes, as well as those judged to-be most

needed for assessment of potential impacts from groundwater migration. Other

isotopes may be added later either generically or in specific waste streams.

Cesium-135 was removed because it is present in wastes in very small concentrations, and because Cs-135 is a pure beta emitter which is very difficult to

measure. Waste classification for waste containing Cs-135 will be determined

by the presence of other isotopes such as Cs-137. Similarly, the radionuclides

Ni-59 and Nb-94 have been removed except as they may be contained in activated

metals. Based'upon examination of the waste source data used for the EIS, these

nuclides are, at this time, believed to be present in reactor wastes (other

than activated metals) in such small concentrations as to be insignificant.

Again, other than the possible case of activated metals, waste classification

of waste containing Ni-59 and Nb-94 will be determined by other isotopes.

Uranium has also been removed as a limiting element for waste classification.

Analysis of the data base for the Part 61 EIS indicates that the types of uraniumbearing wastes being typically disposed of by NRC licensees do'not present a

sufficient hazard to warrant limitation on the concentration of this naturally

occurring material. Both depleted and enriched uranium typically do not 'contain

daughter products in any quantity because of the relatively short time since the

uranium was refined from ore, compared to the half-lives of the uranium isotopes.

The daughter products are disposed of primarily as uranium mill tailings.

However, NRC is aware of some uranium-daughter-contaminated material which is

typically being stored today and which may in the future be disposed as low-level

waste. In addition, there are quantities of low activity waste material which

also may be sent to disposal sites and which are'not covered under the Atomic

Energy Act and are not subject to NRC license. Such material may be generated

by rare earth processing facilities, for example. This material, which is primarily contaminated soil, has characteristics sufficiently different.from other

low-level waste 'streams that separate treatment is warranted. NRC staff intends

to examine specific disposal guidance for such material in the near future.

The remaining isotopes in the waste classification table are included due to

(1) their presence in a wide variety of waste types, (2) concern due to'their

radiotoxicity, or (3) their importance in the groundwater migration pathway.

The radionuclide curium-242 was deleted from the overall combined transuranic

limit and is considered separately for waste classification purposes. While

Cm-242 is a relatively short-lived nuclide (163 days), it decays to plutonium238, an alpha emitting transuranic nuclide with a half-life of nearly 90 years.

A concentration of 20,000 nanocuries per gram for Cm-242 will result in a

concentration of 100'nanocuries per gram of Pu-238.

Several commenters on the proposed rule inquired about'the disposal of waste

containing radium-226, a radioisotope which is not currently listed. It appears

that there are two types of radium wastes to be'considered: (1) small concentrated sources of radium such as radiation sources or luminescent dial's; and

(2) wastes which contain small amounts of radium incidental to other radioisotopes, such as radium contained in wastes from uranium separation processes.

5-38
The 1former is not subject -to regulation by the Commission, since radium is a

naturally-occurring isotope and is. not.included in the provisions of the Atomic

Energy.Act of 1954, as amended...The.-Environmental.Protection Agency has a

program for,colllection of. radium sour6cess. ''. This .program' may'be phased out' in

.the.next few years., Such sources areexpected to be transferred to the Department of Energy for storage and disposal. , . '

As for radium incidental-to other types of waste,.the Commission has made provi- sions for disposal of small quantities-of uranium.tailings'as Class A waste..

For purposes of thisprovision, a small''qu'a'ntity' is',defined as 10,000 kilograms containing not more than 5. millicuries.of radium-226.''This.concentration is

typical of uranium mill ,tailings-(0.5.,nanocuriesper gram).' The quantity of

radium-226,is that contained in 150 pounds.otf 'natural uranium at equilibrium. with its daughter products. 10 CFR'Part 40' permits .some' persons to possess and use under general.license 150 pbunds of.source'material per year. Permitting the disposal ;of. such' a quantity in a near-surface disposal lfacility"is 'judged to

be acceptable.. For large quantities, an''additional evaluation would be appro- priate.. As.discussed above, NRC staff.plans''to further examine'guidance for'

disposal of such.waste material'in the future.

For the final Part 61 rule, -limits for alpha-emitting transuranic,radionuclides are given nbt--in termsIof individual.radionuclides,'.but in terms'of

combined concentration limits for all'-alpha-emitting radionuclides having half

lives greater than five years. . This .'approach is believed to be :the easiest to

comply with -by most licensees, although NRC recognizes that there may'be'excep- tions to this based upon the'particular distribution 'of transuranic isotopes'' within a particular licensee's waste. A discussion of the process' by which NRC

-convertedfrom individual transuranicradionuclide limitsto a singlecombined

1limit-is included in Appendix C. . ' ,

Volume Reduction ' . ' '' - ' -

-Some commenters were concerned 'that the 'waste 'classification ;requirementwould

discourage volume'reducti'on.-..This' 'concern 'is believed-to be alleviated by the

-increase in the Class C waste disposal"limits. As an illustration, the-volumes

of waste determined to be unacceptable for near-surface disposal'under extreme

volume reduction.conditions (waste 'spectrum 4),may be',compared against the.

proposed and final Part 61 limits'. a b opr'a t.:

These comparative volumes are as follows: -'

Percent of Total

Unacceptable Volumes '(m 3 ) Generatedc

Proposed Part 61 Limits 9.42'E+3: 4

Final Part 61 Limits -' 1.93 E+3 I1

Compliance with Waste Clas's ification - . ..

As discussed'above, many'commenters 'on the draft Part 61 rule were 'concerned

.regarding acceptable procedures' for determining compliance with the waste,

classification requirements. The 'conciern' focused on how one' estimates'and

,.-5-39
reports radionuclide concentrations and quantities in waste streams, particularly when some radionuclides may be difficult to measure and/or in existence

in only trace quantities.' It was recognized in the draft EIS that developing

a reasonable approach to compliance would be an important consideration. A

balance needed to be achieved between the need for knowledge of waste contents

and practical limitations in measurement.

It should be realized, however, that such considerations are independent of

the waste classification requirement, and would be a proper issue for consideration even without the waste classification requirement. That is, acceptable

means of estimating and reporting radionuclide concentrations and quantities

within waste streams are important for compliance with existing NRC regulations. For example, existing NRC regulations incorporate DOT transportation

regulations. These DOT regulations require that shipments of radioactive

material be classified according to waste transport types. Manifests accompanying

the shipment must describe the contents of the shipments. In addition, existing

Commission regulations state that radioactive material may only be transferred

to persons authorized to receive it. Implicit in these requirements is a requirement for knowledge of the radionuclide content of the material transferred.

Based upon discussions with licensees and other interested parties, comments

on the proposed Part 61 rule, and comments on the draft EIS, a preliminary draft

technical position paper was prepared (Ref. 6). This draft paper was made

available to interested persons, and comments on the draft position paper were

requested. The essential features of this preliminary draft position paper

are presented below.

The staff's position is that all-licensees must carry out a compliance program

to assure proper classification of waste. Licensee programs to determine radionuclide concentrations and waste classes may, depending upon the particular

operations at the licensee's facility, range from simple programs to very complex

ones. In general, more sophisticated programs would be required for licensees

generating Class B or Class C waste, for licensees generating waste for which

minor process variations may cause a change in classification, or for-licensees

generating waste for which there is a reasonable possibility of the-waste containing concentrations of radionuclides which exceed limiting concentration

limits for near-surface disposal. Some licensees, such as nuclear power facilities, are expected to employ a combination of methods.

There are four basic programs, however, which may be potentially used either

individually or in combination by licensees:

- materials accountability;

- classification by source; - gross radioactivity measurements; or - direct measurement of individual radionuclides.

One method which the staff would find acceptable to determine radionuclide

concentrations and demonstrate compliance with the waste classification requirement is through a program of materials accountability. That is, a given quantity

(and resulting concentration) of radioactive material may be known to be

contained within a given waste or may be inferred through determining the

difference between the quantity of radioactive material entering and exiting a

given process. This procedure is expected to be most useful for licensee's who

5-40
receive and possess only a limited number of different radioisotopes in known

concentrations and activities (e.g., holders of source material, special nuclear

material, or byproduct material licenses). An example would be a biomedical

research facility at which known.amounts of a radioisotope are injected.into.

research animals, the carcasses of which are ultimately dispose'das 'radioactive

waste.' Another example would be a research or test facility performing activation-analysis experiments.. In this case, the quantity of radioactive"material

within a'given waste-stream may be inferred through calculation.'' A third 'example

would-involve a process such as treatment of contaminated water by ion exchange.

If the'radionuclide concentrations into and out of the process'container 'are.-

known, as well as the total flow through the process container,' then the radionuclide content of the process container may be readily 'determined. '. -

*Thismethod may. also be used to determine the absence of particular radio-'2-

nuclides. -"That.is,-.for most licensees,.the absence of-particular radionuclides

-may ble determined through.a knowledge of the types of'radioisotopes-received-,

-and-possessed, as well-as the process producing the.waste. *.For'example, if 'a'

licensee receives, possesses and uses only tritium,_there 'is.'no'need to measure

the waste stream for other isotopessuch as.iodine-129 or cesium-137..'_''"

Classification by:source is-similar to the above methodof materials account-.

ability'and involves-determining the radionuclide content and'classification

of waste through knowledge and control of the source of. the'vwaste. "'This method

is expected to be useful for .occasions'when the, radionuclide'concentrations:.'

within waste generated by a particular process ,are relatively constant and'

unaffected by minor variations in the process. . ,

This method-is also expected to be frequently useful for.determining.the absence

of particular radionuclides from a given waste stream.' For example, within a'

given licensed facility there may'be a number of separate controlled areas within

which only a-limited number of.radioisotopes~are.possessed and used (e.g., Cs-137

may be used on one area and tritium in' another).' As long"'as facility operations

are conducted so that transfer of radioactive'material frcim one controlled area

to another .cannot occur, waste generated.from a particular.area may.bereadily

classified by source; An example of a licensee for which this method is expected

to be useful is a large university which holds a broad license for byproduct

-'material.! ' . . -' . .

There may be someClass B orClass C waste streams'having odd geometries or

-physical characteristics which make collection of samples and/or data' difficult.

In such'cases, gross measurements may be'the only practicable.means.of'deter-'

mining radionuclide concentrations. In addition, there'may-be some Class'B'

and Class C waste streams for which the distribution of radionuclides within

the waste streams is essentially fixed (e.g., a waste'-stream whose-radionuclide

distribution-is known and either-the distribution is relatively insensitive to

process changes or.-the'process generating'the.waste'streams is relatively nonvariable).and minorprocess changes are not likely to result in.a significant

change in this distribution. .Gross'radioactivity measurements may 'also be

acceptablein this, case provided.that-'radionuclide distributions are'.initially

determined and periodically verified'by' direct measurement techniques'which

correlate measured radioactivity levels'with radionuclide'6concentrations1 in

wastes. The accuracy of the correlatio'niwould be periodically checked'.through

detailed sample analysis involving'm'easurement'of specific radionuclides'. The

accuracy of the correlation would also be checked whenever there was reason to

5-41
believe that process changes may have significantly altered previously determined correlations.

Another method acceptable to the staff for determining radionuclide concentrations in waste is direct measurements for individual radionuclides. Finally,

it is recognized that some-radionuclides are amenable to routine quantification

by direct measurement techniques (e.g., gamma-spectral analysis of isotopes

such as Co-60 or Cs-137), while other radionuclides require more costly and

time consuming analysis frequently removed from the waste generator's facility.

For these latter radionuclides, determinations of concentrations through use

of scaling factors whereby concentrations of radioisotopes which cannot be

readily measured (through techniques such as gamma-spectral analysis) are projected through ratioing to concentrations of radioisotopes which can be readily

measured may be applied., An example would be the practice of scaling transuranic

concentrations to concentrations of the isotope Ce-144. Scaling factors would

generally be developed on a facility and waste stream specific basis, and would

be initially determined through direct measurement techniques. The representativeness of the scaling factors would be periodically confirmed through direct

measurements on at least a semiannual basis.

As discussed above, a''compliance program for a particular licensee could involve

a combination of the above methods and would be implemented on a facilityspecific basis. For nuclear power facilities, NRC staff included in the

preliminary draft branch technical position a general waste classification

implementation program consisting of a three-tiered approach. (Ref. 6) This

three-tiered approach includes:

(1) Periodic analysis for all nuclides considered for waste classification

purposes,

(2) Gamma spectroscopy of certain nuclides from which waste classification

nuclides are correlated, and

(3) Dose-rate measurements which correlate activity levels of wastes from

similar batches to the gamma-spectroscopy measurements.

The NRC staff believes that the above approach presents a workable and enforceable program for implementing the waste classification system. This approach

should minimize the administrative and operational burdens on plant personnel,

but still provide reasonably accurate data for use in quantifying disposal site

nuclide concentrations and inventories.

Manifest Tracking System

The proposed section 20.311 of 10 Part 20 established requirements for a manifest

tracking system for waste transported to disposal sites. The system addressed

the need for more complete information on the classification and characteristics

of disposed 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 LowLevel Waste: 'Where Do We Go from Here?' (Ref. 7). 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

5-42
to the point of disposal." Improving-the data base on waste characteristics

will improve the credibility *of.decisi&n-makers, enable better planning for'

inspections and.emergencies, enhance projections offuture 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. .

*Based upon the above considerations as discussed in more detail in'the draft'

.EIS, thesection 20.311 requirements were drafted. Additional input on these

requirements,.however,.was desired'by 'NRC.staff. Because any NRC licensee:might

inake a waste shipment and thus~be subject-to the manifest system requirements,

NRC staff-mailed copies,of the propo'sed'_Part 61'rule to each of'the Commission's

approximately 9,000 licensees. Inaddition, some 12,000 copies were furnished

to the 26 Agreement States,fd'r distribution to their licensees. Out of this'l

'large group came-a total of 29'letters'commenting on the manifest system.'..These

comments were wide'ranging, with the majority of the questions or suggestions

being raised by only one commenter. '.Only'a handful'.of' issues drew more than"

one-comment, with four 'being-the largest'nu'mber of comments on'any.issue. 'As

ar'esult.of these comments,-as well as other comments on NRC's proposed'waste

classification system-, several clarifying'changes were made to the proposed

requirements.

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 are

compatible with.DOT.requirenents...The waste generatormust be specifically.-

identified.'. The information requirements'concerning-the waste itself are.'somewhat more extensive-and ge'ared-to' information needed for disposal,,not just'.

transportation,' and handling. That is, more explicit information on chemical

,'content, waste composition, and'solidification agent's 'is.'required.' For'example,

the' presence of chelating agents.in''quantities' gre'ater.than 0.1% by volume must

be' recorded. This irequirement is' intended to'enable' waste-disposal', facility'.

operators to to identify waste containing large quantities of chelating'agents.

-Special disposal measures,(to be implemented on a site-specific basis) for.such

waste would-'be carried'out at the'disposal .facility.- 'Licensees~would be'

required to comply with'and certify.c'mpliance with waste'form requirementsbof

Part 61. This latter requirement stems solely from fthe technical"' requirements

'for dis'posal.': The land disp'osal'.facility'.licens'e'e',must 'record 'data bn'the condition of the'waste itself..and doc rent and certify' receipt,:handling, repackaging, storage, and disposal.. -

Questions were raised whether the manifest reporting requirement applied to

radionuclides having half-lives less than.5 years, since there is a waste

:stability provision in the Part 61.rule for waste having radionuclides with

''half-lives-less than'5'years and'in'concentrations exceeding' 700 pCi/cm3.

Although NRC staff believe'that'the.principl. radionuclides contained in waste

should be'identified for purposes of transportation anid disposal'facility.'

.operatioonal safet','there.is no need to list'.short half-lived nuclides.contained

in-trace'quantities.'-'Th'eitotal quantity.of. thefour 'radionuclides believed to

!be especially imp6rtaint to-safety from' ground-water migration--.i.e.,'H-3, C-14,

Tc-99, and I-129- ,ill'continue'to be required'on'the manifest. '

The use of the manifests provides i-tracking.system that is.inspectable.' Sec-

,.tion'.20.311.requires'that..the'.shipper precede and accoipany shipments with copies

i  - :5-43
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 be the waste 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.

The manifest being required by this rulemaking is consistent with DOT shipping

paper requirements, and the same document may be used by licensees to meet

requirements of both agencies. Neither NRC nor DOT require a specific form

and both allow such dual use. The waste form and'packaging requirements are

in addition to and compatible with DOT rules. In addition, the manifest

terminology and requirements were compared to those in the proposed Uniform

Hazardous Waste Manifest, the joint EPA/DOT proposed form published March 4,

1982 (Ref. 8). A few minor procedural and terminology changes were made to

conform to this proposed form. Licensees may use the Uniform Hazardous Waste

Manifest as a DOT shipping paper or NRC manifest for'radioactive wastes'(once

it is implemented as a final rule) by using additional spaces to describe

wastes or by adding infomation to the back. These changes were made based on

consultation with EPA and DOT staff and help to reduce the burden on all

licensees.

Classification by Total Hazard

Several commenters were concerned with materials potentially present in lowlevel radioactive waste which may be chemically toxic or hazardous. Some

suggested that the Commission's waste classification system incorporate a

"total hazard" approach that would consider both the radiological and chemical

hazard of wastes. At least one comment did not favor the total hazard approach

because of the very complex classification system that the commenter perceived

would result.

The Commission'has stated publicly on several occasions that if it were technically feasible to classify waste by total hazard,' then it'would make eminently

good sense to do so. The staff does not now know of any-scheme for such classification. The Commission will study the chemical toxicity of low-level waste,

with special emphasis on identifying any licensees who generdte hazardous wastes

subject to requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency. NRC will then

examine methods (e.g., perhaps through processing), by which the hazard may be

minimized.

Furthermore, the Commission believes that the technical provisions of Part 61

generally meet or exceed those expected in the Environmental Protection Agency's

rules for the disposal of hazardous wastes. Although it is not the Commission's

intent to allow disposal of hazardous wastes in a radioactive waste disposal

facility, as is noted in the regulation, the Commission recognizes that certain

chemicals or other materials which are defined by EPA as being toxic or hazardous

may be present in some low-level radioactive wastes. It is the Commission's

view that disposal of such wastes in-accordance with the requirements of'Part 61

will adequately protect the public health and safety. Such hazardous chemicals

or other materials are expected to be such a small percentage of the total

waste volume that dilution by other wastes would greatly'minimize any risks.

The Commission intends to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency

5-44
to assure continued compatibility. Further, EPA in its response to a resolution of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors indicated their

willingness to work with other-Federal agencies to address this problem.

"De minimis" Levels of Radioactive Waste -

Over one-fourth of all commenterson the draft EIS and Part 61 rule endorsed

the concept of setting levels for wastes below whichthere, is no regulatory

concern, the so-called "de minimis" level. Some of the commenters supporting

,the de minimis concept made'diiect reference to the NRC staff's position that

exempting particular waste streams from compliance with the Part 61 regulations

was preferable to setting generic levels for all isotopes.- Several disagreed

with.this position, although'at least one of these commenters remarked.that as

there is not yet a consensus on a generic de minimis level, any level *chosen

would be premature. A number of other commenters suggested that a de minimis

classification be'added to the Part 61bregulations,.perhaps as an-additional;

column in Table I of'the prpos'ed'Section 61-55.

-Several commenters suggested.that NRC permit case-by-case review of-requests

for:specific-application'of the de minimis concept-during the period criteria

tare being developed.. --Others suggested specific values-for specific waste

.streams;or.radioisotopes. - . '

The fundamenital concern of-practically all commenters appearedto beqnot'whether

a generic or a case-by-case' appr'ach'should'be takein,''but'rather that-action

to develop de minimis standards should be taken as soon as possible.''

NRC:.staff agrees with -the'importance'of.setting timely standards for disposal

-of~certain wastes by less restrictive means. NRC staff- agrees with the comrmenters that establishment'of such:de minimis levels would~reduce-costs-of...

disposal for many licensees and would also conserve space in disposal facilities

which are otherwise designed for wastes having much higher activities. It is

also believed that establishment of de minimis levels is important in enhancing

-overall stability of a disposal facility, and therefore .in reducing-potential

long-term site maintenance- and-corresponding costs, since de minimis levelswould reduce the volume of Class-A unstable waste.'-,This. would also tend to

reduce'gro'undwater migration impacts, since subsidence-and water infiltration

would be-reduced.-. - .- l. ; : . - : - --- 

Regarding the is'sue'of-setting-de minimis levels.on a generic.or-on a case-bycasenbasis`,--NRC staff still.believes.that the current policy of examining waste

streams'on a case-by-case basis will.,result in the quickest and best results.

It is recognized that setting generic limits may be a desirable goal,.and the

NRC plans to work toward this goal over the next few years. Meanwhile, NRC

staff believes that the process of examining a few specific waste streams will

facilitate the development-of generic requirements and is accelerating-its-

*-efforts :onsetting standards for.disposal of wastes by less restrictive means.

In this regard, NRCrstaff is willing to accept petitions.:for.rulemaking from

licensees-for dec-laring certain waste streams to be of no-regulatory,-concern.

In making such petitions, licensees should-provide-at least the following

information: ;, - . w

o a description of-the process by which the waste is-generated; - . I . ................. . .............................

.-5-45
o a description of the waste generated, including chemical

characteristics;

o* the radionuclide content of the waste, including principal as well

as trace contaminants;

o a description of the potential change in the radionuclide content as

a function of process variations;

o a description of the process control and quality control programs by

which the licensee would ensure compliance.

Waste streams in which the radionuclide content is well known and relatively

nonvariant are generally preferred.

5.4 ADMINISTRATIVE, PROCEDURAL, AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

This section summarizes the principal administrative, procedural, and financial

requirements to be set forth in the final Part 61 rule. The principal administrative and procedural requirements on disposal facility operators are presented first, and are discussed in the context of the expected life cycle of a

typical LLW disposal facility. The financial requirements are then presented.

5.4.1 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 5.1 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. As visualized by NRC staff, 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 a preoperational monitoring

program.

The applicant prepares an application for the land disposal facility following

Subpart B of the Part 61 rule. The applicant also prepares an environmental

report. Of particular importance to this application are the methods by which

the applicant 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 12.101(b)(2) of 10 CFR Part 2. A notice of receipt of the

5-46
Figure 5.1

. ,,I . '

Life Cycle~and Financial Assurances for a.bisposal Facility

Following the Final 10 CFR Part 61 r - - ' . :

Time 'in

years Activity Form of financial'assurance

1-2 yrs'

1-2 yrs:

Site Selection a

Characterization

Licensing Activi

"License issued;

~,is in Active Ope

tion; Waste'Recc

tnd,

ities

Licensee-responsible for' costs"'incuU red

Licensee.responsible for costs incurred

including license fee

20-40 yrsi

Site closure plan including cost estimates

for closure 'is submitted asjpart'of'license

application ' ' -

-.Lease arrangement with long-term care

-, .arrangements for financial~responsibility

between licensee and state.submitted for,

review to NRC for adequacy-,

Licensee obtains adequate short-term sureties

to provide for closure

Site -Short-term sureties:in place for,,closure:

!ra- NRC periodicallyreviews and requires

lived updating to account:for ,changes in inflation,

site conditions, etc.. ,' -- -

'NRC periodically reviews 'revisi6ns t6 lease

arrangements'to ensure that arrangements for

financial responsibilities for'long-term care

are-adequate

. ' Costs-covered from.short-term suretiesj -

*ifnecessary; ;otherwise ,licensee performs

:- 'activities

1-2 yrs

I ;

.. .- : ', . I. :.

.;-c,;Site Closure .anc

'Stabilization t

5-15 yrs

100 yrs

Lease arrangement between site owner and , ,operator for long-term care is-still in

* effect I

Observation and Licensee still responsible for all further

Maintenance costs during this period, with short-term

assurances'still in place :

License Transferred to Terms and conditions of lease'are met, and

Site Owner; "Active eitherstate or-licensee provides funds to

Institutional Control. pay for all required and.necessary'activities

Period" ' of this period ; -

t , , . . f . . . . . .

. . ,: ," -, I '. j , , - -i, ,

.:;-- .547
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

wiedelydistributed. 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 program. The

applicant also responds to informational requests from NRC. Section 61.3 will

require 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 on the

DEIS 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 any specific conditions as required.

States and Indian tribes may participate in the Commission's license review

process. Subpart F of the final 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.

2. Development of public participation mechanisms to be included in the

licensing process.

3. Provision 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.

*The "Director" means the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

5-48
It should be noted that participation. by States and Indian tribes pursuant to

Subpart F of Part61Ais not.through an adjudicatory hearing.' If an adjudicatory

hearing is requested, then 10 CFR Part 2 rules apply.

Many commenters to the draft rule and EIS were concerned regarding the length

of the licensing-process. One way in which.the-licensing process can be.

shortened in time is to conduct activities-inspagrallelp.'where ssca be..

than sequentially.- One such area is 'in'the submittal and evaluation of proposals-by States and Indian tribes for participation in the NRC license'review.

-As proposed in the draft Part 61 rule, a State orb-tribe'would have up to 120

-days after an application was docketedito' submita proposal'for participation.

The time from initial submittal. of,-thelapplication until .it has been docketed

is estimated to be 60 days or more. r-Thus, there is-a potential 'delay of.180'

days between the time NRC would receive a proposal and could begin the serious

consideration of..the.proposal. Until resolution were reached on the~role a

state or tribe would play in the review, the NRC's review of the application

.would be significantly hampered.., -

1 ! , . '';, .- - . . . .:-.. . .. ,: . ' ,.

The Low Level Radioactive.Waste Policy.Act of 1980.clearly states'that it is a

State responsibility to provide for the disposal of low-level waste.' -The Act

also provides for the formation of interstate compacts for this purpose', subject

to Congressional approval. Thus, any application.for adisposal facility.license

will have had State or compact participation and backing for-a significant'period

of time before submittal. During this time,. the Commission believes that the

State will have.had ample opportunity to determine what'.role it wants to play

in the review'of.the application. This:also holds' tru'efor.other states that

-are parties to-anfinterstate compact., Therefore,.the final Part'61'rule will

require that a proposal from the state in which the facility's proposed,,or

from any state involved in a compact with the state must-be submitted within

-15 days after the application has.been tendered.

Although it is to be hoped that'the States will inform Indian tribes'of'plans

for disposal facilities and provide them-with sufficient information to permit

them to make a proposal at an early time,''there is no way-of ensuring this.'-

.Therefore,-Indian tribes and-states not covered above will be given 120 days

from'the tendering of an application to-submit their proposal. ..Itis anticipated that the participation of Indian.tribes, and non-compact states-will.'not

impact the schedule of the licensing process as much and this additional time

can be accommodated. . . : .

The;Commission believes that there should be-sufficient information in the

tendered application on which-to base-a proposal-and that it is not'necessary

to'wait until the.acceptance Treview;is completed and the docketing procedure

.carried out. Review-of proposals:;canibe carried out earlier and'in parallel

with the other reviews. - - . . - - ;. .- ..

A provision has been added to;§61.25.to ensure that State, local, and Indian

officials are'notified of the opportunity for a hearing'for certain',types of

amendments to the disposal facility:license. . . -

In.response to public comments on the draft rule, the requirements in-the final

Subpart F have been specifically worded to ensure that Commission.staff will

be available for discussion with a State or tribal governing body.' A provision

- 5-49
. . 

has also been included in §2.102 to indicate that NRC will inform the U.S. Bureau

of Indian Affairs when tribes have been notified of the filing of an application.

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. The licensee may also apply for amendments to the

license at any time during the operational phase (Section 61.26).

Section 61.25 of the Part 61 will set forth a tiered approach for NRC review

of changes in the disposal facility or operating procedures described in the

license application. Changes important to public health and safety are subject

to Commission review and approval. Changes not important to public health and

safety do not have to have Commission review and approval, but must be provided

to NRC staff for their information.

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 would work toward closure during the entire operational phase so that

disposal site closure would not involve a major task.

Post-closure Observation and Maintenance

Implementation of the closure plan would be followed by a period of post-closure

observation and maintenance on the part of the licensee, in which the licensee's

monitoring and maintenance programs would continue.

This period will normally last 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. Shorter or longer time periods

may be approved by the Commission in connection with the approval of the site

closure plan for a specific site. When the disposal site has reached a stable

condition, the licensee may prepare and submit an application for transfer of

the license to the site owner. 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 of the Part 61 rule, and the Commission

must find that the state'or federal agency responsible for post-closure care

of the site is prepared to assume these responsibilities. As a condition for

assuming these responsibilities, a state may 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 appropriate federal or state

custodial agency to cover their activities during the active institutional

control period (Section 61.30).

5-50
One of.the technical, requirements for transfer ofthe disposal facility title

to the site owner is that the radiation'levels at the surfaces of the disposal

-unit covers.be controlled'to minimize potential'exposures'to'the site owner's,

maintenance personnel. The proposed Part,61 rule stated that the radiation

levels be limited to "a few percentof background." Commenters'on tii'draft

rule questioned the ambiguity of the -requirement,;and some.suggested values

from as low as 1% of background to a' high as 1 mrem/hour (about 5000% of background).;

The rules in section 20.105 of 10 CFR Part 20 contain provisions for permissible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas. NRC staff considers these to

be appropriate for application'at the 'time that'th'e disposdl 'site is transferred tothe site owner for the.period of institutional control. 'Although

access toethe site-will be~controlled to prevent:''inadvertent intrusion and the

.'site could~be viewed as a restricted-area, NRC staff believes that it is not

proper to consider those who do' have access',to 'the site,' such as' caretakers

and site maintenance personnel, as radiation workers who -could receive much

higher :occupational exposures. *Therefore,' the Part 20 unrestricted limits

will be used .for limits toradiatfion levels'.'at the surfaces of disposal units.:

-In practice NRC staff would-expectithat radiation.levels may'easilybe limited

to levels significantly less than the-Part,20 limits.

Institutional Control Period . , '

During the institutional control period, which for purposes of the Part 61 rule

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. During this period, productive'uses of the land.might bepermittedif

those uses do not affect the stability of the site'and its-ability to 'meet the

performance objectives.; As a part of.the license termination requirements,

the licensee.is required to place''reco'rds of..the'disposal2'facility with local,

state, and federal agencies. These. records, along with'.restrictions, on the -.',property deed and trench markers, should help minimizedisturbance 'of the disposal site. These latter mechanisms are those that would continue after the

active institutional control period. At the end of the'ne'cessary institutional

control period, the custodial agency license may.be terminated (Section 61.31).

5.4.2 Financial Assurance'Requirements

-Financial assurance.requirements. for low-level'waste disposal facilities are

needed tohelp ensure the long-term prote'c'tion of.public health and safety'and

'the environment. -Financial assuran'ce.requirements-are.set forth.in Subpart E

of-the,. final :Part 61 rule.', .. . ' ' ' . ,

A review-.by the staff- of;,theoperating experiences at both'hazardouswaste and

,LLW disposal sites reveals that operators of-both~types~of'sites did not adequatelyzplan forclosure'a'd 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"

need to pump trenches and treat trench leachate. In addition, until recently

- 5-51 - 
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 control 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. The costs for short- and long-term

financial assurances have been included as part of the cost for the reference

facility.

Requirements for Short-Term Financial Assurances for Operations, Closure, and

Post-closure 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 post-closure activities at a low-level waste site,

and would be particularly based on a 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. 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 rule requires applicants to provide proof of financial qualifications prior

to the commencement of construction of the disposal facility. Proof of the

5-52
financial qualifications of applicants is not currently-required by Parts 30-.;

and 40. Requiring such-financial qualification in the Part 61 rule will help-.

assure.that resources are'not expended on jrojectsw 'ithout adequate backing',

and should'minimize'the'potential for-early default or the abandonmentofthe . site by the operator.

The NRC has'received strong'public interestconcerning 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.-,Manyicommnenters felt that the.licensee should be held responsible for the full costs

'of closure'of a disposal site,"a d;that the' license shouldtnot be terminated -

and the land returned to custodial government authority until the licensee has

completed satisfactory closure.

Comments on the proposed Part"61 regulation and draft EIS also indicated considerable public concern regarding financing for closure (and for long-term

ca're). "!Commenters mentioned that the-existing'history-of LLW disposal.sites

revealed a strong need to require licensees to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility so that the public health and safety were protected and

also so that potential liabilities do not rest with state taxpayers.'-''

Th`ere'are a variety'of short-term financial assurance mechanisms that could be

used by a low-level waste disposal facility operator tolassure that sufficient

funds are available for closure and post-closure care. Short-term financial

assurance me'chanis'ms 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;

4. Certificates of deposit to a state or federal agency;

S. Cash deposits to a state or federal agency;-

6.' Deposits of securities'to a state-orrfederal 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. '

5-53
1U.

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.

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 mechanisms exist that will provide adequate assurance

of funds for closure and post-closure in the event that the site operator

defaults or unforeseen site conditions require early closure of the site. These

requirements are set forth in section 61.62 of the final Part 61 rule. 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

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 ensure

a high degree of confidence 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.

Some commenters on the proposed Part 61 regulation and draft EIS observed that

at present no commercial market exists to provide surety bonds of the type

required in the Part 61 rule' In drafting the EIS and developing the rule,

NRC staff were well aware that surety bonds of the type required in the rule

may be currently unavailable. The staff included this alternative in the rule

and EIS, however, since it does provide the necessary assurances and may become

available in the insurance market at a later date.

5-54
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 not discussed 'here

would be evaluated and approved by the 'staff on'a case-by-case basis.- Comments

onptherproposed rule and draft EIS reve-aled 'stfrong interest in 'other-financial

mechanisms--particularly in regard t'Iself ''insurance. Several c'ommenters felt

that self-insurance-would 'not satisfy .th&d surety requirements,;`and they recom-

.mended that licensees should berequiied 'to'place specific funds in escrow to

cover costs of decontamination, closure'ei'nd'stabilization. 'Another'commenter

suggested'.that-self-insurance.be based' oiv an annual submittal of financial

reports, i.e., a.financial test. ''' ' ' -

The Commission rejected the use of stand'alone'"self-insurance"-a's a result of

discussions with'state'officials' with pr'ior experience with LLW disposal sites.

They expressed the-need to have tangible funds available'from the licensee for

site closure, so the State as landowner would not be left financially responsible.

While not specifically allowing its use on a generic basis in the rule, the

Commission will evaluate the use of financial tests proposed by licensees on'a

case-by-case. basis.. .

Additional, information regarding criteria by0'which acceptable short-teimnfinancial assurances'will be judged by,.NRC is provided in-'a draft Branch'Technical

Position on'FundingArrangements for.Closure`and for'Long-term'Care'of a LLW

Disposal -Site." (Ref. 9)' - '

Requirements.for Long-Term Financial Assurances fo'r Institutional Control':

Based on areview of the operating history 'at'existing LLW disposal sites the

staff finds'.that financial, responsibility foractive institutional-control

should be established:prior'to issuance of the disposal facility licens'e. 'A

review of the 'history of commercial low-level waste sites'in this country -indicates that there has.been continuing' concern by the public acnd by regulatory

:authorities^'over longrterm'.financial responsibility f6r'low-level waste'disposal

sites. .'.In .additio'.1to6 questions 'over'the'equity'issue's ofwho"pays';for active

institutional.control ov6r.the site, the governmentV'and th'e public-are;:concerned

that funds be.readily available f6r'postoperational activities-to-'ensure that

the'public's health'and safety are continually protected'

'Financial assurancesfor-active institutional control involve the financing of

,any req~uired activities at a'low-level'waste site after transfer "of the'-disposal 'facility..license to':'the sit'e.owner.' These'fundi'ng'a'ssurances would cover surveillance, nmonitoring, 'and any necessary maintenance to ensure that the stability

--and integrity 'of th'e,site are'maintained and'that ther'e 'are-no dis'ruptive'human

activities 'at'the'site for up to' 100 -years. The requirements'do not cover unancticipated contingenciesthat-may~ occur at the site. 'Based 'on' these considerations, the,'Commission staff concluded that re'quireme'nts for financial guarantees

for active.'institutio'nal'control 'should be' included in the 'final-Part 61 -regula-

,t io'n .,,''',,',,''.,''''''''; ;

'Areview''f-the various financial assurince mechanisms commonly;used in'the

commercial'law'area'(see Section 9.3.3 6f Volume 2 of"the draft'EIS) 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

. 5-55
of long-term financial assurance. There are', however, several other alternative

long-term financial assurance mechanisms that can be used for active institutional control at a disposal site. Several criteria were applied in reviewing

the adequacy of alternative financial assurance mechanisms for active institutional control. 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 mechanis'm'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. This lack of authority has been raised before Congress

several times.

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 landown'er 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 of the final

Part 61 rule.

5-56
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 theEIS. The-actual costs of long-term care 'however, will'vary'depending'

upon the'level'of active maintenance required under varying disposal facility,

conditions. 'Long-termm site stability will 'significantly reduce'andpoossibly

eliminate the need for any major maintenance'and'cost over the'long termi.

Additional information'regarding the types bf'long-term financial assurances

that NRC staff would'find acceptable is provided in a'draft Branch Technical`

Position on' Funding Arrangements for Closure and for Long-Term Care of a LLW

'Disposal Site-' (Ref. 9) ' '' '

Cohtingencies " ; ' '

One of the-points raised by commentersion both the proposed Part 61 rule and

the draft EIS was that the proposed regulation failed to'address financial

responsibility for unanticipated contingencies at a LLW disposal site. One

group expressed concern that the regulations set the stage for a "tax-payer

funded bail-out" 'of podrly-run disposal 'sites. They 'felt .the industry should

bear'these'costs; and that thee regulations-should be written to make this'

explicit., Another commenter noted that'the experience of the State'of Kentucky

with Maxey.Flats 'emphasized the importance'of making contingency funds' avail-'

able 'in-the'eventthat'serious'problemis-occur.I They-felt this issue should be

addressed in'the'rulemaking. One State further noted'that the'rule failed to

mention who would be financially responsible ifproblems occur at the site that

cost more'-than werebudgeted-on an assumption of normal operation.' These questions-'cover such a-variety of different scenarios (i.e.-,"Acts of-God, licensee

negligence, etc'.),'that-it;is no't'possible to specifically respond-to-all of

the potential contingencies.' However, ,a general response'to the overall issue

of responsibility for contingencies at'-a low-level'waste'disposal, site is possible."'These comments cover two different time periods: 'the post-closureperiod,'when'the'original licensee 'is still responsible at'the site, and the

institutional control6period, 'when the license has been transferred to the

landowner of the-site for'a period of up'to one hundred years. 'In the case of

the'post-closure care period, the licensee would be responsible for all activities at the site found 'necessary-by the Commission to. protect the'public"health

and safety. Financial responsibility-for'acti'vities 'during the'institutional,-

control 'period are a matter to!.'belworked out',between the site owner (ire.', the

State or Federal'Government)'and the licens'ee in their lease or otherlegally

binding arrangement, and it is possible that'if'the site owner were'a state',

they would work out an arrangement whereby the site operator would collect a

surcharge from waste generators for the institutional control period. The

rights and responsibilities of the state and the licensee would be determined

at such a time.

One issue is the question of who would assume responsibility for a disposal

site and its accompanying waste if it were to be closed prematurely by NRC due

to rule violation. In such a situation it is possible that insufficient funds

will have been collected for care of the site during the institutional control

period. Responsibility for a site closed prematurely by the NRC would depend

on the situation. Additionally, closure would be a last resort of the Commission, since the agency has other authorities besides closure, such as civil

penalties, to require licensee compliance. In the event it would become necessary to close the site for health and safety reasons, the final rule provides

5-57
that the licensee continues to be responsible until the license is terminated.

In-the event that the licensee's financial condition deteriorated so that'he

was unable to maintain the site to protect the health and safety, then the

Commission would probably require the site owner (either the State or Federal

government) to assume responsibility at the site.

Regardless of who assumed responsibility of a prematurely closed site, the

Part 61 rule requires that a licensee have available at all times during the

site life, sufficient financial guarantees to ensure that sufficient funds are

available for site closure and decommissioning. These funds'would be available

for properly closing the site if the original licensee were unable to do so.

In addition, it is apparent that any technical steps taken (such as a stable

waste form or package) to enhance long-term site stability that will reduce

long-term institutional costs, and therefore reduce the amount of funds that

would have to be collected.

Several commenters on the proposed rule and draft EIS believed that the rule

should resolve the issue of financial responsibility for contingencies by.

requiring liability insurance or specific language that licensees would be

required to indemnify property owners in case of off-site'migration. Although

not proposed in the original rule, the staff evaluation of these public comments indicates there is a need for licensees to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility for liability coverage for off-site bodily injury and property damage. The Commission thinks the public health and safety and the

environment will be protected from unanticipated, contingencies by such a

requirement, as well as assisting the States in establishing disposal sites.

Four existing LLW disposal facilities currently carry this type of liability

coverage, and several other State and Federal, agencies, including EPA have

imposed similar requirements for hazardous and radioactive waste disposal

facilities in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment. However, at the present time, the Commission's only statutory framework

for establishing such a requirement is Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act,

also known as the "Price-Anderson" Act. This type of coverage is designed to

cover "catastrophic events" primarily for nuclear reactor licensees, and the

Commission feels this coverage would be in excess of the risk at a low-level

waste facility. Therefore, the Commission has not established a third party

liability requirement in this regulation. The Commission will strongly

encourage licensees to continue to carry third party liability insurance coverage through the conventional insurance market.

5-58
REFERENCES

1. U;S. NRC Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Draft Branch Technical Position

on Waste Form, letter to interested persons from R. E. Browning, Deputy

Director, Division of Waste Management, October 30, 1981.

2. Siefken, D., et. al., Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization:

Branch Technical Position--Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, NUREG-0902,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1982.

3. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, Federal Register, May 24,

1977.

4. Healy, J. W. and J. C. Rodgers, Limits for the Department of Energy

Transuranic Waste, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, LA-UR-79-100,

January 1979.

5. April 28, 1982 Memo from G. W. Roles, Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch,

to R. Dale Smith, Chief, Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, U.S. NRC.

6. U.S. NRC Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Preliminary Draft Branch

Technical Position on Radioactive Waste Classification, letter to

interested persons from R. Dale Smith, Chief, Low-Level Waste Licensing

Branch, March 31, 1982.

7. General Accounting Office, The Problem of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level

Waste: Where Do We Go From Here?, March 31, 1980.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation,

Proposed Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, Federal Register, 47FR9336,

March 4, 1982.

9. U.S. NRC, Draft Technical Position on Funding Assurances for Closure,

Post Closure and Long-Term Care of a Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility,

January 1982.

5-59
Chapter 6.

UNMITIGATED IMPACTS OF FINAL-PART.61 RULE

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter-is to identify, evaluate,"and quantify the effects .-of the final-rulemaking action:._NRC's promulgation of.a.comprehensive regula-

*tion governing the management of low-level radioactive waste'disposal -(10 CFR

Part 61). The environmental consequences or impacts discussed.are' .based on

the final rule as developed in previous chapters and do-not include''considera-

.tion ofjimpacts of alternative versions of-the rule. The consequences discussed are incremental, in some cases, with respect to the.current'regulatory

.framework. ;

B..8oth direct and-indirect'environmental. impacts will occur as.a result ofthe

-final Part 61 rule.. Direct impacts-are discussed first in'this chapter (Section 6.2) and, although. such impacts arereadily identified and evaluated,

they are significantly-different than;the impacts.typically considered:in an

EIS for.a physical project such as a'nuclear power;plant.or ajfuel'fabrication .'.facility. -Because -this'final'EIS is being'prepared-for a.rulemaking'action,

the direct effects of the action doinot 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 considered in Section 6.2 are: ;

o -Waste generators-and~processors;,

o Waste transporters; -

o -Waste disposal facility operators; . - . -

' o Federal agencies and the states, and

o -The public.

.Section,6.3 discusses the indirect.impacts of the finai.Part.61irule.. In this

-section the performance'objectives.and. minimum technical.'requirements of the

rule are applied to four hypothetical.-disposal facility.sites-'located on a

regional basis. 'Through this'analys'is, the'residual or unmitigated impacts

are identified which will occur even with the application of the finail'Part 61

requirements. -By applying these requirements tora.reference facility~design

indanalyzing the benefits and residual im acts,,the readeris provided.with

an estimate of the."real_.world" effects of the rule''in'terms that'are more

reflectiv'e*of a tpical project-specific EIS. ' , ': - '

6.2 .ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES'OCCURRING-DIRECTLY AS A RESULT-OF THE.'.'

FINAL PART 61 RULE ,, .. . - .. '. . -

6.2.1 Impacts on Federal Agences . - .- , - .

A number bf'federal agencies have responsibilities relative to'low-ievel'waste

management. These-agencies 'are':'I NRC, 'the'Environmental Protection Agency

- ..6-1
(EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT)

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The effects of the final Part 61 rule

on these agencies are discussed in the following subsections.

6.2.1.1 Impacts on NRC

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.

Adoption of the final Part 61 rule is not expected to significantly increase

NRC's regulatory expenditures. Although the new requirements should result in

some increased costs and effort, these probable increases in regulatory costs

will be offset by gains in NRC's administrative efficiency. The application

of a comprehensive set of regulations governing LLW-will aid both potential

licensees, the states, the public, and NRC by more'clearly defining respective

responsibilities, requirements, analyses, and determinations. In particular,

NRC would have a uniform set of administrative procedures and performance

requirements to apply in each instance. NRC would also have a set of clearly

enunciated technical performance requirements that would permit more effective

control of the performance and operating procedures of commercial LLW disposal

facilities.

6.2.1.2 Impacts on EPA

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.

At the present time, the overall environmental standards for waste disposal

are in the development process. The fact that EPA's standards in this field

are not currently established required NRC to make a choice with regard to

development of the Part 61 rule: proceed with rulemaking based on interim

standards developed by NRC and coordinated with EPA, or suspend rulemaking

until the EPA standards are formulated. NRC chose the former course of

action.

In'proceeding, NRC consulted with EPA on the performance objectives, minimum

technical criteria,'and other aspects of the rule. EPA comments on the draft

Part 61 rule were considered and for the most part, incorporated into the final

Part 61 rule. In addition, through their comments on the draft Part 61 rule

EPA indicated that NRC's selection for the performance objective for long-term

environmental releases was within the range'of 'values that EPA expects to consider as part of their work to establish overall environmental standards for

waste disposal.. As a result of this coordinated effort, the technical criteria

established in this statement and the rule itself will not impact the ongoing

program of that agency for establishing overall environment standards for waste

disposal. Rather,'the NRC rulemaking effort may in fact advance EPA's efforts

in this regard.

6-2
6.2.1.3 Impacts on DOE

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste generated by government operations and for conducting

research 'into various aspects of radioactive waste disposal. 'Disposal of;LLW

*by'DOE is exempted from'NRC licensing authority and would remain so under-the

final Part 61 rule. Therefore, DOE's'LLW disposal operations would be -

unaffected by the rule and could not come under'its purview without an-amendment to the Energy Reorganization Act'of-:1974.

One impact of the Part 61' rule' on DOE would occur if DOE resumed 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. In 'addition, the Part 61 rule`will help to'provide additional specific

guidance to DOE's programs of'tichnology development and assistance to states

in establishing 'new sites. '

6.2.1.4 Impacts on DOT

Transportation of radioactive materials in the United States is jointly regulated-by the'Department of Transportation (DOT) and NRC.' DOT regulates all

radioactive mate'rials in'interstate commerce while NRC regulates the transportation of'byproduct,"source, and sipecial nuclear material.'!The agencies

continue to'work closely in establishing standards 'and regulating packaging

and other aspects of'radioactive material transport. NRC's existing regulations for transport reflect the requirements'of DOT'and the'situation'will

remain'the same under the final Part 61 rule.' The minimum-requirements for

waste form and packaging under the proposed rule'are in compliance with existing DOT and NRC regulations and thus will not impact the regulatory program of

DOT. The stability waste form requirements for higher'activity wastes 'will

,help improve transportation safety as a byproduct, as will the minimum waste

form requirements intended.to'improve operationalsafety at the disposal

*facilityf.'' Finally, the requirements for'the 'manifesting 'system-established in

the final paragraph' 20.311'are'compatible with the'com-ion manifest'system for

'hazardous wastes currently being'developed'by'EPA and'DOT.

6.2.2 Impacts'on the States- ' I

Promulgation by NRC6of the final Part.61 regulation will-'have impacts'on'the

states in'addition'to these-realized'by' industry and federal agencies."'7These

'impacts'will primarily affect those"states which have entered into agreements

with NRC for regulation of certain radioactive materials--i.e., the Agreement

"States. -: -, l;,, ,, l

Under provisions of 'the' Atomic Energy, Act, the' states' 'and NRC'maintail compatible programs',-which include'specific rules'and regulation's.' Thepromulgation

of 10 CFR Part '61 would mean that the' Agreeement'States would have-to modify

their regulations to include'provisions compatiblenwith thenew NRC regulation.

'This"process of'modificat'ion would involve, at 'a minimum, the following steps:

- reparation of draft regulations to reflect the requirements of the

Part 61 rule;'

6-3
o Review and approval of proposed regulations by NRC; and

o Public review and formal incorporation into state code.

In preparation of this final EIS, NRC has not attempted to quantify the actual

costs which would be incurred by the Agreement States in modification of their

programs. In part, this is because the periodic updating and modification of

Agreement State rules and regulations to maintain a program compatible with

NRC regulations is part of the normal functioning of the Agreement State program. Moreover, the Agreement State programs vary from state to state and the

costs to one state to assure compatibility may not necessarily reflect the

costs to another state.

Another possible source of costs to the states. is'the additional requirements

set out by Part 61 which will need to be enforced. However, many of these

additional requirements will help ensure that future costs over the long term

due to maintenance of a disposal facility are minimized.

6.2.3 Impacts on the Public

Promulgation of the final Part 61 rule by NRC will impact the public most

significantly. The purpose of the rule is to provide improved safeguards for

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 ultimate costs of implementing the rule. In the following paragraphs, the beneficial as well as the adverse impacts of implementing the

Part 61 rule are considered.

6.2.3.1 Beneficial Impacts

The requirements of the Part 61 regulation 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 improve the performance of future LLW disposal facilities and'thereby reduce the hazards of LLW disposal to public health and safety and environmental quality. Although the benefits of the rule's requirements may not be

immediately apparent, the staff believes that in the long term these requirements will improve the stability of both the waste form and the disposal

facility and will lessen the potential for radionuclide migration into the

environment and the need for active long-term maintenance of the facility.

Second, the requirements of the Part 61 rule should assure that near-surface

disposal remains a safe viable option for the disposal of LLW. Therefore, the

public can be assured of the continued availability of goods and services whose

provision results in generation of LLW. Among these goods-and services are

electricity from nuclear power plants, medical diagnostic aids based on nuclear

technology, research into causes and cures of debilitating diseases such as

cancer, and research research into new applications of nuclear technology.

Finally, the Part 61 rule provides public benefits in the form of more explicit

provisions for participation in the licensing process for future LLW disposal

6-4
facilities. Licensing'requirements'and procedures have heretofore been'fragmented and somewhat difficult for interested citizens to fathom. These procedures are consolidated in rule, and expanded provisions for participation by

state and tribal governments are set'out under Subpart F of the rule.

6.2.3.2 Adverse Impacts

The final'Part 61 rule will result in benefits to the public. However, the

staff does not expect that implementation of the rule will be without adverse

public impacts. Three primary impacts are expected to occur.

; 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, thevariables and processes' involved in LLW disposal are sufficiently

complex-that unmitigated impacts cannot be avoided., These may include occupational exposures, migration of radionuclides, and subsequent offsite exposures.

,(Section 6.3 discusses'these unmitigated impacts in more detail.) 'It should

'be noted-'however,'that thes'e-impacts are not-impacts' caused by the rule, but

; ratherimpacts which are considered beyond the capability of the rule to eliminate'entirely.

'Achieving reductions in impactsfrom LLW disposal'will not be'without costs in

an economic sense. Implementing the requirements of the Part'61 rule will

involve costs.to the disposal facility operators, waste transporters, and waste

generators. 'These costs',- of course,' will'be passed-on to the public in.the

form of increased prices for goods and services whose provision involves the

generation' of LLW. It is'not expected that the passing-on of these costs will

,' create an'incremental change to'the consumer, but rather will'-appear. along with

many other costs of'doing business in aggregate price-increases.',These antici-

"pated 'increased'c'osts'can also-be balanced against-the likely costs; which would

be significantly higher,'that could result without'the'promulgation of a uniform

series'of criteria for waste disposal." The current lack ofisuch~a~uniform series

of criteria for'waste''disposal is'believed'by many to significantly contribute

to the current shortage of disposal capacity. ' ' is '

Finally,- implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Part 61 rule

will require the allocatidn of federal 'and'state'resources duringethe opera

tional and'postoperation'alj'p'eriods of a LLW disposal facility. :To the extent

that these public resources are allocated to regulation of LLW disposal, they

are'unaviilable'for other pur'p6s-es.'*-Conversely, to'the extent that the public

incurs this cost, it reduces (within limits) the costs of LLW disposal in terms

of human health hazards and environmental impacts.

6'3' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OCCURRING INDIRECTLY AS A RESULT OF THE

FINAL-PART-61 RULE ! ' ': j

This section discusses the indirect impacts of the final Part 61 regulation.

To estimate these impacts, the performance objectives and minimal technical

'criteria established inl.the fihal'rule are applied to four reference disposal

facilities assumed to be constructed on four hypothetical regional sites.

",Through this analysis, the residual or unmitigated impacts that could occur -even withthe *ve .ih' h . application 'lc ,t.he to of of the-Part ; 61 . requirements . are addressed.

_.6-5
- uThis section is-divided into four subsections as follows. Section 6.3.1 provides a very brief summary of the assumed regional sites, while a description

of the disposal facilities assumed to be constructed at each regional site is

provided in Section 6.3.2. The waste form and packaging options assumed for

the regional case study analysis are also summarized in Section 6.3.2. Section 6.3.3 presents the results of the analysis in terms of radiological

impacts and costs. Section 6.3.4 presents a discussion of other impact

measures such as air quality, land use, and incremental energy use.

6.3.1 Hypothetical Regional Sites

This section presents a very brief review of the four hypothetical regional

sites assumed in this EIS. For the purposes of this final EIS, the conterminous U.S. has been divided into four regions having boundaries based upon the

existing five NRC regions (see Figure 4.1). These are referred to in this EIS

as the northeast region (NRC Region I), the southeast region (NRC Region II),

the midwest region (NRC Region III), and the western region (a combination of

NRC Regions IV and V). Each region is projected to generate from 600,000 to

1,000,000 m3 of LLW between the years 1980 and 2000. (These volumes are given

prior to further waste processing such as compaction.) A disposal facility is

assumed to be located at a hypothetical site within each region. The western

regional site is meant to be representative of the southwestern portion of the

region, and is usually termed the southwest site in this EIS.

Each site has been developed from a number of sources and is meant to be consistent with: (a) the basic disposal facility siting considerations set forth

in the final Part 61 rule, (b) the generic environmental characteristics within

that region. The regional sites are intended to be representative of reasonable

realistic sites--i.e., sites that could be licensed under the Part 61'rule--but

are not intended to represent the "best" sites that could be located within

the regions. Although the regional sites are meant to be typical of the

environmental characteristics within the regions, the sites are not meant to

describe any existing or potentially planned disposal facility, or any specific

location within a particular region.

A detailed description of the regional sites is provided in Appendices E and J

of the draft EIS. Briefly, however, the northeast, southeast, and midwest sites

are located in humid environments. The soils of the northeast site are quite

impermeable while the soils of the southeast and midwest sites are moderately

permeable. The southwest site is located in a semi-arid environment and has

permeable soils.

A short summary of most of the principal site environmental properties used in

the analyses is included as Table 6.1. Table 6.2 contains a summary of the

(dimensionless) retardation coefficients assumed for the soils in the vicinity

of the regional sites, while Table 6.3 contains a summary of the assumed population distributions.

6.3.2 Assumed Regional Disposal Facility Designs and Waste Source Term

This section provides a description of the disposal facilities assumed to be

situated at the four regional sites, as well as the wastes which are assumed

to be disposed in the facilities. The disposal facilities and waste forms

6-6
Table 6.1 Summary of Regional Disposal Facility

Site Environmental Properties

Regional Sites

Environmental property NE SE MW SW

mean average temperature

OC (OF)

I 6%

.--- (460F)

Average wind speed

km/hr.'

I . 7

Average annual precipitation

mm (in)

16.6

- 1,034

(41)

±1/L

(630F)

13

1,168

(46)

(510F)

.L'4LL

(570F)

17 25

777

(30.5)

485

(19)

Average-annual natural percolation'

(PERC) into groundwater system

mm (in)

.74

(2.9)

180

(7.1)

50 1

(2.0) (.04)

Precipitation-evaporation (PE)

of site vicinity

index 136 91 93 21

Average silt context of site

soils (%)

Average cation exchange

capacity (meq/lOOg)

Groundwater travel time (yrs)

Waste to:

- -65

15

50

10

85

12

65

5

0

0

0

0

Water table

Site boundary - Population well : . Surface water body

50

200

2,500

5,000

10

32

400

800

I

23

; 130

2,100

3,800

277

280

580

880

Distance (m)

Waste to:

0

0

0

0o9

Water table % -

Site boundary - _:Population well "

Surface water body

/ 4

30

'- 500

1, 00,0

300

5

30

500

1,000'

4

30

1,250

2,500

84

30

3,000

6,000

Average transportation distance -

to-regionalVfacility (miles)- - 400 >600 1,000

6-7
. . I L'UITable 6.2 Retardation Coefficients

Assumed for Regional

Disposal Facility Sites

Regional Site

Isotope NE SE MW SW

H-3 1 1 1* 1

C-14 10 10 10 10

Fe-55 5,400 2,640 2,640 1,290

Ni-59 3,600 1,750 1,790 860

Ni-63 3,600 1,750 1,750 , 860

Co-60 3,600 1,750 1,750 860

Sr-90 73 36 36 18

Nb-94 10,000 4,640 4,640 2,150

Tc-99 5 4 4 3

I-129 5 4 4 3

Cs-135 720 350 350 173

Cs-137 7,200 350 - 350 173

U-235 7,200 3,520 3,520 1,720

U-238 7,200 3,520 3,520 1,720

Np-237 2,500 1,200 1,200 600

Pu-238 7,200 3,520 3,520 1,720

Pu-239/240 7,200 3,520 3,520 1,720

Pu-241 7,200 3,520 3,520 1,720

Pu-242 7,200 3,520 3,520 1,720

Am-241 2,500 1,200 1,200 600

Am-243 2,500 1,200 1,200 600

Cm-243 2,500 1,200 1,200 600

Cm-244 2,500 1,200 1,200 600

Table 6.3 Population Distributions for the

Regional Disposal Facility Sites

Distance

From Facility Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest

0-5 miles 3,400 2,000 3,100 60

5-10 miles 20,500 8,100 .5,000 180

10-20 miles 73,600 36,000 .27,900 3,500

20-30 miles 121,600 125,000 104,200 9,100

30-40 miles 556,600 203,400 121,900 4,900

40-50 miles 1,012,800 104,900 359,100 27,200

6-8
described are intended to provide an example of potential impacts associated

with disposal of waste according to the minimum requirements of the final

Part 61 regulation. These should not be interpreted as representing the best

or the only designs or waste forms which could be implemented in compliance

with the rule. There may be a number of ways in which the Part 61 requirements

may be met for a specific disposal facility, and compliance-with the Part 61

rule, as well as measures which may be implemented to reduce potential impacts

to levels as low as reasonably achievable,. would be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis. The examples, rather, are intended to illustrate an upper bound range

of impacts from implementation of.the rule, with the expectation that actual

impacts from implementation of the rule'at existing or future disposal facilities would be less.

Assumed Facility Designs,

The design assumptions for the four regional disposal 'facilities are summarized in Table 6.4. As shown, the assumed design cases all involve disposal

in "regular" shallow land burial disposal cells. All disposal cells for the

four regional sites are assumed to be constructed to depths of 8 meters below

the earth's surface. This introduces an'additidnal conservatism regarding

intruder and erosional impacts calculated for the southwest site, since the

great depth to. the-water'table at this' site'would allow construction to much

greater depth than'at the other three sites. All'cases 'assume segregated disposal of waste streams containing organic chemicals as well as unstable Class A

waste streams. Layering is used for Class'C waste.

The principal differences among the four cases lies' in the methods to limit

contact of water with disposed waste and'to minimize long-term maintenance

requirements. 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. Variations in the effectiveness of

the clay caps placed over the disposal cells containing unstable waste streams

are considered for the northeast, southeast, and midwest regional disposal

facilities.

In the southwest site, there is assumed to be considerably less concern

regarding ground-water migration due-to'the'extreme depth of the water table

and the semiarid climate. gIn this case,'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''cbmpacted using improved methods '(e.g., a

vibratory compactor). This.helps to reduce voids within the disposal cell and

therefore reduces the potential for settling and further reduces potential

long-term maintenance costs. -

At the three humid disposal..facility'sites,':an imported permeable (sand or

gravel).backfill is assumed to'be used.to'reduce the'contact time of percolating

water. At the southwest site, theo'riginally excavated material from the site

is used as backfill. ' ''''

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.

6-9
ALE.

-Table 6.4 Design Assumptions for Regional

Disposal Facilities

Northeast

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Regular SLB trench

Use of a thick clay cap

Compaction using improved methods

Segregation of wastes containing organic chemicals

Segregation of unstable Class A waste

Random disposal of waste

Use of a permeable backfill

Layering used for disposal of Class C waste

Humid site having low permeable soils

Southeast

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Regular SLB trench'

Use of a thick clay cap

Compaction using improved methods

Segregation of wastes containing organic chemicals

Segregation of unstable Class A waste

Random disposal of waste

Use of a permeable backfill

Layering used for disposal of Class C waste

Humid site having moderately'permeable soils

Midwest

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Regular SLB trench

Use of a thick clay cap

Compaction using improved methods'

Segregation of wastes containing organic chemicals

Segregation of unstable Class A

Random disposal of waste

Use of a sand backfill

Layering used for disposal of Class C waste

Humid site having moderately permeable soils

Southwest

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Regular SLB trench

Use of a "standard" cap

Compaction using-improved methods

Segregation of wastes containing organic chemicals

Segregation of unstable Class A waste

Random disposal of waste

Backfill with originally excavated soils

Layering used for disposal of Class C waste

Semiarid site having permeable' soils

6-10
Assumed Waste Forms

In the analysis, all Class B and C waste streams are assumed to be stabilized.

A-number of techniques may be potentially used to achieve waste stability,

ranging from solidification to improved waste packaging.--NRC staff expects

that less expensive techniques-will be generally preferred by most licensees.

* For this analysis, waste stabilization isassumed to be for the 'most part

carried out through use.of high integrity containers, and.relatively smaller

volumes are-assumed to be solidified using a binder such as cement or vinyl

ester:styrene.' Inmaking this assumption, it should be emphasized that NRC -staff is in-no way.attempting to-judge therelative-merits or de merits'o'f a

particular waste stabilization technique. Rather, an-attempt is made to-'

represent one method by which licensees generating Class B and C wastes could

use to comply with the stabilization requirement. - --

*:In the analysis, all waste streams are tested for acceptability into the three

disposal classes, and those waste streams (other than -concentrated liquids which

are solidifed) which must be stabilized are assumed to be stabilized using high

integrity containers. -Some waste streams or portions of'waste streams (e.g.,

portions of light water reactor process waste streams) may~,exceed the Part 61

concentration limits for near.surface disposal. These waste streams arethen

assumed to be stabilized through solidification and the resulting concentrations

again tested against the' Part 61 concentration limits. Since solidification

results, compared to internment in-high integrity containers, in a net waste

volume increase, additional portions,of waste streams may be determined to be

acceptable. This results in nearly 90% of the Class B and C waste streams being

stabilized through use of high integrity containers. The remaining 10% are

either already stable due to waste form orare solidified. .

These' potential waste stabilization techniques are assumed to be applied in

the-analysis to-all four regional- disposal facilities generallywithout' consideration of possible additional waste form requirements that could be''implemented at a particular site. An example requirement would be the'prohibition

* of certain types of organic chemicals at a particular humid site. These and

other potential additional requirements.are.conservatively (in terms of.groundwater impacts) ignored-in the analysis.. (An exception to this, 'discussed below,

.,concerns-some variations on.the northeast site case.-) - I -

In the analysis, the volumes of waste projected.to betgenerated in each region - over a 20-year period are processed and delivered to-the-disposal facility.

* .- Compressible waste streams.are.compacted prior to disposal.,. This results in a

range in projected waste volumes'(in.m3) for each region-as follows:, -

Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest.

Prior to Waste, 1.01E+6 1.10E+6 7.74E+5 7.48E+5 -

Processing

After Waste . 6.68E+5 7.45E+5 -5.13E+5 5.05E+5 ' Processing :.

6-11
&U.

In the forthcoming analysis, some small volumes of wastes from each region will

be classified as being unacceptable for near surface disposal.

6.3.3 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 subsections as follows: 6.3.3.1, long-term radiological impacts;'6.3.3.2', short-term radiological impacts; 6.3.3.3, costs;

6.3.3.4, additional considerations; and'6.3.3.5, other impacts (including nonquantifiable impacts such as impacts to biota and cultural resources). Quantifiable impact measures are'summarized on Table 6.5.

6.3.3.1 Long-Term Radiological Impacts

Long-term radiological impacts for the regional case study as summarized in

Table 6.5 include potential individual and'population intruder impacts,

erosional impacts, and groundwater impacts. Individual inadvertent intruder

impacts are calculated'for two scenarios for two time periods (100 and 500

years) following transfer of the disposal facility to-the site owner, and for

three organs: whole body, bone, and thyroid. The intruder-construction

scenario consists of a scenario in-which persons'are assumed to construct a

house on the disposal facility. The intruder-agriculture scenario assumes

that an individual or group of individuals live in the house thus constructed

and consume vegetables grown in a small onsite garden.

As shown, the limiting individual inadvertent intruder impacts appear to be to

the bone. In the analysis, volume-weighted intruder impacts for the northeast,

southeast, and midwest sites run at a few hundred millirem/yr at 100 years and

from 10 to 20 millirem at 500 years-. These impacts calculated at 500 years

would be further reduced if credit were taken at 500 years for the protection

provided by the layered stable waste streams.

The highest individual intruder exposures are estimated to occur at the southwest site. These potential exposures are on the order of 170 mrem to the bone

at 500 years, although such exposures are still about a third of the 500 millirem limit used to formulate the waste classification tables. This increased

exposure is due to the increased silt content of the site soils as well as the

increased wi'nd speed relative to the other three sites. The indicated impacts

are believed to be conservative, however, and possibly overconservative, since

the great depth to the water table allows disposal at much greater depths than

the other three sites. This means that there is even less chance for Class C

and other wastes to be contacted after 500 years. In addition, no credit is

taken in the calculations for improved waste forms to reduce airborne dispersion or plant root uptake, or for waste to be in a recognizable form (as something other than dirt) after 500 years. This is very conservative for the

southwest site since the semiarid nature of the environment would tend to reduce

the rate of decomposition relative to the other three buried sites.

The population intruder impacts are given as impacts to offsite individuals

and populations'-that could result from intrusion at the disposal facility.

Two such radiological impacts are calculated: waterborne and airborne. Both

waterborne and airborne impacts are calculated at 100 years following transfer

of the site license to the site owner. One involves potential exposures to an

6-12
Table 6.5 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis

NE Site SE Site MW Site

low perc.- high perc. Ilow perc.- high perc. low perc. high perc. 3W siTe

I. Long-Term Individual

Exposures (mrem/yr):

Intruder-construction

° 100 yrs''- Body".---- 1.82E+2* 1.97E+2 2.24E+2 1.27E+2

Bone 1.83E+2 2.01E+2 2.28E+2 1.67E+2

Thyroid 1.82E+2 1.97E+2 2.24E+2 1.24E+2

°.500 yrs - Body' 2.39E+0 3.36E+0 3.68E+0 . 1.45E+1

Bone 7.92E+0 1.85E+1 2.16E+1 1.71E+2

.Thyroid 2.15E+0 2.66E+0 2.91E+0 6.76E+0

Intruder-agriculture

10 yrs - Body , 1.95E+2 2.18E+2 2.49E+2 1.38E+2

' . - Bone 2.01E+2 2.23E+2 2.56E+2 1.46E+2

* Thyroid 1.94E+2 2.17E+2 2.47E+2 1.37E+2 , 5005yris' -'Body § 2.87E+0 3.32E+0 3.53E+0 6.03E+0 -Bone 8.19E+0. 1.01E+1 1.04E+1 2.07E+1

Thyroid 8.58E+0 9.87E+0 1.09E+1 9.'96E+0

, Intruder well

- Body ' 7.58E-3 - 9.69E-3 1.27E-2 - 3.28E-2 7.93E-3 - 1.04E-2 3.06E-1

o Bone 7.63E-3 - 1.33E-2 3.15E-2 - 1.04E-1 9.83E-3 - 1.79E-3 2.03E-2

°Thyrbid 4.73E+0 - 5.49E+0 5.02E+0 - 9.38E+0 4.66E+0. - 5.37E+0 7.83E-1

Boundary well

0 Body 6.78E-3 - 8.5-3 3 2.61E-2 - 5.59E-2 7.90E-3 - 1.04E-2 3.84E-3

40 Bone 6.44E-3 - 1.25E-2 3.13E-2 - 1.04E-1 9.65E-3 - 1.75E-2 1.42E-2

o Thyroid 4.29E+O - 4.97E+0 5.02E+0 - 9.38E+0 4.66E+0 - .5.33E+0 7.82E-1

.~~- . .. .

-ac4
Table 6.5 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis (Continued)

F-a4

4P.

NE Site SE Site MW Site

low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. SW site

Population well

o Body'. 3.44E-3 - 8.40E-3 ** 1.48E-4

o Bone 7.06E-3 - 2.31E-2 5.46E-4

o Thyroid 1.59E+O - 2.96E+O ** 3.01E-2

Surface water

o Body 1.50E-4 - 3.76E-4

o Bone 2.90E-4 - 1.02E-3

o Thyroid 7.23E-2 - 1.35E-1 **

II. Other Long-Term Exposures:

Erosion impacts

g Waterborne releases (mrem/yr) Body 8.77E-2 9.94E-2 8.01E-2

Bone- 7.30E-1 8.82E-1 6.64E-1

Thyroid 8.43E-1 1.05E+O 8.17E-1

o Airborne releases (man-mrem/yr)

Body 1.97E+1 -9.92E+O 7.05E+O 5.81E-1

Bone 3.88E+2 1.96E+2 1.38E+2 9.88E+O

Thyroid 1.56E+2 6.82E+1 5.81E+1 2.19E+O

Offsite releases from intrusion

o Waterborne (mrem/yr)

Body 1.28E-2 1.14E-2 2.73E-2

Bone 2.80E-2 2.25E-2 2.73E-2

Thyroid 4.83E-4 4.68E-4 6.11E-4

o Airborne (man-mrem/yr) Body 7.32E-1 2.40E-1 2.85E-1 1.57E-2

Bone 5.92E+O 2.49E+O 2.52E+O 1.72E-1

Thyroid 2.30E-1 9.32E-2. 1.20E-1 4;40E-3
Table 6.5 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis (Continued)

-a

tn

NE Site SE Site MW Site

low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. low prerc. high perc. SW site

III. Short-Term Whole Body

Exposures (man-mrem over 20 yrs):

Occupational

o Process by waste

generator## +1.70E+5 +2.40E+5. +1.70E+5 +1.50E+5

°.Process by regional

process center 1.81E+5 7.25E+4 1.08E+5 9.13E+4

Waste transport 4.70E+6 5.91E+6 4.26E+6 4.48E+6

Waste disposal '2.06E+6 2.58E+6 1.73E+6 i 1.66E+6

To popul ati on,!; .; .

Process by waste!

generatorein +1.26E+2 +1. 51E+2 +1.23E+2 +5.83E+1

-°Process-by regional - . ---- ;

'process center, 0. 0. 0. 0. .° Waste transport -,,..j3.79E+5 5.86E+5 6.07E+5 1.07E+6

IV. Costs ( total'$ ove'r 20 yrs):

Waste generation and transport

o Process by waste

generator## +2.2D0E+7 +2.90E+7 +2.10E+7 +1.60E+7

o Process'by regional

process center 5.29E+7 2.1OE+7 3.14E+7 2.66E+7

o Waste transport 1.22E+8 2.04E+8 2.01E+8 3.'05E+8

Waste disposal

o Design & op. 3.51E+8 3.54E+8 3.42E+8 3.29E+8 O Postoperational

Closure ' ,3.-87E+6 3.'87E+6 '3.87E+6 3.87E+6

Obs. & maint. 1.13E+6 - 1.42E+6 1.14E+6 - 1.43E+6 1.11E+6- 1.39E+6 5.86E+5

In'stC''Control 1:57E+7 '-'3;86E+7'' ''1.57E+7 - 3.06E+7 1.54E+7'-' 2.96E+7 9.32E+6

Total post op. 2.07E+7 - 4.38E+7 2.07E+7 - 3.59E+7 2.04E+7 - 3.49E+7 1.38E+7

o Total disp. cost 3.72E+8 - 3.95E+8 3.75E+8 - 3.90E+8 - 3.62E+8 -- 3.77E48 3.43E+8

0 Unit cost ($/m3) 5.70E+2 -. 6.06E+2 5.03E+2 - 5.24E+2 7.06E+2 - 7.34E+2 6.79E+2
Table 6.5 Summary of Quantifiable Impact Measures for Regional Analysis (Continued)

NE Site SE Site MW Site

low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. low perc. high perc. 'Wste

V. Waste Volume (m3 ):

Volume acceptable

v Class.A unstable 4.25E+5 4.72E+5 3.12E+5 3.25E+5

o Class A stable 1.56E+5 1.73E+5 1.27E+5 1.28E+5

o Class B 6.76E+4 6.70E+4 5.33E+4 3.26E+4

o Class C 3.26E+3 4.34E+3 2.97E+3 2.18E+3

o Total volume

acceptable 6.52E+5 7.17E+5 4.95E+5 4.88E+5

Volume not acceptable 1.69E+4 2.80E+4 1.82E+4 1.67E+4

*The notation 1.Q2E+2 means 1.82x102. '*,ess than 1.x1O 6 millirem/year. **AImpacts at the surface water body are not given for the southwest site due to the intermittent nature of the

nearest stream to the site and the extreme depth to groundwater at the site.

#Imoacts due-to waterborne releases from human intrusion and erosion are not given for the southwest site due

to the-semiarid environmental conditions and the intermittent nature of the nearest stream to the site.

.#%ln thtis EIS, population exposures due to waste processing by waste generators, occupational exposures due to

'w~ste. prQcessitg by waste generators, and costs. due to waste processing by waste generators are presented as ibtts' and. cohts in addition to those associated with a no action case (i.e., continuance of current disposal *praei4es '

'0

I
I fi - "

individual resulting from precipitating water washing exposed contaminated soil

down to a nearby surface stream. Contaminated water is then assumed to be used

by an individual (i.e., comsuption, watering crops and livestock, and so forth).

As shown, such offsite waterborne impacts for the three humid sites are very

low; the highest calculated'impacts are on the order of 0.03 mrem/yr to the

bone. 'Such waterborne impacts are'not-given for the southwest site. iThis is

due to the semiarid nature of the site-and also because the nearest "stream"

to the site is ephemeral, and only contains water during periods of

precipitation.-

The other radiological impact calculated results from airborne dispersion of

the exposed waste/soil mixture to the surrounding environment. Impacts are

calculated as total impacts-(in man-millrem) to the projected population out

-'*to a 50-mile radius.

Opposite to the impacts calculated to the potential inadvertent individual

intruder, the intruder'airborne population impacts at the southwest site run

at better'than an order of magnitude'less than those calculated for the other

'three sites. This is principally due to the low population density in the

environs of the southwest site.

In the;same manner, potential erosional impacts are calculated as impacts to

the surrounding population for airborne releases and as impacts to an individual for waterborne releases. These are calculated at a time period equal to

*2,000 years following facility closure for the 3 humid sites'and at 1,000 years

following-Tfacility 'closure for the'-southwest site. In addition,-the entire

disposal'facility is assumed to be affected. (All of the disposal cell covers

are'assumed'to be removed by theierosiofial'forces.)'-It is.worth emphasizing

'that disposal facilities'would-besited, designed, and operated under the

'Part'61 regulation-so that erosional problems would be avoided. !Thus, the calculated'erosional impacts representa rather'improbable upper bound of potenttial 'iimpacts.

!t A- v -' ' -! ' i 1 , '., ,,. , ' ,, , ; ; , *I

At any rate, compared to the offsite exposures calculated from intrusion,

erosion impacts-exhibit "a'reversal.', Waterborne impacts are much greater than

those calculated 'from intrusion'while airborne impacts are significantly less.

Apparently, the long lived nuclides remaining in the disposal facility are more

of an ingestion hazard (e.g., C-14, I-129) than an inhalation hazard (e.g.,

Pu-239). ' '

:Potential impacts from groundwater migration-are-listed-for three different

; 'organs (whole body,'bone, and thyroid) for four different biota access'locations (see Table 6.1).: These include:

1. A well (intrudertwell) located on the disposal facility and potentially used by an inadvertent intruder, following the end of the

100-year institutional control period; -

2. A well (boundary well) located at the site boundary which is assumed

to be used by 'a few individuals; -

3.' A well (population well) assumed to be located down-gradient from

the disposal facility and used by a small population of about 100

persons; and

':'-6-17
4. A small stream (surface water access) located down-gradient of the

disposal facility and assumed to be used by a small population of'

about 300 persons.

The analysis also considers the effect of varying the percolation rate into

the disposed unstable waste streams. This is accomplished by assuming (for purposes

of groundwater impacts) that for the low percolation case the improved disposal

cell covers over the unstable waste disposal cells-are reasonably effective.

For the high percolation case, the disposal cell covers over the unstable waste

disposal cells are assumed to function no better than a standard "thin" disposal

cell cover composed of locally available soil.

The southwest site is somewhat of a different case.. A water balance calculation for the site indicated that due to the low rainfall and high evapotranspiration, essentially no precipitation falling upon the site reaches the underlying aquifer. For completeness in this analysis, however, a percolation.

coefficient of 1 mm is conservatively assumed. for the site. Given the arid

nature of the site, there is assumed to be no attempt to emplace improved disposal cell covers at the site. This results in maximum impacts for this case.

In addition, exposures at the surface water body access location are not calculated. The closest water body downgradient 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.

As shown in Table 6.5, the highest exposures due to ground-water migration are

to the thyroid, although in all cases the performance objectives as set out in

Chapter 5 for inadvertent intrusion and ground-water migration are met. The

estimated impacts reflect the 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 disposal facilities considered (northeast, southeast, and

midwest), reasonably comparable impacts are estimated at the intruder well and

the boundary well. For the intruder well, the highest exposures to whole body

and bone occur at the southeast site. Intruder well exposures to thyroid are

similar among the three humid sites, with the highest exposures occurring at

the southeast site. For the boundary well, the highest exposures are again

estimated for the southeast site.

Of the three humid regional sites, the southeast is assumed to experience the

largest percolation component (PERC) as well as the quickest ground-water travel

times to biota access locations. In addition, the midwest and southeastsite

soils are assumed to have moderate retardation capabilities (NRET=3) while the

retardation capability of the northeast site. soil is higher (NRET=4). The

influence of these factors is clearly seen in calculated exposures for the population well and the surface water body. The highest estimated population well

and surface water body exposures occur at the southeast site. Population well

and surface water exposures for the northeast and midwest sites are less than

10-6 millirem/yr over 10,000years following disposal facility closure.

Also of interest is the relatively small range of calculated impacts for the

two percolation cases calculated for the southeast and midwest sites. This

confirms that most of the activity that could contribute to groundwater migration is contained in the stabilized waste streams. The effect of increased

6-18
percolation into the unstable waste streams has a relatively minor effect on

the overall impacts.

Additional care needs to be taken in interpreting the results for the northeast

case. The groundwater impacts for the low percolation case are believed to be

reasonable, since'for this case,'all waste streams have been placed into a stable , form prior.to disposal. For the 'high' percolation case,, reduced effectiveness

is assumed for disposal cell covers over the unstable waste disposal cells.

Due to the impermeable nature of the Inortheast site soils, it is possible that

'percolation into the disposal cells might exceed the rate of transfer out of

'the bottom of the disposal cells.''In such a case,'it is possible that the disposal cells containing unstable waste could accumulate water and fill up like

a bathtub. This could lead further to overflow of the disposal cells.

Leachateaccumulation impacts are, therefore, approximated for the northeast

site'in the'following manner. First, waterborne impacts are calculated assuming

that 425,000 gallons of leachate annually overflow the unstable waste disposal

'cells. This'overflow 'is assumed to be carried to a nearby stream where contaminated water'is'consumned by an individual. 'The impacts'to'the surrounding population from'processing the'leachate'through an' evapo6rator are also calculated.

The results of this calculation are as follows:

Body - Bone Thyroid

Individual dose from disposal 6.64E+1-'' ' 1.14E+2 4.37E+1

cell overflow (mrem/yr)

Population dose from leachate .,- '

treatment (man-millirem/yr) 1.98E+2-.. ; 7.40E-1, 1.98E+2

6.3.3.2 Short-Term Radiological Impacts' ' ' '" '

Short-term radiological impacts are summarized in'Table 6.5. ''Included in this

table are' (1) 'potential impacts to populations (in man-m'rem )from transporting

waste to the'regional facilities, (2) potential-occupational impacts'(in manmrem) associated with'processing,'transporting, and'disposing of waste-within

the region, and (3) potential impacts from incinerating small volumes of waste

at the waste generator's f aciI'i-ti'es'."-

As'shown, transportation'impacts over .20'ye'ars 'range-from 'about 380 to 1,070

man-rens, or about 19 to 54 mafn-emsper'year. -'Of'interest'is-the'narrow range

of impacts'-for thiethree humid-sites compared'to'the higher (about double)

impacts calculated for the southwest. "The-:higher estimated impacts are'due to

.the greater transportation distance for the western region as compared to the

otherthree regions (1,000,mile 7vs.'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

associatedwith-a "no'action"'situation.' -That is,'these exposures are presented

6-19
as incremental exposures to those that would be received if existing disposal

practices and disposal facility license conditions were continued.

Also included are the occupational exposures that are estimated to be associated with operation of. regional processing centers. This waste processing is

assumed to consist of compaction of compressible waste streams by large

compactor/shredders. This is possibly not a cost effective operation at this

time but may possibly be so in the future.

Some small levels of population impacts from incineration of waste is included

in the regional analysis.

6.3.3.3 Costs

Costs, including waste processing, transport, and disposal costs are listed in

Table 6.5. Similarly to occupational exposures, costs due to'processing the

waste by the waste generator are presented as additional costs to those associated with a continuation of existing disposal'facility disposal practices and

license conditions. These costs consist of costs for additional waste

stabilization.

Waste transportation costs range from about $120 to $300 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.

The effects of the Part 61 regulation on transportation costs is expected to

be low.

Waste disposal costs are set out into design and'operational costs and postoperational costs, where-postoperational 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 largest total design and operational-costs are for the northeast

and southeast sites, due to the larger volumes of waste delivered to these two

sites. The southwest- site is projected to experience a low level of postoperational costs, due to the semiarid nature of the site.

Postoperational costs for the northeast, southeast, and midwest sites are presented in Table 6.5 as a range from a reasonable to a worst case, corresponding

to the variation in percolation-into the disposed unstable waste streams. A

low level of postoperational costs is projected'for the stable waste streams.

A moderate (reasonable case) to high (worst case) level'of postoperational costs,

however, is assumed for the unstable waste streams.

The presentation of the worst case here is believed to be conservative, since

it discounts the improvements in disposal facility operations implemented which

would help to reduce water percolation into contact with the unstable waste

streams. It also discounts the increased use of compaction for the compressible

waste streams. Such compaction would tend to' retard the rate of subsidence

and slumping associated with the unstable waste disposal cells.

6-20
Unit costs are seen to vary widely depending upon the assumed design'and operat-

*ing practices carried out at 'the particular dispciial 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 the southeast'facility,' while "the design and 'operational costs'are only

slightly less. .This is because capital costs to construct the disposal'facility

Pare 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.

P 6.3.3.4 Additional 'Considerations ' '''''1

Given the possibility for leachate accumulation at the northeast site', it is

well to consider if there are additional options which'may be implemented at

the' site to eliminate the p6ssibility of leachate accumulation by' increasing

the stability of thel'unstable'waste streams. One'option could be to stabilize

all of the now unstable waste streams prior to disposal. For example, compressiblewaste streams could'be-incinerated and the ashes solidified prior to disposal.' Costs for this'option, however,' would run"ton'the order o'f $927/r3

($26.25/ft3).' Another option may be to emplace all unstable was'te streams with-

'in a container providing structural support. The only such 'containers'currently

available and 'marketed are high'integrity containers which ared'estimated'in

thisEIS to`cost on the order of '$450/m3. '"At the time the'above'high integrity

container unit cost estimates were developed, however, there was only one' company

marketing high'integrity'containers." Since that' time,'additional companies

are marketing'high integrity containers. It may very well be that given business

competition and future manufacturing savings, future costs for high integrity

containe'rs(or some equivalent container providing' 'structural support) may be

significantly reduced. '

Another option might be to provide stability through variations'in disposal . facility design"and operation--e;g., through such possible techniques as'grouted

vdisposal, 'disposal into grouted~concrete-walled trenches,- or extreme compaction.

Such possible techniques would have to be developed'and tested'for a specific

disposal facility, since past experience regarding these techniques at low level

waste disposal facilities-has ranged-from occasional to none.',`

One example, however, might-be to'stack waste packages containing'unstable waste

into disposal cells and then grout'the'intersticial'spaces between waste'packages.

-This' is projected'to raise total'disposal'facility design and operating costs

to $385 million over 20 years, or'_about $34'million'higher than'the'cases presented for the northeast'site in 'Table 6.5. Assuming that these additional costs

are only applied to'the'unstablewaste'streams, unit design and operating costs

for unstable waste disposal would run at'about $616 perim3 of unstable'waste

disposed:' This is $81/mr3 higher-than' similar costs for-unstable-waste disposal

-! forthe case presented in Table 6.5.'- Total postoperational'costs (to be

collected from disposaY'facility customers)'would be-expected to be'reduced,

however, to levels'on'the' order of $13.8 million.`'

Occupational exposures at the disposal facility would be increased. The additional steps of stacking and grouting unstable waste packages are projected to

6-21
result in additional occupational exposures (compared to the case listed in.

Table 6.5) of 1.18E+6 man-millirem over 20 years, or about 59 man-rems per year.

6.3.3.5 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 particulates, sulphur

dioxide, C02, CO, various hydrocarbons, and various nitrogen oxides.

It is believed that implementation of the Part 61 regulation would have a relatively slight effect 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 generators 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,

combustion of fossil fuels and earth-moving activities are not unique to the

fact that it is a disposal facility. Similar types of impacts can and would

be raised by many other types of small industrial concerns.

Since the Part 61 regulation emphasizes increased disposal facility stability,

somewhat additional air quality impacts could result during the operating life

of the disposal facility. That is, additional personnel may be needed as well

as additional equipment to segregate waste, carry out improved compaction techniques, install improved disposal cell covers, and so-forth. 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 the facility in a more

stable condition during site operations reduces the maintenance that would be

required after closure and during the institutional control period. Since less

maintenance would be required, lower longer term nonradiological air quality

impacts would result.

6-22
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. Such impacts would

again not be-caused by-the.fact that the facility is used for waste disposal,

,-.but arise-from the decision to change the-land from.one use to another.. Similar

typesof-impacts.wouldresultfrom other uses of the land which involve heavy

construction. ;.These could include, for example, clearing the'land for a small

industrial concern, azschool,.:a farm, and .so forth.

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

-1fauna.-These regulations and laws would be-considered during.licensing of a

disposal facility whether or not the. Part. 61. regulation-is implemented.

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. That is,

at thbe-nd-of-operation-of the.facility it may be decontaminated,-if necessary,

and used for another purpose. At an LLW disposal facility, however, possible

future usieof the facility-after-it has closed is.greatly influenced and somewhat circumscribed by the presence'of the disposed waste.d This does not mean

that'land used for-LLW 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-thedisposed 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-grazing,.golf

courses, recreational areas, or light industry.

; Notwithstanding this, however, it is useful to consider the amount of-land that

would be committed to LLW disposal over the next 20 years. It is difficult to

assess.the influence of the Part 61 regulation on this land use'. ,Depeuding

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. Land use for-each of the regions

is shown below:

M2 x 105

(acres)

Land Use Northeast Southeast Midwest' Southwest

2.26 2.49 1.72 1.69

(56.0) (61.5) (42.5) * (41.8)

6-23
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 terms of

LLW management and disposal,' this would be a difficult project given the large

nurmber of waste generators, the many different types and forms of LLW, and the

many possible processing techniques: that could be used. -As a simplification,

then, an effort has'been made to estimate the increase in energy use due to

the promulgation of the'final Part 61 rule. This is still realized as a difficult task given the recent'increase in the level of waste processing activities carried out by waste generators.' In addition, there may be a-number of

ways in which the Part 61 requirements may be met and there are considerable

uncertainties regarding the energy use associated with various technologies,

etc.

In any case,'approximate estimates can be made using the regional analysis as

a guide. The'estimated increase'in energy use due to the Part 61 regulation

(over that associated with a no action case) is listed below in gallons of

equivalent fuel for each region for the range of postoperational activities

projected:

(gal x 106)

Northeast Southeast Midwest'. Southwest

+0.83-+0.96 +1.11-+1.31 +0.90-+1.00 +0.66

Social Impacts

In general, social impacts due to promulgation of the final Part 61 regulation

are difficult to'address. These'impacts are very site-specific and would include

such aspects as the effect of bringingsa labor'force into an area on local utilities, schools, and other services. These types of impacts are 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'final Part 61 regulation is not

expected to result in any significant incremental changes in social impacts

associated with operation of LLW disposal facilities.

GUt.LGOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:19S2 381-297/2494 1-3

6-24
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER [AsSigV~dby DDCJ

* BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0945, Vol. 1

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE [Add Volume No.. f appropnate) 2. ILeave blank)

Final Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61:

"Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

Waste" Vol. 1: Summary and Main Report

7. AUTHORtSI 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

NRC Staff MONTH May |YEAR 1982

3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include Zip Code) DATE REPORT ISSUED

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Manage- MONTH N YEAR

ment, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nov. 1982

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 6. (Leave blank)

8. (Leave blank)

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include Zip Code) 10. PROJECTITASKIWORK UNIT NO.

Same as item 9. 11. CONTRACT NO.

13. TYPE OF REPORT PERIOD COVERED Inclusive datesJ

Final Environmental Impact Statement

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 (Leave olankj

16. ABSTRACT 1200 words or less)

The three-volume final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is prepared to guide and

support publication of a final regulation, 10 CFR Part 61, for the land disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste. The FEIS is prepared in response to public comments received

on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the proposed Part 61 regulation.

The DEIS was published in September 1981 as NUREG-0782. Public comments received on the

proposed Part 61 regulation separate from the DEIS are also considered in the FEIS. The

FEIS is not a rewritten version of the DEIS, which contains an exhaustive and detailed

analysis of alternatives, but rather references the DEIS and presents the final decision

bases and conclusions (costs and impacts) which are reflected in the Part 61 requirements.

Four cases are specifically considered in the FEIS representing the following: past

disposal practice, existing disposal practice, Part 61 requirements, and an upper bound

example.

7. KEY WORUS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17a 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

7b. IDENTIFIERS.OPENENJVED TERMIS

8 AVAILABILITY SMATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS ITr"' feport 2 -O. oF PAGLS

Unclassified 201

Unlimited 20 SECURITY (X AsS Irhyseavel 212 PRiCE

Unclassified s