NUREG-0945

Vol. 2

I

Final,

En'vironmental Impact Statement

on 10 CFR Part. 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste"'

Appendices A-B

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' . .-

Commission

Office, of Nuclear Material'Safety and Safegu'ards

November 1982

m

. , i . - , ., , .

I . .. . i I - . : - . , I . , f, ". I I

- i

Reprinted January 1986
f I I

NOTICE

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082,

Washington, DC 20013-7082

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

Although. the listing that follows represents the majorityof documents cited in NRC publications,

it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection

and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information' notices, inspection and investigation notices;

Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and

licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales

Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and

NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of

Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series

reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic

Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items,

such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. federal Register notices, federal and

state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference

proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request

to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process

are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available

there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be

purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the

American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
NUREG-0945

Vol. 2

Final

Environmenu Impact Statement

on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste"

Appendices A-B

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 FETS 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'Us'ed for

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

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

iii
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 uises 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.

v
a. -.

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

vi
Dames 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 1. Oztunali.

OPTIONR & GRWATRR Codes

Oktay I. Oztunali

C. Joseph Pitt

Input on 1-129 & C-14

Oktay I. Oztunali

Leslie Skoski

Kim D. Petschek

vii
APPENDIX A

STAFF ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR PART 61
APPENDIX A

STAFF ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR PART 61

The draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 10 CFR 61 was issued

in September 1981 as NUREG-0782. The public comment period for the DEIS 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 DEIS but were limited instead to comments on 10 CFR 61.

In this appendix the staff has assembled and organized the comments

received and the staff's responses to them. The comment letters and staff

responses have been placed in order of receipt by reference to the docket

number assigned to each letter. Each letter was reviewed by the staff to

identify items which required a response for clarification, additional information, etc. Each such item was bracketed in the margin of the letter and

assigned a number. Therefore, response items are identified by their item

number within the letter and the docketed comment number of the letter: e.g.,

Item 6, Comment 25.

Response items were assigned to appropriate staff members for preparation

and were then organized for each specific comment letter. In the pages that

follow, each docketed comment letter is reproduced in its entirety and adjoining each letter are the staff's responses to specific items within the letter.

(The 8 letters mentioned earlier which do not comment upon the DEIS have not

been reproduced in this appendix. However, they were considered by the staff

in the rulemaking and are available for public review at the NRC, Public

Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. and are included in

the analysis of rule comments in Appendix B.)

A-1
I

APPENDIX A

LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DEIS

Docketed Comment

Number Commenter

1 State of New Jersey

2 State of Georgia

3 Department of Housing and Urban Development

4 State of Hawaii

5 State of Missouri

6 State of South Dakota

7 State of New Jersey

8 Georgia Institute of Technology

9 Stock Equipment Company

10 State of Rhode Island

11 Argonne National Laboratory

12 Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program

13 State of Delaware

14 State of North Dakota

15 US Department of Health & Human Services

16 Arizona State Clearinghouse

17 State of Iowa

18 Minnesota Department of Economic Development

19 State of Oregon

20 Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

21 Northeast Utilities

22 Township of Lower Alloways Creek

23 General Electric'

24 Amy Hubbard

25 Los Alamos National Laboratory

26 State of California

27 Duke Power Company

28 Arkansas Power and Light

A-2
Docketed Comment

Number Commenter

: ' ,29

30

.. 31

, 32

33

.34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Stone and Webster

Health Physics Society

Betty Johnson

Atomic Industrial Forum

U.S. Ecology

State of Washington

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Conference of Radiation Control Program

..'Directors

(Not assigned)

New England Nuclear

New York State.Department of Environmental

Conservation

Commonwealth of Virginia

U.S. Department of the Interior

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group

Tennessee Valley Authority,

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.

Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.

State of New Mexico

Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory

-Council

Texas Department of Water Resources

Virgn'ia Electric and Power Company

Argonne National Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

'48

49

50

51

A-3
_ P s~ ,; LI FC STATEi OFNEWJERSEY '81 NY-9 P2.53 GSV A l A U rTS DEpARXs4. r Cf CoM:4UNltY AFFAIRS , wEST sMAl STI tn tt- Oiom D t or R, rIA G ; S E *Tox ;R . C4 5"

llovember 2, 1jjaXB -G& Sfik rVCE Kr. S. kl; Sec. of the Cc~assion BACJ Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch.

DiS. of Wastc S gut. Offica of Nucltar CteroZisiT Sf.ty od SWateguard, Nuclcer Regul'torR Cossio t i PR- 61 Washington, D.C. 20555 (46 FR 7,

RE: State Application Identifier Number NJ8111021968 Draft Eviroamcdtih Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61 "Liczasing Require- maccts for Land Disposal of Radioactive Dear Mr. Chilk: Waste"

The New Jersey State Clearinghouse has received and is processing your Project Notifi- cation as required by the provisions of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 Revised and Chapter 85. New Jersey Laws of 1944. This project has been assigned the State Application Identifier Number 11381U021968.

Effective with the date of this letter, the Clearinghouse has assigned a 30 day review period, which is consistrnt with our Internal procedures and Federal regulations relevant to

your program. The appropriate review agencies have been requested to comment on your application, and the Clearinghouse will perform its own review. If comments are received and any conflicts or issues arise, the Clearinghouse will notify you. It may be necessary to request additional information and/or schedule a'conference in order to resolve any issues prior to clearance. Otherwise, you are cleared at the end of the review period to forward

your final applicution to the Federal funding agency, accompanied by a copy of this letter. As an applicant, it is your responsibility to include any comments with your final application submission to the Federal agency.

If you encounter any problems or have any questions, at any time during the review

process, please refer to the enclosed brochure for information, contact people. and elephone numbers.

Very truly yours,

Scare Revi 'ood ator scLate Re

A~ttacismazc

NO4P is extremely inportcnt that you put your Stare Application Identifier Number on all forms and correspondence (especially SUMMARY FORM 424J, prior to final submission to the Federal funding agency.

81til90540 811102 PDfR PR M:i/ 61 4,6FR31776 PD P t

N- V JERSEY IS AN EQUAL OePOTUNITY EMCLOYER

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COhMUHITY AFFAIRS

.12ORANDUN

TO ADolicanr

FRON New Jersev State ClearintSouse DATE October, 1981

SUBJECT Rerional Review

as a result of budgetary conscrainsc, the Delaware Valley Reginal Planning Cocmission (DVRPC) has beet.forced'to reduce its

review activities as mandated by Federal A-95 Project Nlotification

and xeview System requirements. In order to insure that the regional perspective coniOnUes to be represented, the New Jersey Scate Clearitg- house has assumed the respo sibility of circulating applications to the cCnty planning board baviLng jurisdiction. A copy of this applica- tion bas been sent to the appropriate county planning board for its review.

fla -n.a, 

.2 2??C?2.? A fl*a.a..ALa .. a -. - ---- ,. .r-r2t,-??r.,--.---ttsr-.mr.r=r -. ,,r¶r-,.rThw-ttt †thflS- A2WU .2.22w2.A? .,.,a

- - --- -- -.

--- s. __________ =-__ - . F....... --

= C .% = = = = .' ru .,

_______________________________________________________ -.-.

- -

- ; s,,;'; "k. --; 1 -', .. '.. - ;tA s... r

A-4
Docketed Comment Number: 1

Commenter: State of New Jersey. Department of Community Affairs, Division of

Planning

Responses(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

A-5
. -- ' 

9

Office of 'Planning anb 2ubset

CA* T. SW""..

G E O R G I A S T A T E C L E A R IN G H O U SE E N O R A N D U M

TO: Dale Smith. Chief

Low Level Waste Licensing Branch

Divison of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washing n, D C 20555

FROS: C. d w nistrator

mrgia State Clearinghouse

Office of Planning and Budget

Docketed Comment Number: 2

Commenter: State of Georgia, Office of Planning and Budget, Executive

Department

Response(s): Item 1 - The State notes its opposition '... to any disposal

program that could impact Its resources.. u The proposed 10 CFR Part 61 and

its supportive Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-07S2) do not constitute a

disposal program. but rather a comprehensive set of regulations to be applied

to the land disposal of radioactive waste. NRC will not be acting as a

proponent or supporter of any specific waste disposal site or sites, but will

review and take licensing action on any disposal facility application brought

to it by commercial entities, individual states or regional compacts of states.

Moreover, the siting requirements in 5 61.50 of 10 CFR Part 61 require avoidance

of areas having known natrual resources which, if exploited, would result in

failure of the site to meet the performance objectives.

DATE: November 6, 1981

SUBJECT: RESULTS OF STATE LEVEL REVIEN

Applicant: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Project: Draft EIS on 10 CFB 61 'Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radio eiv Mas

State Application r entatser: CA 81-lD-14-004/NUREG - 0782

The State of Qeorgia is pleased to review this document and to sea what administrative

and procedural requirements are being proposed for licensing a facility for the land

diSposel of radioactive waste. However, the *tate is opposed to any disposal program

that could impact its resources such as bedrock storage. This document as presented j ./

addresses two phaaes of land disposal: 1) Short-term operational and 2) Long-term

operational also known as after operations phase. In either phase, the concern is the

protection of the environment, and the health and safety of the public. The proposed

regulations, eg. financial technical, and safety considerations. Some parts of this

rulemaking would serve to strengthen EPD rules and regulations involving disposal Cc

radioactive waste. The State urges KRd and other federal agencies to continue and take

a lead role in trying to resolve the waste dilemnas confronting our state and society.

The State will continue to work with other agencies towards improving waste management.

The following State agenices have been offered the opportubity to review and comment

on this project: DNB/RPD

OPB/Physical and Ec. Dev.

CHB/lr

cc: Jim Benson, 7PD

270 )s$ypw Jik. .9. sa. M-.1s 0mi 31034 4.NCC

A-6
.. IN v,,

REGION Vill

DEPARTUENT OF HOUSING AND UPBAN DEVELOPMENT

REGIONALIARIA OFFICE

EXECUTIVE 1OWtR . 14*0 CURTIS StTOIT

DENVER. COLORADO 8020

November 10; 481Efl0 27 A10:31

.... .

Docketed Comment Number: 3

1N #PfLY MIOfP TO;

8SOO-590d

\ SERV:CE BRNACH

Low Level a e Licensing Branch

office of Iluc ar Material , ,1

Safety and Sa guards (4I Fr .f

Nuclear Regulato Coommission

Washington, D.C. 52 5

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the opport ity to review apd comment on the Draft

En ironrental Impact Stat nt (EIS) on 10 CFR Part 61. 'Licensing

Re 1irements for Land Dispos 1 of Radioactive Waste."

your draft has been reviewed ih specific consideration for the areas of

responsibility assigned to the 0eartment of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD). This review considered the roposal's compatibility with local and

regional comprehensive planning and mpacts on urbanized areas. Since

this Draft EIS did not attempt to ad $ss site-specific locations for

disposal, we would request that impact be considered on an individual

site basis prior to any actual site sele ton.

If you have any questions regarding these c nfts, please contact

Mr. Carroll F. Goodwin, Area Environmental 0 cer, at FTS 327-3102.

Commenter: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region VIII Office

Response(s): Item 1 - Impacts will be considered on a site-specific basis.

Site selection will, however, be conducted by a potential applicant prior to

submittal of an application to NRC. In the NRC environmental review of the

application, the staff will evaluate impacts of the proposed site relative to

alternative sites considered by the applicant.

177iS)

1c

Sincerely,

Director

Program Planning and Evaluation

.. ..*.y.

= . -.

.

Q$LS

AREA OtrlCm iOf NVfP. COLORADO

A-7
GEOOAC A ARIYOSMI

-' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING D -

s 4AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 81 R

K*'arg Ad ba.g Z50 sofia K.n. SI "o. A Ho.... U M4 A, *t9 P 0 So. ift. W .0% *.i -4O6

''t90

November 18, 1981

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coanission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

Washington, D.C. 20555

Gentlemen:

611 FR.39091D

OOCM mUKERPPR o

o m -oze 0_. A n ........

Docketed Comment Number: 4

Commenter: State of Hawaii, Department of Planning and Economic Development

Response(s): Item 1 - The cormentor's observation.regarding the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972 (PL92-583. as amended by PL94-370) is correct.

Section 307 (c)(3) of the act states that U... any applicant for a required

Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses

in the coastal zone of that state shall provide to the licensing or permitting

agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the state's

approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent

with the program.' Requirements contained in Part 61 (specifically 561.50)

would generally preclude siting of a low-level waste disposal facility in the

coastal zone. 561.50 specifically prohibits waste disposal in a "... coastal

high-hazard area or wetland.u NRC will, however, work closely with the states

in the licensing process of a new low-level waste disposal facility to assure

that the requirements of this act and other applicable legislation are complied

with.

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61

"Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Wastes"

Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft EIS.

A8;2nasrch as the proposed regulations provide ample opportunity for the expression of State concerns prior to the licensing of a disposal site, we feel that any

Coastal Zone Management (CM) program concerns can be addressed at that tine.

Mareover, should a disposal site be proposed within the C1M areas of the State,

the federal consistency provisions of the National CZN Act require that the

licensing be subject to State review for consistency with Hawaii's federally

approved CiA program.

Sincerely,

Hideto Kono

1I®

b.U.. y card.J

A-8
r - --,

SI

State of Missouri

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

P.O. Box 809

Jefferson City 65102 Alden Shields. Director

Didon of Budget and Planing

Docketed Comment Number: 5

Comeenter: State of Missouri, Office of Administration

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

Chritophew S. Uo.d

Govtnv

November 23, 1961

Director

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D. C.-20555

Dear Sir:

Subject: 81110011 - Draft Environmental.Impact Statement - on 10 CFR Part 61 'Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste'

The State Clearinghouse, in cooperation with state agencies interested or possibly affected, has completed the A-95

review on the above project application.

None of the state agencies involved in the review had com- ments or recomnendations to offer at this time. This

concludes the State Clearinghouse's review.

A copy of this letter is to be attached to the application as evidence of compliance with the A-95 requirements.

Sincerely,

Lois Pohl

Chief, Grants Coordination

LP:fgn .

..

A-9
STATEPLANNINGBUREAU O D-,77. 7S 

Pierre. South Dakota 57501 * l

605/773-3661 Executive manogemeni--

bNUg iq a ' MEC-9 P2:35

December 2, 1981 : -

Low-Level Waste Licensing ranc

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Nuclear Regulatory Commission -. . U!"E?

Washington, DC 20555 mnnjf RUL M -

RE: SAID SD811020-E15, Volumes 1-4 C'/ PR 51p77

DRAFT EIS on 10 CFR Part 61 'Licensing Requirements for Land Disp;sal

of Radioactive Waste'

Dear Sirs:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft environmental impact statement on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

Attached are some notations made by the South Dakota Department of

Water and Natural Resources during the course of their review. You may

want to take their comments into consideration when you prepare your

final report.

Over l South Dakota agencies felt your impact statement deserved

r smnendation for approval.

erely,

Ton C. Me ry

Co tsson r

STATL PLANNING BUREAU

COMMENTS: 10 CFR 61 PROPOSED RULES

The South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resource's Radiation Program

has reviewed the summary volume of DEIS 10 CFR 61. and we recommend approval.

The following are comments relative to minor discrepancies.

1. Volume l. page 5, section 2.1, paragraph 3.

The word "generated" should be replaced by 'produced' because it may create

confusion regarding fuel cycle power 'generation", and the "generation" of I

LLW. Therefore, the last sentence should read: Institutional LLW production

will account for about l9% of the non-fuel sources.

2. Volume 1, page 9, paragraph 3. line 12.

"The most important . . .". The use of "geometric means' should be justified

in lieu of arithmetic means. | '-

3. Volume 1, page 19. Table S.S.

The column heading 'Costs & Impacts" should define units in column

(i.e. dollars, etc.)

4. Volume 1, page 27. paragraph 2, line 8.

The use of the term "daughters" should be replaced by 'progeny' likewise | )

throughout the proposal.

The following comments pertain to Volume l, Attachment A. Proposed Rule 10 CFR 61:

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.

1. Volume 1, Attachment A, page 38082, column I, paragraph 3, line 6.

The word 'numbr" should read "number".

2. Column 2, paragraph 1, line 11.

"nonradio-active" should read 'nonradioactive".

3. Volume 1. Attachment A, page 38084, Column l, paragraph 1, item(S)

"Stability - " The statement appears too generalized and vague. It

should read: Stability - Stability of the disposal site over the long

term (100 years) is mandatory to prevent loss of site integrity; The

potential for migration and transport of wastes to offsite areas should

be virtually eliminated. (As an example).

4. Volume l, Attachment A, page 38084, Column 2, line 24.

The word 'if" should read "it".

S. Volume l, Attachment A. page 38085. Column 1.

The classification scheme presented covers present waste streams but contains

no provisions for future waste stream developments. If a "miscellaneous"

class "C" which is characterized by activity can be included it should

provide a time-buffer for future amendment needs.

.,~~I ':6dj. *1 |!-.,,q.

A-lO
Docketed Comment Number: 6

Commenter: State of South Dakota, Office of Executive Management, State

Planning Bureau

Response(s): Items 1: The word 'generated' is widely used and generally

accepted in reference to radioactive waste. Use of the word "produced" would

carry with it the connotation of an end result or product, which is not

appropriate to waste.

Item 2: On page 0-35 of Appendix 0,Dow-Level Waste Sources

and Processing Options, the use of geometric means in lieu of arithmetic means

is discussed. The rationale is that geometric means allow representative

estimates to be made from sets of data that contain a few concentrations that

are several orders of magnitude greater than the majority in the set and that

would dominate the average if arithmetic means were used.

Item 3: The commenter's observation is accurate and tables in

the FEIS wil be revised to ciarify costs and impacts' - - _

Item 4: The term "daughter" has been used routinely to describe -q

a nuclide formed by the radioactive decay of another nuclide.- The staff sees.

no advantage to replacing the term "daughters" with the term "progeny" in this

EIS.

A-l1
,* .'. :

J . -

DEC1 5 1981b.

5 8.A . . STATE OF NEW JERSE 'C 14 -P12 29

k LI S EPARTMLNt OF COMMUNrIY AFFARS ,.1 WEST STATE STREET

Co... DeMS or PL~NG T5RENT OtN NJ. 0a25

December 3 198S '

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk -2- December 3, 1981

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

Secretary of the Commission

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Materiel Safety

and Safeguards

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

RE: X38111021968

Cf6.: >t574)

being directed at mutual agreements between adjacent states for

multi-state disposal rather than national repositories. I

believe that Pennsylvania has taken the lead in this effort".

As an applicant, it is your responsibility to include a copy of

this Letter of Clearance when you submit your formal application to the

Federal funding agency. Also, if you ahould change your formal application

by submitting a request that differs substantially fron this one, then

you will have to resubmit your final application to this office for

review.

If you have any questions, please call Vincent Amico of my staff at

609-292-2963.

Vsfy truly yours,

vi chard A ;Lzn/

State Rev w Coordir or

RAC:cp

Attachment

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on

10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This Letter of Clearance is to certify that your application, with

the State Identifier Number SJ8111021968, has met the Project Notification and Review System requirements of the U.S. Of sice of Management

and Budget's Circular A-95 Revised and Chapter 85 of the New Jersey Laws

of 1944.

The New Jersey State Clearinghouse has circulated the application

to the appropriate state agencies and has received comments from one (1)

agency relative to its final review. Based upon these comments, which

appear below, the Clearinghouse recommends that the application be:

X Approved

_Approved with conditions

_ fisapproved

The New Jersey Department of Energy has nade the following conment;

"The EIS is a positive step toward the land disposal of radioactive wastes being generated by the nuclear powered generating

stations.

Current activities of the State departnents involved with the

national waste disposal, as noted on the attached memo, are

t:[W JERSEY IS AN £CUAL #POqTUNITY EMPLOYER

A-12
::;

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

INTER.COMMUNICATION DATE: November 24, 1981

TO: Dr. Bharat C. Patel, Administrator

Office of Resource Application

FROM: Anthony Rizzolo

PHONE: 2403

Comments On NRC Draft. Environcmental Impact Statement: 10 CRF SUBJECT: Part 61 'Licensi Recuirements For Land Disrosal Cf Radioac~nWall-".NIRRA,.07. Vals I thru 4-

0°A 103-81

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards submitted this EIS. The EIS was submitted by NRC as part of its responsibility under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and to demonstrate the decision

process applied in the developnent of Part 61.

After a cursory review of the materials contained in HUREG0782, Vols I thru 4. nothing obvious could be found requiring

comnents either positive or negative. The ultimate responsibility

in the State for waste disposal siting and control will rest with

N.J. Department of Environmental Protection. The documents reviewed were NTRC's evaluation of.the environmental impact of land disposal

of radioactive waste.

State Departments involved in this area are the Departnent of

Environmental Protection. National Governors Association and the

National Council of State Legislators. New Jersey Department of

Energy is. not actively involved.

BCP/par

cc: Edward Linky

h .e *

Docketed Coemnent Number: 7

Comnenter: State of New Jersey, Department of Energy

Response(s): This comnment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the commrent which require a response.

A-13
Docketed Commnent Number: 8

Coumenter: Georgia Institute of Technology

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and the

EIS, although the connent addressed only the rule. The commenter's concerns

were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

A-14
Docketed Comment Number: 9

Coimenter: Stock Equipment Company

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS, although the comment addressed only the rule. The commenter's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

- A-IS
* :

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

Department of Adrnirdnion

STATEVWIDE PlANNING rOGRAM

265 Mdrose Street

Providence, Rhode Island 02907 D

dl NO 23 P1:39

ecenber 15 9. 0) ;>

STATE OF RI [ODE ISLAND AND MROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

INI ER-OfI ICE MEMO

TO Mr. Daniel W. Varin, Chief DATE 23 November 1981

DErr: Statewide Planning Program

trOM Mr. John A. Lyons, Chairman

DErT Coastal Resources Management touncil

SUBJECT; Draft Environmental Impact Statement !L1censing Requi ments for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste" e o. -- 1.

No comment on the DEIS. Any proposed disposl project in Rhode Island

will require CRMC review and approval.

Hz. R. Dale Smith, Chief o0J-.A WSE! R

Low-level Waste Licensing Branch POSED AUUPR 61

Division of Waste ianagenant

Office of Nuclear Material Safety ('AG FfR 51T G) and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear fr. Smith:

This office, in the capacity of clearinghouse designate under

0IM Circular Ntmber A-95, Part II, has reviewed the Draft Envircnmental Impact Statement for the Licensing Requirements for Land Di.-

pcsal of Radioactive Waste.

The Tecanical Committee of the Statewide Planning Prograa was

presented the staff findings as a result of the review at its meeting

of December 4, 1981. The Technical Committee recommends the following:

"The section of the Draft EIS pertaining to reuse of

closed disposal sites is very brief and sketchy. Recreational uses, such as a golf course, might involve

excavation to construct or reconstruct the course. ( The concept of reuse of these sites should be studied

in more detail so that effective legal protections

will be required."

CcQea3:s from the R.I. Historical Preservation Cocmission and the

2.1. Coastal Resources Yanagaeent Council are attached.

We thank ycu for the opportunity to review this draft EIS.

Rene' ontaine

A-95 earinghouse Coordinator

IJF/KIR/sjc

Raferarce Pile: EIS-81-12

JAL/drc

, -- IVED r *.: :TWIDE

* :,. POCRAM

NOV 24 1.981

AM PM

7,8199tilIri,1,1 21

3

1

4

3516

1A

A-16
An.

in- .

ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Old State House

150 Benefit Street

Providence, R.l. OZ903

(401) 277-2678

December 3, 1981

RE: EIS-81-12

Mr. Daniel W. Varin, Chief

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program 265 Melrose Street

Providence, RI 02907

Dear Mr. Varin:

This office has reviewed the above-referenced DEIS

for licensing land disposal of radioactive waste.

The DEIS is deficient in that it does not even mention

impacts to cultural properties (or materials, for that

matter). The DEIS should be revised to assess impacts

to cultural properties, since the proposed activity may

-affect such resources.

- eSly,

; Er W elder

Deputy State Historic

Preservation Officer

Docketed Comment Number: 10

Commenter: State of Rhode Island. Department of Administration, Statewide

Planning Program

Response(s): Item I - The staff received several comments on the draft rule

with respect to control of site access and productive land use during the

active institutional control period. The staff considered the issue of reuse

of waste disposal facility land and determined that the government landowner

administering the active institutional control program should have flexibility

in controlling site access This flexibility may include allowance of productive uses of the land provided the Intecrit yand long-term performance of the

site are not affected (emphasis added). Any productive use of the land during

the institutional control period will require prior review and approval by NRC

through the licensing process and would specifically consider the potential

effects on site integrity and long-term performance.'

Item 2 - The staff recognizes that construction and operation of

land disposal sites for radioactive waste disposal may result in impacts to

cultural resources. In preparing.the draft EIS, the staff felt that these

impacts were site-specific in nature and could not be adequately assessed in

the absence of a specific site proposal. In the review and licensing process

of a proposed disposal facility, NRC will operate under the requirements of

Federal laws and regulations for the protection of cultural resources. Among

other things, these requirements include coordination with the State Historic

Preservation Office, conduct of a pre-construction cultural resources survey

and the identification of mitigating measures to protect1 any known or

encountered resources.

I RECCIFVED

P.l. .Tt.VIO2

PLN!R:N3 PAOC.AM

DEC 4 i°81

.AM PM1

1718191101HI1U112,314,516

!2

A-17
USC mwavd&vg,

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 5

'81 uE 23 P3:05

) D( December 14, 1

= un tLPR- 2,19.z0i' , 2, : *r SERVC W 6

trTO,rr3, 110 (14GFE 308'1) 1 uo

Mr. R. Dale Smith. Chief (L6FR 5KV1G) Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission

Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Smith:

Subject: Cornents by Argonne National Laboratory on NRC Propos d Licensig euremens or an sosa of Ra oactve waste {O ei1)

and Supporting Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0782)

Argonne National Laboratory has reviewed the Proposed Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (10 CFR 61) and the

supporting Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0782). Our comments are

attached.

We believe that the proposed 10 CFR 61 rule will provide a workable

regulatory framework for licensing and operating new low-level radioactive

disposal sites. The site requirements and criteria. operating and closure

practices, and standards are conservative but in our opinion are generally

practicable.

Very truly-yours,

J. Howard Kittel. Manager Office of Waste Management Programs

6677

Comments on Proposed Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste, 10 CFR Part 61, and on Supporting Draft

Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG-0782

981

Argonne National Laboratory

December 10, 1981

1. 10 CFR 61

A. General Comment

Our general Impression of the proposed rule 10 CFR 61 Is that It Is a good document. It should provide a workable regulatory framework for the

successful licensing - and operation - of new low-level waste disposal sites.

We do-not find any-serious flaws. It proposes reasonable site requirements and

criteria, operating and closure practices, and standards. It implicitly and

explicitly states, by virtue of its performance standards, that zero release

or zero migration is not expected.

B. Definitions (61.2)*

The addition of definitions and discussions of several terms which have

been omitted from Section 61.2 (Definitions) might eliminate some ambiguities

in interpreting the regulations. The suggested additions and the reasons for

adding them are outlined below.

1. Lonq-Term* In Supplementary Information, Section V.8, long-term

is defined as theiItme after operations cease (presumably the post-closure

period). It is not clear that this is the intended definition to be used in

the many references to Olong-term* in the regulations. If so, further subdivision of the time following cessation of operations may be appropriate

because the impacts and problems for different intervals of time beyond

closure are quite different. For example, the problems during the period that

one can rely on passive" institutional controls (deeds, records. etc., that

allow the owner and potential user to be aware of past use) are different from

the problems beyond that period, and also from the problems in the period of

active Institutional control. A claim [Section 61.7(b)(3)] that is. reasonable

for a period of the order of 1000 years is that future occupation arid use of

the site is unlikely; it is less reasonable for a period of the order of 104

years or longer. It has not been established that the allowed concentrations

of very long-lived radioisotopes are low enough to permit unrestricted use of

the site (which must be considered probable after all records are lost), and

there is nothing in the regulations that limits the period of concern for

public health and safety.

JHK:sfn

Enclosure

cknovledged bycard. .512*. raldv

* Numbers in ( ) refer to Section Nos. in .10 CFR 61.

Tk "VShy Of CWCAcp ARC40t I.Mesvri Assodvmr

A-18
-2-

2. *Dlpjosal' The word 'disposal is commonly interpreted to mean 'permanenidposition of'. If this is the Intended definition, it should be so stated and noted that near-surface disposal is not necessgrily a permanent means of disposition. Over a time period of the order of 10 years or longer, one cannot exclude the possibility (or even the likelihood) that the

waste will be dispersed into the environment. The definition of "disposal'

rai ses a legacy problem. and the implications of this for the hazards of waste

with the limiting uranium and TRU concentrations need to be addressed, or at

lease acknowledged, in the regulations.

3. Stability, It is not clear whether the word 'stability' is meant

to be volumestaility, so that the waste will not degrade, slump or collapse after burial, or also shape and physical stability, so that an intruder would

clearly distinguish it from soil. If the former definition is allowed, then

FUSRAP and similar wasteis'stable; if the latter definition is intended, it

is not. If volume, shape, physical stability are required, some time limits

may be needed; it might be difficult to ensure shape and physical stability for 104 years or longer unless rather expensive means, such as those pro- posed for high-level wastes, were used.

C. Protection of General Population from Releases of Radioactivity (61.41)

l The performance objectives are given In terms of radiation dose.

Since chemically-toxici in addition to radlotoxic, substances may also be

present in the waste, we believe that a general statement, at least, be

included to the effect that releases of chemically-toxic substances shall not

exceed any local or Federal standards that exist.

2. Two sets of radiation standards have been specified one in terms

of annual dose to any member of the public (25 mrem whole body and any organ except thyroid) and one in terms of drinking water concentration. The latter

standard is based on 4 mrem/year for man-made radionuclides. Although it

is recognized that the former is for individuals and the latter is for

popPlations, it appears there are two different sets of standards. It is

conceivabe that-releases to the general environment may cause exposures to as many individuals as contamination of the nearest public drinking water supply.

3. Regarding the statement "....at the nearest public drinking water

supply...,- this supply may not be the one most likely to be affected by the

disposal site. The intent of.this performance objective is certainly meant to

apply to any water supply contaminated by waste migration, and this should be so stated.

4. It is possible that the last sentence in this paragraph might be misinterpreted by some to mean that the national drinking water standards are being applied to groundwater in general add not only to public drinking water

supplies. We suggest that this sentence be reworded in somewhat this manner: 'The waste disposal site shall not cause the National Primary Drinking Water

Standards to be exceeded in any public drinking water supply." Additional

clarification is needed to make the first and second sentences more compatible in terms of allowable dose, since in the first sentence drinking water could

-3-

yield a'dose of 25 mrem to the whole body and still be in compliance, while in

the second sentence it would not..

S. The evaluation of an annual dose to the individual requires a model

which allows one to calculate dose from an environmental radioactivity concen- tration or source term. This model can,-of course, not-be given in the

proposed rule, but it is presumed that guidance in this area will be provided later in Regulatory Guldbs. The rule could give some indication as to how

this performance objective is to be met.

6. There is typographical error in the spelling of radioactive' in the

second sentence of the paragraph.

7. This Section is a general. statement on standards, although not speci- fically directed at these. Standards are fixed absolute numbers, regardless of the uncertainties in the data on which they are based. . Measurements and

calculations made to assess performance against these standards are subject to

uncertainties and to analytical and statistical errors. Thus, if the standard

is 5 pCi/l, is a measurement of 5.1 + 0.2 pCi/I in violation? Probably yes, but is a measurement of 4.9 + 0.2 pCT/l in violation? Probably no, but the two

measurements do not significantly differ. It would be reasonable and useful if

the standards could address this problem in some way. We do not have a clear answer at this time, but it is a technical rather than a legal question, and

this may make it difficult to resolve. Possibilities are (1) specify a dose

standard, e.g., 25 mrem/year, and the probability of, delivering that dose, (2). specify a concentration, e.g., 5 pCi/l, and the standard deviation tolerated

in a measurement meant to meet this standard and the method by which it was calculated.. -.

0. Protection of Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion (61.42)

1. It is our belief that the inadvertent Intruder scenario is given too

much weight and leads to some unreasonably low concentrations in Table 1, for

example, in the case of 94Nb (O.OC2 rCi/g). . This may not cause any impact on waste disposal, since 4 Nb is not an abundant radionuclide, but this does

establish a precedent that-could be unnecessarily troublesome.

2. The inadvertent Intruder scenario is tenuous at best - it requires

predicting some far distant future event for which the uncertainty is large - and should not be the limiting or driving force in determining the hazards.

E. Disposal Site Suitability Requirements for Lind Disposal (61.50)

l. We believe that the intent of this requirement is that the water

table shall not cyclically rise into and fall beneath the buried waste.

Burial beneath the water table could be satisfactory, if diffusion is the

controlling rate (as statedin this paragraph); if the travel time is very slow, if the performance objectives can still be met, and if the water table never drops below the buried waste.

A-19
If -A2

-4-

F. Environmental Monitoring (61.53)

1. It is not clearly stated in this section that the radiological and/or

nonradiological (chemical and biological) characteristics of the envirorment

should be determined to establish baseline concentrations.

2. Should there not be a reporting requfrement to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards and discuss results? This is implicitly covered in

61.80 (h) (1).

6. Waste Classifications (61.55)

I.-The proposed 10 CFR 61 specifically mentions two waste categories

although they are outside its intended scope. These categories are: (1)

wastes with radioisotope concentrations that exceed the limits in column (3)

of Table I EPart 61.55d)]; and (2) wastes that might be exempted from the

regulations (Supplementary Information, last paragraph of Section V.C). On

the other hand, no mention is made in'the current proposed regulations of the

category referred to as "low-activity bulk solid waste' although it was included In the preliminary draft of 10 CFR 61 (issued November 5, 1979).

Waste from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) would,

presumably, fall into this category. FUSRAP waste is within the scope of 10

CFR 61, but it is unclear whether this was intended or incidental. It is of

considerable interest why the low-activity-bulk solid waste category was eliminated and whether it may be reintroduced at some future time.

2. FUSRAP waste meets the requirements of. all of the 10 CFR 61.waste

classifications (except possibly with-regard to dimensional stability-- see below); it is mainly soil contaminated with very long-lived radioisotopes (mostly uranium and thorium ores and-processing residues) at average concen- trations that are smaller than the uranium and TRU limits' in Table I by a factor of. 100 or more. Waste-specific requirements for Class A, B, and C

wastes may not be appropriate for such wastes.

3. In raising this question regarding the fate of the low-activity bulk

solid waste category, we are aware of the recent published Branch Technical

Position on Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium of Uranium Wastes from Past

-Operations (46 FR 52061). The question concerns the waste identified in

category S of the position paper, i.e., waste for which long-term disposal at .a site other than a licensed disposal site will not normally be'a vianle

option.

H. Labeling (61.57). and Tests at Land Disposal Facilities (61.81)

1. It is not clear where the primary responsiblity lies for verifying

the character of a waste shipment. Is it the responsibility of the generator (Section 61.57), or the site operator, or the Commission (Section 61.81)?

What means will be adopted to provide quality assurance?

-5-

11. NUREG - 0782

A. Federal ard State Responsibilities (1.2.3)*

1. The proposed differences (if any) between the resnsiilitiesof a r ent sates and thosLeof nonagrement s = wi respect to e proposed ruses are not C early en -For example, in the case of nonagreement

state-owned disposal facility, is the state considered acceptable to provide

surveillance during the site operational, closure,.and institutional control

phases?

2. If the site is owned by a state, the proposed rules should permit transfer to federal ownership Ourfng site operation or ater closure. ouch

action could become desirable, although unforeseen at the time the lcense was issued.

B. Other Issues Regarding Classifications (2.4.3)

I. The EIS alludes to potential nonradiological hazards in LLW, but

notes that KRC does no plan to address the tota hazard of LLW. Nevertheless,

it is desirable that the EIS or 10 CFR 61 note that the licensing applicant

must take into account possible effects from biological or chemical hazards in

the LW and from any adjacent or colocated hazardous waste disposal site.

2. A Ode nimus classification should be provided for L1W that is near or below background levels. The need for h a c s ation was noted in

the 1980 regional workshops held to review the preliminary draft regulation (see App. C Section 6.1.3).- Support for a "de-minimusm or comparable classification has also been expressed by informed study groups including the

Low-Level Waste Strategy Task Force (Ref. 1), the Conservation Foundation

Dialogue Group on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management (Ref.2), and the

State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management (Ref.3).

C. Reference Disposal Facility Costs (3.6.5)

I. The direct o ration cost for environme a ron oriL(about $26,700

per year) shown in Table 3.6 1 believed to be i9W.M.WPO we estimate that

the cost of.only the radiocheaical analyses listed in Appendix E, page E-55 is

about $40.000 per year. In addition, the cost for sample collection, sample

preparation, quality assurance, and other factors might increase this cost by a factor of two.

0. Alternatives to the Base Case (5.2.4)

1. The EIS mentions use of high-integrity containers, but defines

'high-integrity' only in subjective terms; LLW shippers and site operators wil ned at~htenino of the ihnE~iv Ye~~1no tteueo

such containers is specified as meeting NRC te n cc criteria for disposal.

Will NRC' rovide a uantitative definition oft-hi h-inte nt ' r wi i a e 00 ers. sucS ass q e au teo etr

0@

Is * Numbers in ( ) refer to Sections in NUREG-0782, Vol. 2, unless stated otherwise.

A-20
-6-

E. Classification of New Requirements (5.5.2) Docketed Comment Number: 11

1. Subsidence has proved to be a problem at LLU disposal sites, particularly in humid areas. The proposed approach of requiring structural stability

for high-activity waste therefore has merit. or oreater importance, from a site operational standpoint. is the decontainerized dispo_ of low-activy

wast,.briefly discussed on page b-uj. ants option snoutu OB dvaIIule TV

wte erators and site operato i ty waste such as buln

rubble, ach ner and her e biological waste, an c 511tri

trah irbone activityrelease from dusting during eptyIng or cur,.rui r

can be minimized by use of dust control procedures.

F. Potential Public Impacts from Small Spills During Normal Operation (6.2.1)

1. 'Th-2381 in Tables 6-3 is a typographical error.

G. Background Irradiation (Appendix E, 3.2.7)

pre-operational tritium concentralo, of 350 pCi/l is about three times r * e grosnrthernsivoi\ alpha and beta

concentrations are reasonable.-

H. References

1. .. Managing Loot-Level Wastes: A Proposed Approach," EG&G Idaho, LLWMP-1

(August 1980)

2. ' "Toward a National Policy for Managing Loi.-Level Radioactive Waste,'

The Conservation Foundation (June 1981).

3. 'Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management: An Economic Assessment,"

State Planning Council, on Radioactive Waste Management (July 1981).

H

Commenter: Argonne National Laboratory

Response(s): Item I - The responsibilities of Agreement-and non-Agreement

States would be different with respect to licensing of a near-surface disposal

facility. In the case of a facility located in an Agreement State, the state

would be responsible for licensing and regulatory control of the site. In the

case of a non-Agreement State, the U.S. NRC would have licensing and regulatory

Jurisdiction. With respect to surveillance, monitoring, institutional and

other land ownership responsibilities, however, both Agreement and non-Agreement

States would have the same responsibilities as landowners and NRC believes

both can administer acceptable programs. (The only difference would occur

during the institutional control period where, in the case of an Agreement

State, the Agreement State regulatory agency would license the state custodial

agency. In a non-Agreement State, however, NRC would be responsible for such

licensing.) NRC thus considers states (both Agreement and non-Agreement

States) as well as the Federal government acceptable for providing land owner-

.ship, surveillance and monitoring during the institutional control period.

'Item 2 - Part 61 does not preclude a state from transferring

ownership of a site to the Federal government. Present laws, however, contain

no specific provisions for such transfers (e.g., how they would take place and

what Federal agency would assume ownership responsibility). As such, no

specific provisions were included in Part 61 addressing such transfers. Each

would need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

.I

Item 3 - Several commenters on the proposed Part 61 regulations

suggested that NRC adopt a total hazard approach to waste classification.

That is, both the radiological hazard and nonradiological hazard would be

considered and related in some manner so as to arrive at a combined hazard

index.. This combined hazard index would then be used to set different disposal

requirements for different types and forms of waste. This approach, at the

moment, presents a number of practical problems--the principal problem being

A-21
that to NRC's knowledge there is no accepted consistent way to numerically

compare radiological and nonradiological hazards. This was the conclusion,

for example, of a study which NRC commissioned to directly investigate the two

types of hazard and try to compare the two numerically. (Reference 1) There

are currently over 600 known radioisotopes which may emit three types of

ionizing radiation: alpha, beta, and gamma. The effects of contact with

radioactive material (e.g., through ingestion, inhalation or direct contact

resulting in whole-body irradiation) can be quantified in terms of dose

equivalents (e.g., so many millirems) which can be in turn related to an

estimate of risk (e.g., a certain probability of an additional health effect).

Thus, a 'hazard index" (dose equivalent) which can be used to numerically

compare radiological hazards exists and is generally accepted. A comparable

hazard index, however, has not been generically developed for 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. Tests to

determine whether a particular chemical may be a potential carcinogen are

often accomplished by administering massive quantities of the chemical to

laboratory animals. Here, it is difficult to relate the quantity of chemical

uptake to a probability of a health effect.

Thus, NRC did not adopt a "total hazard" approach to waste classification for

purely practical reasons. Nonetheless, NRC has not totally ignored potential

nonradiological hazards associated with low-level waste. For example, proposed paragraph 61.51 (a)(7) states that only wastes containing radioactive

materials shall be disposed of at the disposal site. This requirement is

meant to preclude comingling of radioactive waste and nonradioactive hazardous

waste. Siting a hazardous waste disposal site adjacent to a low-level waste

disposal site could be allowed, however, as long as there was no interaction

between the two facilities. [See 661.50(a)(11).]

Paragraph 61.56 (a)(8) requires that wastes containing biological, pathogenic,

or infectious material must be treated to reduce the potential hazard. In

addition, disposal facility licenses contain conditions which state that the

chemical hazard in waste should not exceed the radiological hazard. Paragraph

61.56 (a)(2) prohibits waste being received at the site in cardboard or

fiberboard boxes. This was intended in part to help ensure worker safety from

possible harm from biological or infectious material. Finally, as part of

reviewing a license for siting and operating a low-level waste disposal

facility, NRC staff will review the applicant's nonradiological safety program.

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 such

wastes may be present in low-level radioactive wastes. It is the Commission's

view that disposal of these combined wastes in accordance with the requirements

of Part 61 will adequately protect the 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

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 deal with this problem.

Beyond this, the shipment manifest discussed in the proposed new paragraph 20.311

requires that the principal chemicals contained in the waste be identified.

This is to allow identification of the presence of toxic or hazardous chemicals

in specific waste streams. This will improve NRC's data base on the nonradiological hazard of LLW and allow consideration of any additional disposal

requirements that may be required on a case-by-case basis.

Item 4 - NRC agrees that providing levels and other requirements

for disposal of waste by less restrictive means (setting levels of 'de minimis"

waste disposal) is a very important issue. Setting such 'de minimis" levels

would accomplish at least three objectives:

1. It would reduce costs of disposal to licensees, particularly small

enti ties.

A-22
2. It would help to conserve valuable disposal space in disposal

facilities for waste which truly needs to be disposed according to

the Part 61 requirements.

3. It would improve overall disposal site stability and thus help to

reduce impacts from ground water migration and other long-term

environmental releases as well as reduce long-term care costs.

Rather than delay the final EIS and promulgation of the final Part 61 rule,

NRC staff have not included de minimis levels for radioactive wastes in the

final EIS and rule. However, NRC intends to accelerate its schedule for

development of de minimis levels. NRC believes that the fastest way to arrive

at meaningful results in this matter is to first examine disposal of some

specific waste streams by less restrictive means. From this experience, it is

possible that generic levels may be developed which apply to all waste. In

this regard, NRC is prepared to accept applications for licensees for declaring

certain waste streams to be of no regulatory concern.

Item 5 - The commenter was contacted regarding the basis for the

comment and provided estimates of the costs of various radiochemical analyses.

Based upon this and other data, the environmental monitoring costs for the

reference disposal facility (operational and post-operational) were recomputed.

The costs for the alternative improved monitoring system discussed in Appendix F

of the DEIS were also recomputed.

Item 7 - NRC has attempted to maintain flexibility in meeting

the performance, objectives of Part 61. The option of decontainerized disposal

or use of sanitary landfilling techniques for low activity compressible wastes

was examined by NRC and is not precluded from use under final Part 61. NRC

staff recognizes that this method of disposal may be one way of achieving

greater site stability for low activity compressible wastes. Of concern

during licensing would be the applicant's proposed methods to maintain

operational exposures and potential airborne releases to low levels.

Item 8 - The listing in question should be for Th-228. See

Errata section of this volume.

Item 9 - The comment refers to estimated background levels of

tritium in surface water and ground water in the environs of the reference

disposal facility. These estimates were Included in Appendix B of the DEIS

for illustration and completeness and are not meant to be representative of

the Northern Illinois area. Background levels of tritium and other radionuclides in the environment vary from one region or area of the country to

the next.

These new cost estimates have been set forth in Appendix C of this volume.

These revised estimates do not change the overall conclusions reached in the

DEIS but are included in the FEIS for the sake of accuracy and completeness.

Item 6 - NRC has already provided specific guidance on the

criteria for containers which include, where possible, quantitative data. The

criteria have been set out in the draft Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Technical Position on Waste Forms. Flexibility is being maintained to allow

for a range of container designs and uses to meet individual waste generator

needs.

A-23
Massachusetts R REC 8ED IC t F.""

atural Heritage ,, Program 'I DEC 28 A9:14

December 8, 1981

Oocketed Comment Number: 12

Commenter: Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program

Response(s): Item 1 - Potential applicants are encouraged by NRC to meet with

the staff early in the planning process to discuss site selection Criteria and

procedures. These discussions will include recommendations by the staff for

the applicant to consult as fully as possible with local and state agencies

and resource centers having information on site-specific features such as

rare species and important habitat areas which may or may not be protected

by state or federal regulations. NRC will also work closely with

state, county, municipal, and other agencies in the licensing process.

Hr. R. Dale Smith

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Haterial Safety and Safeguards

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington. DC 20555

soc~zl e-2~ r, (!) ('APF,-C5 Tt 0JIE 

(t'lJ GR 5rva IG)

Re: DEIS on 10 CFR Part 61

Dear Mr. Smith:

The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program has reviewed the above referenced

document and would like to compliment your agency on its careful and thorough documentation of a complex and controversial issue. As our particular concerns regard the maintenance and protection of rare species populations and other ecologically important natural features, our review focussed on the considerations given

these natural environmental resources during the licensing process.

While the licensing process must comply with the National Environmental Policy

Act and, thereby, with appurtenant federal laws and regulations dealing with rare

species and significant habitats, we were pleased to acknowledge thc DEIS's-reference to state laws end regulations governing rare species. We would like to point out.

though, that the vast majority of recognized rare species and, particularly, eco- logically important habitat areas are not covered by either state or federal re- gulations end are not, therefore, subject to automatic consideration. So as to avoid impacting these unregulated natural features, we suggest that provision for

this consideration be incorporated into the licensing procedure, particularly as it

pertains to site selection. Incorporation of this concern Into the site selection

process could contribute to locating disposal facilities in the most environmentally

sound manner, thereby avoiding later conflicts.

i

II

t

If

F

t

As you may know, nearly 30 states have Natui

ours which map and maintain extensive records on

plant and animal populations and other ecological

the other Natural HaritaSe Programs.look forwsad

selection and assessment for low-level radtoactiN

We appreciate this opportunity-cobe ot servJ

us for additional clarification or with any quesc

ral Heritage Programs similar to

the location and status of rare

Lly significant features. We, and to perticipating in the site

re waste disposal facilities.

ice. Please feel free to contact

:ions you may have. e

Sincerely. 9

John E. Fengol 4 A L

Pogram Coordi tor

=1 ksWte,,,1as. X1, z fll %ol.'&;X.

8112290396 811208 Pon PR

61 46FR51776 Pon

cc: Curtis Danforth, A-95 Clearinghousae

Ck-,urtnarnt t4 Envaosnwnrital .Nal 00ist c (:ainbn'.%¢ 91

A-24
-@o; :~ .

'82 Jh! -4 l1 '1'9

A; Sr ;, .0MfG " ^ CRAIC

11,- Ya

.. STATC OF DELAWARE

EXECUTIVE DEPARrMtNT

OFFICE OF THE BUDGET O-t* .DOIA. C 19901

Docketed Comment Number: 13

Commenter: State of Delaware, Executive Department, Office of the Budget

Ttar.e lo2) 7364205 Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

December 9, 1981 own V)

Loy-Level Waste Licensing Branch

olvislon of Waste Management

Office of NMclear Material Safety & Safeguards

Nuclear Regulatory Comission

Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sirt

RE: Draft 11avironmental Impact Statement on 10 CTR Part 61 'Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastel

(Volumes I, III SS * IV)

The Office of the Budget, in its function as the State Clearinghouse, hisa

reviewed-the above listed Draft ESIS and has no negative comments to offer at

this time.

encJm cer

State Director

flJD: Fm: it

Akc±o'e d bj mdu

A-25
1-1S':t-L - X

The State of Noneh Dakota

R\. A

cDM. t. iao FEDERAL AID COORDINATOR OFFICF An4.. 1.000'

FEDERAL AID COORDINATOR State Capitol GOVERNOR

Cismarck. North Dakota S&SQSOS

December 2, 1981 MOiM Am all

"LETTER OF CLEARANCE" IN CONFORMANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR M9IM95

To: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFIER: ND8111020684 82 JM -4 All 49

Docketed Comment Number: 14

Commenter: State of North Dakota, Federal Aid Coordinator Office

Response(s): This comsent was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

Division of Technical Information and '"J' -.

Document Control

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2

Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir: c

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.

This Draft EIS was received in this office on November 2, 1981.

Thank you for submitting your draft environmental impact statement for

review and comment through the North Dakota State Intergovernmental

Clearinghouse.

Your draft was referred to the appropriate agencies, and no comments

were received to this date.

Please send copies of the final environmental impact statement and any

supplemental impact statements to the North Dakota agencies that have

commented on the draft and to this office. The opportunity to review

your draft is appreciated, and if this office as Clearinghouse can be

of further assistance with this project, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

irS. Lonard E. Banks

Coordinator

State Intergovernmental Clearinghouse

BAB/gd Acknopedgedbyc C.M.34.t mav;

Slots 11,. OMCI-.9hS-o $t.1 & LOOM It00' L.1 ta* & C-al" 149- *MNI

1)44505 1)4-4614 284.8)SC )a*4-460

A-26
( {a~* DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMIAN SERVICES

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Office of Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Smith:

Y4 /- 57 / / O

Public Health Sevice

Food and Drug Administiation

Rockv.e MD 20857

'82 JA11-4 AlM'49

DEC 24 1981

.L.0

C' FE | . t

onii BIJMS-Z rX

of SVnR p_ 1

D E4E \ .

The Bureau of Radiological Health staff have reviewed the Draft Envirormental

Irpact Statement (DEIS) on 10 CFR 61, Licensing Daquirements for Land DIsposal of

Radioactive Waste, NUREG-0782, dated September 1981. In reviewing this DEIS, we have limited our coamnts to the public health and safety impacts associated with

the proposed regulations and have the following conments to offer:

1. In commenting on NUREC-0782, it is recognized that It is not a generic

Deis on disposal of low-level radioactive waste, but is a decision document

which will provide a basis for decisions on the performance objectives and

technical and financial criteria set-forth in the proposed 10 CFR 61. Basic

performance objectives are to (1)-protect.the inadvertent intruder, (2) assure long-term stability, (3) protect public health and safety over the

long-term, and (4) assure safety during the short-term operational phase.

Radiation protection standards are considered a part of setting the performance objectives.. An annual exposure limit of 25 mrem whole body, 75 mrem thyroid, and 25 mren to any other organ of maximally exposed individuals

at the site boundary -(40 CFR 190), and en annual population limit of 4 mrem at the nearest public drinking water supply (40 CFR 141) are considered to be

appropriate performance objectives for lard disposal of low-level radioactive

waste.

Because of the wide range of potential hazards, a waste classification

system needs to be developed based on the methods. or requiresents that

should be applied for disposal. These requirements can be defined by (1)

waste characteristics, (2) containrment and isolation capabilities of the

method of disposal, and (3) social commitment controls. The irplementation

of this objective would require developing a set of potential exposure events

at model waste disposal facilities and determining limiting concentrations.of

radionuclides in the waste such that any postulated event would not result in

population exposure greater than the present radiation protection guidelines.

These requirovents would likely assure safe disposal of the radioactive waste

and would, to the maximum extent possible, provide for long-term protection

of the public health and safety.

.. .e . . . .

Page 2 - Mr. R. Dale Smith

2. The envrormental pathways Identified in Volume 2, Chapter 5, and analyzed

in Appendix G, Section 2, appear to cover the major emission pathways (Figures

G.1 and G.2) through which radionuclides contained in the low-level wastes may

be transported through the environment and impact on the population. The dose

computational methodology and computer codes used to calculate individual and

population exposure have rbsulted in reasonable estimates of doses resulting

from assured regional facility operations. The summary of the short-term and

long-term environrental impacts for the base case and regional case studies

shown in Volume 1, Tables 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.9 are within current radiation

protection standards.

The release/transport/pathway and waste classification scenarios involve

complex interacting parameters and diverse mechanisms through which radionuclides may be released and transported through the environment. Thus, it

should be recognized that the dose calculations are based on many assumed

parameters and envirormental characteristics. On this basis, the DEIS should

contain a section in Volume 2 on the uncertainties in the data base by expanding Section 3.3, Development of Data Bases for the Analysis. It is particularly important to address this issue since the doses are estimated for 100

and 500 years following closure of the disposal site. In Volutae 1, page 20,

it Is stated that the exposures are calculated in a conservative manner indicating that the doses are on the high side. .- Because of the uncertainties

discussed above and the time frame involved, it would be more appropriate to

round off the doses and show the mast likely range of population and individual doses. Such an approach would make the dose data more credible and

would lead to an improved public understanding of the public health and

environmental impact of land disposal of radioactive waste.'i -*

3. Potential public impact from operational accidents is discussed in Volure

2, Section 6.2.2. Potential releases of radioactive material to the environrent could occur from rupturing of a waste container or from a fire on-site

that might consume waste packages with a subsequent release of a portion of

the radioactivity in the waste. It is likely that the consequences of the

accident would be confined to the site, and measures to mitigate the accident

would be the responsibility of the onsite radiation safety personnel.

Appendix F, Section 5.2.5.4 addresses abnormal or emergency situations and

cites existing Federal regulations on notification of Federal authorities.

In our view, this section, perhaps, should be expanded to include emergency

planning requirements and the need for coordination with State and local

authorities.

The analyses of an accidental fire and of a ruptured dropped container are based on accident scenarios and methodology described in Appendix G. This

analysis resulted in (1) strewf-by-stream (mode) impacts to the whole body

and bone from a fire accident (Table 6.3), and (2) strean-by-stream impacts

to the whole body and lungs from a dropped container accident (Table 6.4).

The calculated doses appear to be reasonable for the accident situation

described. It is noted that any action at the facility to reduce potential

long-term impacts from ground water intrusion or inadvertent human intrusion

would have an additional benefit of reducing the short-term impact (i.e.,

individual exposure) from potential accidents.

A-27
Page 3 - Hr. R. Dale Saith

4. An environsental monitoring program that will be carried out at the referenced disposal facility is described in Appendix E, Section 5.2.6; and Appendix

F, Section 2.3.1, and is summarized In Table E.lD. This program appears to

provide adequate sampling frequency and analysis for specific radionuclides in

critical exposure pathways. It is considered sufficiently inclusive to measure potential emissions from short-term operational releases. Over the long-term,

the ground water monitoring system is likely to detect ground water migration

at the onsite and offsite saipling wells. The water sampling program should be

extended to the nearest public drinking water supply to assure that the dose

equivalent to the total body or any internal organ is not greater than 4 mrem/

yr. (40 CFR 141.26). The facility operator should be on the alert to detect

the potential rapid movement of radioactive material through fractured or jointed geological formations and showing up in the test wells.

In our view the monitoring program must be capable of supplying information

on the performance of the site, and the data must be interpreted in such a timely manner that actions to mitigate any unusual release can be initiated.

5. Volume 2, Chapter 10, identified, evaluated and quantified the effects of

the proposed regulation 10 CFR 61 on management of lw-level radioactive waste

disposal sites. Section 10.3.3 contains the long-term and short-term radiological iirpacts based on the regional analysis. There is, however, no discussion in this DEIS of the risk associated with operation of a ow-level waste

disposal facility. In our view, this section should be expanded to quantify

the risks in relation to a referenced regional facility.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comrent on this Draft Environmental

Impact Statement.

Sincerely yours,

ohn C. Villforth

1ector r 

ueau r of Radiological Iealth

Docketed Comment Number: 1S

Cosmenter: U.S. Departsent of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

Food and Drug Administration

Response(s): Item I - NRC agrees that uncertainties in the data bases should

be included in. the analyses. Due to the lack of specific data in some cases

and the wide range in specific data points for many waste streams, however,

NRC found that uncertainties could not be quantified and when quantified led

to extremely large ranges in some cases. As such, and given the uncertain

nature of accurately predicting many of the exposure pathways, NRC chose to

point out the uncertainties in the data bases and pathways in the text and to

emphasize that the doses reported were conservative. NRC also pointed out

that potential exposures from disposal of waste at an actual site would not

exceed these doses and would be much lower than those reported.

Item 2 - Potential public impacts from operational accidents

were addressed in a conservative manner in the draft EIS, principally to

investigate the effects that NRC's requirements addressing intrusion, environmental monitoring,-and disposal facility stability would have on operational

safety. It was concluded in the DEIS that such requirements generally helped

to improve operational safety. NRC did not perform a detailed analysis;-

however, of all aspects of site operational safety. Such an analysis would

have most use as part of an individual licensing action for a specific site.

In any case, NRC staff believes that the best approach would be to maintain a

high degree of flexibility in possible approaches to achieving and improving

operational safety. Additional safety requirements to those in the Part 61

rule would be imposed for different sites, disposal methods, or waste forms on

a case by case basis. Reviewing and updating a licensee's operational safety

program would also receive detailed consideration during periodic license

renewal activities.

As the coamenter has stated, measures to mitigate an accident would be primarily

carried out by onsite radiation safety personnel. Sites licensed for radioactive waste disposal must have procedures in place for handling unusual or

A-28
potentially hazardous occurrences. These procedures are supplemented by

training and drills. Site procedures to handle abnormal or emergency situations would be reviewed as part of licensing the disposal site as well as

during license renewals. These procedures would include personnel training

and drills, use of emergency equipment, and coordination with state and local

authorities (police, hospitals, fire, etc.). This;latter point'is addressed

in Section 5.2.5 in Appendix E, but may be clarified by adding the following

to the end of the second complete paragraph on Page E-54: "This planning'

includes dialog and coordination with State and local authorities and emergency

groups such as police, fire, and hospitals." This change has been Incorporated

into the Errata section of this volume.

Item 3:. Water sampling will be part of an overall environmental

monitoring program for a new LLW disposal facility which will included as a

part of each application. The number and location of water monitoring locations

is a critically site-specific consideration., NRC will review each applicant's

monioring program to issuri that it will adequately assess site performance.

The program fly'or~ maynot include the nearest public drinking water supply. -

With respect to the comment on rapid movement of radioactive material through

fractured or jointed geological formations, the criteria for determining site

suitability in 561.50 of'1O CFR Part 61 are intended to ensure-that a disposal

site is located in geologic media having predictable transport characteristics.

The inability to monitor and predict site performance is one of the reasons

for avoiding such formations. Although the site operator should be alert to

any unusual monitoring results, the staff believes that any future licensed

facilities would not be located in fractured or jointed geological formations.

Item 4 - NRC's review of the applicant's proposed environmental

monitoring program will be based upon the ability of the program to supply

information on site performance and the applicant's procedures to collect,

interpret and take appropriate action on monitoring results.

Item 5 - 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 risk because of the difficulty of accurately assessing risks of exposures to future populations and the small number of individuals

involved who could receive a potential exposure. The staff reconsidered its

decision on this issue, but has not changed its position. Expressing exposure

in terms of risk would involve new work and time which is not warranted given

the urgent need for Part 61 and the limited additional information which would

be provided. In the DEIS, NRC compared calculated doses on a common basis to

existing standards which are expressed in terms of dose equivalent. NRC has,

however, attempted to express the overall impacts of Part 61 in the FEIS in a

clearer manner such that comparison of alternatives and unmitigated impacts

are easier to discern understand.

In addition, in response to this comment and to place in perspective the potential risk associated with the doses calculated in this FEIS. NRC has included

a section in the summary which provides dose response relationships as set forth

in International Commission on Radiation Protection Publication 26. The reader

can use these relationships to estimate the level of risk associated with doses

calculated for various alternatives.

-,4

.?

A-29
* -* .-

malior

V=?Z )-GI 06r

Apotic7nt SIGNOFF QMO Aopto- No. t-1ars2:

-

_ FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2Ap a.t S. 0._ ftre..Z i 1 - Bu - 06 'j

1. T O a n O teli .' Da'.Ii 1

IAn T".. on 5A-h-i.. ; i , .' _Jo r I 9IrAf,, I )lu. J 2 ^ A,,4.911 I5&q1 I 0 22-

SPIwOwt~wr Olotification Of Intent (O9tl2 I've DEC '1 1981

ba) ElReport Of Federal Action

.. - --- .' J

-c-Fe --h,

Docketed Comment Number: 16

Commenter: Arizona State Clearing House

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

4. Lqoal ApEhl nV rT pr. 5, U s A.piotto.n- :U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. PINCH

D. Oronicolenuite Off. of Nuclear Material Safety & 6. Fr'"I

c. SuPO Boo Safeguards Ft..ar V1t1o91919

d. CiTy Washington e. co.nty F 4d.l b. Tiltl 5. State , D. C. a z pc.do ZOSSS CibdeS) Unknown

ChntoCtlnrenon :R. Dale Smith (301) 427-4433 Nome eAkphoa" noj Nuclea Regulatory Comn.

T 7 Tlad not oPlinolpCI Draft Environmental B. TYoe d oateptlror nt

s Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing _. Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive c ,_,an.,,,, , .- , Waste - NUREG-078Z I~ ... -. '~ I This EIS analyzes requirements for the land dis- s Fed Apeney 1 posal of radioactive waste and specifically, near

t surface disposal, D. Tyvp ofo OewnO, : The proDos d action wi1l o9ovldo lice *n prpe cnt

o muents f~r is~srumance of licten's es fo~r the land Iove n sLsolar -L.. ' oyplt op° o tie~ k{c.(c Q * 10. A caalatepr a< trn poct/j~ oiec afa ni cpr am rv~c etcsn 1t E tinatod n nib.r 12 Type lof ,.c~t.O

Statewide Arizona banritl .5 a.R.,mnd io e-cornafr 

tr t" pc e.t t ne

13 P o ooard Pcad no 1 * conn~rnnir .Daa O i 01 15. T P *I rluanoa for 12c pr t t a 7 . 1~ra Ts ~ ~ °o 1Dce b Peaotrt -tnrn~t at Ooitll - FOthtia5rqrc~:

e r - II m ance e ao Oato,.

b Asia 0 ol0 1 S Ltat. , 02 03 04 6c-mne^t.. plar i e.Ar z na11nt ranl ZO ptiollftafJ r

S. Frd.t COSI a rni . ft0 r t rh d l 10. An~t Ertagig todl d-n F-othoe rentmr

Tnuh JS COi no 19 Dodltaonnt 

20 . dr 00F a nna to rc o.. n qnOs /(/r4ote sralt £ cts code) I1 F~ z*

^ Ofi Of n 

_ n a To taer blta wnn y k'to..eoq o a nd a. U t rr<T rr:tar bY 0 CU cir r X 44 S n, arweoto ,naT n vrnd n d ot . No Aewr o nr

ZAppbocat tanbean ty *ota fcattia't l ona State C learirg ou

I N rri. - W >" Pnl~~l~"§P nrTt twaC0~'.Ot r°aah ( 2Il giZon a .II.a V .VI C lrearinghouses , O 6 r, -* .tr~tdt.n.'S nneTdtl - to (R Cgiotn hII, V b DOl £o tsa r oe) U 0

O a.r pd nmeandtI - Ye, lg dale 1iEet vT ddot 

1. Tat., 19

20. OFaa..ctronaUnt N ,nrie ty. st , 127 Adtno"i.ratita p

_ 23 Add,.ta 30. =adrezat OIafot

Th3 31£AontIi en 32. aT, d _h er tno"o 3 dw 4 . 1 nqt motch dQ

Q . O .aed o 0. F O ONtet S .0 33 . va l o . de te t ld , 19 rq

i 01 . fterCotd b .A Oe'to'it 00 35. Conultor ddnipn al i to..nat~on 35 . leo montTe h dry 7 l . OptImndottnit atturnod fr c. I8. State Lot 00 .00 /W pi 'fb n~ noa- T Endot. 1 37. Re'.rkc ddod

: O hat otMr Od . our or

a.T po a. h Otae .00 lar

o 4. A" M-nr T I. Totat S .03 D. tONO

2. 6n. aci ng t ab . a nionr2an com n eter t.nod rm n ta ."g b .Fce ro Anc y A9 S O tH.CIH

31.. 0.0.1o nero 6 A t ff t rot oonor DI a o d= raa rTC14 mt ond p 3eb .on, ei mbd

-_ 5 a t nO Fi c S . A t n O t Aei .. nr p 9d* C

O24.10 Reecor bnoolfo " 6 Pormcaz1Woa"' rate, w i.fil

'24-101 Prsccetfd by G S4, F vderof At qo- nt ni Ca Zaor 74 47

A-30
w -I 4 4 -

J @- 61

SMIe NUMIRR (D ; eto im P- 6o

_ STATEFO5FAoI7 16)

S hS F. I

Office for Plarming-A1d*Pkgrtimming 523 East 121) Street Oe MoD$ s b sa 0 Te.r~p 515t2B1 3711

STATE CLEARIN?( -USE I'd

PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SIGNOFF

Docketed Comment Number: 17

Commenter: State of Iowa, Office for Planning and Programming

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

RCBERT 0. RA' GoMPwor

EDWARD J. STANEK, PhD * ODirecoI

Date Assigned: November 20, 1981 STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFIER: IA821130-347

Review Completed: December 31, 1981

APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE:

Draft EIS. Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste NUREG-0782

APPLICANT AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory LOmnIssion -

Address Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Washington. D. C. 20555

FEDERAL PROGRAM4 TITLE, AGENCY U.S. Nuciear Regulatory Lommitsslon

AND CATALOG NNMBER:

AMOULNT OF FUNDS REQUESTED-:A

NA

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61 'Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

NUREG-0782 Volumes 1 - 4.

The State Clearinghouse makes the following disposition concerning this application:

3 No Comment Necessary. The application must be submitted as received by

the Clearinghouse with this form attached as evidence that the required

review has been performed.

J Comments are Attached; The- application must be submitted with this form

plus the attached comments as evidence that the required review has been

performed.

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE COMENTS:

82 JAN -7. P3:02

*l~ j* c.;W

C"i-14 Mwsedged by card. .11-71a V. .h . 0. t&-,Mntn) -,N zzAA;, I

A. Thomaa Wallace F

Federal Funds Cocrdi itor

A-31
..: :S. ;

Minnesota Depanment of Economic Development

*82 JAl-7 P3:23

Docketed Comment Number: 18

December 18, 1951 (qG FR PR- 6i,0

(4G FR 5_1_-I6$G

.... ,-....-

0OC-~' .* i.^;

L;. A r~. .

Commenter: Minnesota-Department of Economic Development

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comlssion

Washington D. C.

20555

RAt Draft Enviromental Impact Statement an 10 CFR Part 61

LIcensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radio Active Waste

SCH 08110402

Dear SirR

This is to certify that the Minnesota State Clearinghouse has, in accordance

with the procedures estabUlhed by Office of Management and Budget (OM)

Circular A-95, reviewed the above project. State agencies which may be

interested in or affected have been informed of the proposed project by

this office.

This letter is to inform you that no state agency had any negative comment

regarding your proposed project, and that you are therefore authorized to

proceed with the application process. Your funding agency may want to

know either the State Clearinghouse number or to see a copy of this letter

in order to verify that you have co.Wlied with the requirements of OM8

Circular A-95.

Sincerely,/

Richard Woodbury 1dstrator

State Clearinghoufe 612/296-2289 '

RW:pas

4cM*i- W~ed by Car ......... Jelzg

4.80OCedarSirect. St.Paull. *Ntinnesoia 5510 6122n96-2,53

--= S . ;.

A-32
'<* Executlve Department

voj 155 COTrAGE STREET N.E.. SALEM, OREGON 97310

December 1981

(MG FR S1-1(7)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Washington, D.C. 20555

- -4

.W't'vqto

-00,t Trv':CC P

U S . - SErl67.S-SS Docketed Coiment Number: 19

Commenter: State of Oregon, Executive Department

Response(s): This coiment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the coment which require a response.

'8I JAH -7 P3:23

..-I : I;.i

RE:Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radio Active

Wastes -

OR811104-002-4

Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental Impact

-Statement for State of Oregon review and tomment.

Your draft was referred to the apprpriate state agencies

for. review. The consensus among reviewing agencies was

that the draft adequately described the environmental

impact of your proposal.

We will expect to receive copies of the final statement

as required by Council of Environmental Quality Guidelines.

Sincerely,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION

Xay Wilcox

A-95 Coordinator

KW:cb Ated#ed by' Jrd.Aj) 9 z : X...

A-33
:-: t. . - . :.

-2- January 12, 182

{' DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.

January 12, 1982t2 1; 4:i3

Secretary of the Commission

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject: DOW COhMENTS. PROPOSED RULEtAKING

L.AMU4 L.A0"ORACY

viol - SW101 M

lii '4 twi n so

(6 fC 517FR

OcrzR 61

10 CTx614 F 3?g)

Dow appreciates the opportunity to comment on 10 CTk 61.

The Commiasion nov har sufficient technical information snu

experience to justify establishment and enforcement of regulatory standards and technical criteria for the proper

disposal of radioactive wastes. Dow encourages the

Comamision to take immediate actions on 10 CT& 61.

Sincerely,

.t. Oven

Group Leader

Nuclear 4 Solidification Services

517-636-3388

fo

The subject proposed rulemaking was published in tne Federal

Register on July 24, 1981. with the comment period to expire

on October 22, 1981. HUREG-0182. a draft environmental

impact statement, was referenced to provide guidance and

support to 10 CFR 61, however, NUREC-0782 had not been

published. Dow comments on proposed rulemaking 10 CFR 61

are dated September 18 1981, and were submitted to the

Commission with a cover letter dated October 12, 1981. The

cover letter states that additional comments will be submitted as necessary and as opportunities &rise.

The Commission has extended the comment period for 10 CFR bl

to January 14, 1982. Dow received MUREC-0782 on October 19,

1981 and a draft Branch Technical Position (iT) on Waste

Form dated October 30, 1981. Additional Dow comments are as

follows:

NUaEG-072S

On pages 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the comments dated September 18,

1981. Dow stated concern that NUREG-0782 maf be placing too

much emphasis on pathway analysis and overlooking the concptcs of ALARA and best available technology and ignoring

the needs and objectives of assuring protection or the

workers, tae general population, and the environaent during

the operation of the disposal facility.

Review of NUtUG-0782 has confirmed that the concern is valid

and justified.

BTP on Waste Form

'Dow comments dated November 25, 1981, were submitted to

Mr. Robert E. Browning, Deputy Director Division of Waste

Hanagement. Copies of the *?P ann Dow comments are attached.

Please consider them as part of the Dow comments on 10 CFR bl.

AN OPATW40 UWV OP The noW c6.&AcAL coMPAN

.e az.1} cfnrdby I .lP

A-34
Docketed Comment Number: 20

Commenter:.-Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

Response(s): Item I - With respect to the application-of ALARA to-a nearsurface disposal (NSO) facility, NRC intends that ZLARA apply to the performance objectives addressing releases of radioactivity to the environment and

safety during operation. Changes Yae been made to 10 CFR 61 to reflect this

intent. With respect to Individual technical requirements based on AUARA. NRC

made no change to the rule. .Part 61 sets out-minimum requirements that should

be met in all cases. The choice of an individual licensee in meeting any

given requirement~s) would be done on an Individual basis considering all

aspects of ALARA (e.g., occupational exposures during operations, effluent

releases, cost, etc.). (NRC also addressed the issue Of application of ALARA

to an NOD facility and development of 'requirements based on ALARA in response

to specific comments filed on Oropoied 10 CFR 61. The reader iss referred to

Appendix B.)- -^- -*- * -

NRC has considered in its EIS the use of 'best available technology" for the

design, operation; closure and 1orm of.wase dipsed Oatanar-surface

disposal facility. NRC does not believe, in its efforts to analyze the poten-_

tial long-term costs and impacts of disposal that it has ignored the needs and

objectives of assuring protection of ,the workers, the general populaion and

the environment during the operations of the disposal facility. As discussed

In Chapter 6 of the DEIS, the improvements reflected in Part 61 serve to reduce

any potential operational impacts. NRC believes that flexibility Is needed in

methods to achieve and improve operational safety and that possible further

improvements In operational safety may best be'addressed on a -case-by-~case.

bas s .

A-35
nORTBI!us' u7IjfliE!3

[L! J -j -

.-

Nr. Samuel J. Chilk

Secrttary of the Co

U. S. Nuclear Begul

Washington, DC 205

Atention: Docketi

Reference:

Ce I ae S.. 4. $s, 8-6 e-M

P O BOX 27 KHARTFOF. CONNECTICUT 01IC

0S W\% 15 PA'1;

N January 14, 19 '. - )

amsson \> ' atory Comission

555 -

ni and Service Branch C4 6 7tSlr76)

Proposed Changes to 10 CYR Parts 2, 11, 20, 21, 30.

40, 51, 61, 70, 73 and 170. Federal Register page.

38, 081-38,105. dated July 24, 1981.

Dear Sir:

SRC Proposed Rule on Licensing Reoutreaments

for Land Disposal of RadioactIve Waste

Northeast Utilities Service Company, on behalf of Northeast Nuclear

Enargy Company and Connecticut Tankee Atomic Power Company commends the

Coemission on Its work to date regarding land disposal of radioactive

wastes. While the Notice of Proposed RulenkItng represents a sigf5 i- cant improvement over earlier drafts, the present verson still -equires

additional modifications to ensure that disposal of low-level wastc is

accocplished In a fair and equitable manner.

Northeast Utilities' subsidiary companies, responsible for the operation

of three nuclear power plants and the part owner of five others that are either operating or under construction. has a vital interest in providing

for the safe and efficient disposal of nuclear vwste. As such. ve believe that all rules must have a sound basis asd that arbitrary.

capricious rules bzve no place in federal regulations. idith these

thoughts in mind, we offer our comments oan the proposed rule end the

accompanying 'Draft Enviromemntal Inpact Statement" (NUEC-0782) for the

Commission's consideration in development of the final rule for land

disposal of radioactive wastes.

SPECITIC COITS

1. Waste Stability Requiremeat

-2-

"...institutional control is relied on for periods up to 100 years to control access to the closed site. This permits the disposal of

Class A segregated and Class B stable waste without special provisions for intrusion protection, since these classes of waste

contein types and quastitiss of radiolsotones that Vil deca

durinx the 100-year Period to levels that do Pot vose a danier to Public health and safety. ." (emphasis added)

This paragraph aqpesrs to support the aumerical values of permissible concentretions listed In Table 1. Rowever, paragraph 61.56(b) states:

'...The requirements ia this section are Intended to provide stability of the waste for at least 150 years. Stability La intended to easure that the waste does not degrade and proeote slumping.

collapse, or other failure of the disposal unit and thereby lead to water Infiltretion. Stability is also a factor in limiting exposure to an inadvertent intruder, since it provides a recognizable and

noudispersible waste..."

There is no justification for providing "stability' for 150 years whsn

the waste does not pose a danger to public health after 100 years. Therefore, we recommend that the waste stability requirement of paragraph

61.56(b) be changed from 150 to 100 years to be consistent with paragraph

61.7(b) (4).

Peragraph 61.7(b)(5)

This paragraph needs to clerify whether the High Integrity Container

(SIC) alone will meet the stability requirments for Class C wastes. (i.e. 500 year stability requirement)

Paragraph 61Z.4

Burial trenches tna contain only Class A waste, which according to paragraph 61.55(a) are not required to be stable, should be excluded

from long-term stability requirements of paragraph 61.44.

Paragraph 61.50(a)(5)

The terms "coastal high-hazard' eas" and "vetlad' should be defined.

Paragraph 61.52(a)(3)

The term "cover" should be clarified as to whether it includes an Impervious cap.

VS~o

/I

ADO

Paragraph 61.7(b)(2):

As it is not possible to reduce water access to zero the phrase

"elinsted or' (line 6) should be deleted. rurthermore, "stability

of the waste and the disposal site" needs to be clarified as to whather stability of the disposal site refers to its operational

phase or the stabilization for site closure, the latter of which,

according to peregraph 61.7(c)(2), would not be required until

02sP0sal operations are about to cease.

P2R PR ... 2 46FR30808 PDR....... 1

A-36
-3-

2. License Renewal

Paragraph 61.7(c)(2) statest

"...Periodically, the authority to conduct the above surface operations and receive waste vill be aubject to a license renewal, at which tine the operating history vwil be reviewed and a decision

made to permit or deny continued operation..."

We understand the above requirement to mean that the disposal facility

operating license mut be renewed periodically. at five year intervals.

This is not appropriate since the operation of the disposel facility is

viewed by NRC and industry as a long-term activity. Therefore, the

license should be for the operational lifetime of the facility as is the currert licensing prartice for operating plants. This would require a

lone-term comaitmnt from the facility operator while at the *ae tine

prevent a possible periodic disruption of service.

Furthermore, periodic license renevals are' unecessary as 'RC has au- thority to perform inspections under Paragraph 61.82 and to tabe appropriste action in instances of violation under Paragraph 61.2& and 61.83

of this rule, including revoking or suspending any license. (Additional

coents on public hearings associated with license renewals are provided under item 5.) -

3. Trinsuranie Limit '

Parsgraph V. D. states: '

"...The Coiasionz is applying a 500 mrem/yr maximm individual

tvposizre lmit foF this unusual came. (intrusion) This limit is

based on 1C rebeiendations for dose limits to Individuals end is

a level that is recognized as providing adequate protection. Since

only one, or at most a few, persons would be involved, it is not

noeessry to considar a population dose. 'This limit is then used to determine the allowable concentrations of nuclides in 'each class'

of waste. '(See Paragraph 61.42) .. " '

As stated above, Paragraph 61.42 provides a 500 nrem/yr accidental

instruston dose limit for the isotopes listed in Table 1, including

transuranics. Yet this stated criteria (500 nrenlyr) was apparently

ignored In the developnent fof the maximu allovable concentration for

alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes for Class C waste. Rather, Paragraph

V.C. states%

"...For most of the alpha emitting transuraice auclides, the maximum

allowable concentrations were calculated to be in the range of 10

nanocuries per gram currently imposed by disposal facilities.

These calculations were conservatively based, in the that did not

allow credit for dilution by other wastes. If this factor vere

changed, the values would increase somewhat. A decision was made

not to recalculate in order to come up with higher values. This

decision'is based on two factors. 'TFirt, in the spirit of the

ALAA' (as Low as Reasonably Achievable) concept. the lower value of

10 nCi/g has been demonstrated as an achievable concentration to ' control the disposal of transuranic nuelides. This value has been

imposed by the Department of Energy for some eleven years and by

most of the coemerica1 disposal site'operators for'nearly that -

long. The last comtercial site imposed the 10 nCi/g restrictidonin

1981; Thus, there is no need to increase the limit from the standpoint of aechevability..."

One of the major problems the NRC needs to address ts the development of

consistency throughout Its regulations. There Is no technical justification for arbitrarily lowvring the limits on the ndi allowable ''

concentration of Class C transuranic waste to 10 nCt/gm from that value

necessary to limit intruder dose to 500 mrel/Jr., Establishment of a

limit simply because it Is believed to be achievable does not consititute

a valid or ratitonal basis in the absence of a cost/benefit analysis.

An rM study described in NP-1494. "Activity Levels of Tranauranic

Nuclides in Lov-Level Solid Waste from U. S. Power Reactors" presents

the results of isotopic analysis of various vaste forms from 25 nuclear

plants. Although for transuranic isotopes, the nedian values were

within the 10 nCi/g proposed limit, there were dozens of analyses of Pun-'

239, Am-241, Cm-242 and Cm-244 which contained concentrations in the 10-"

100 nCi/g range. These results clearly show that the 10 nCi/g limit on trasuranic alaents is not readily achievable in all cases and could cause needless hardsbip'sud aspense. The reference to ALARA, therefore,

as justification for establishment of this arbitrary limit is a blatant

misuse of thia 'concept.' The "Raesonably Achievable" concept within

ALARI is just as important as the concept of 'As low'as.'"l .; '*

We also call your attention to the fact that the House Science Committee, during a recent mark-up session on ER 5016, voted to erpand the

definition of transuranic waste from 10 to 100 nCi/g; '

Paragraph 61.55 - Table 1 ' '

At present the burial sites in South Carolina and Nevada will not accept'

any waste that has traneuranics above 10 uCi/gS' Eowever; alpha-emitting

transuranics that are found In nuclear power plant radioactive waste are

not the Isotopes of major concern. Therefore, we recommeud that Colunss

1 and 2 of Table I permit burial of alpba-emitting transuranic Isotopes

of up to 100 nCi/5 when the isotopes have been identified and rationed to specific gam a emitting Isotopes. We also reco=aned that class A end

! waste limits should also be established for Pu-2 41.

A-37
-5-

-6-

Purthermore, as the intruder pathway (i.e. long-terin potential for

bazard) is the basis for the TRS limit, Cm-242, which has a 163 day

half-life should be exempted from whatever limit is ultimately established

for TRU wastes.

Paragraph 61.55(d)

The paragraph indicates that radiocctive wastes with concentrations that

aeceed the values shown In colunm 3 are not generally acceptable for

near-surface disposal and shall not be disposed of without specific

Commission approval pursuant to subsaection 61.58. This requir nt would clearly create problem for spent resin shipments froe our nuclear

facilities. As such, we. recommend that the final rule specify the

criteria the Commission intends to use in authorizing disposal of wastes

which exceed the limits for class C wastes specified in colu 3 of Table 1.

5. De Minimus Concentrattons

Paragraph V.C. states:

"...The Commission recognizas the need for a 'do minials" classification of wastes, wastes that would be exempt from Part 61 and

would be considered of no regulatory concern. The Ctission

believes, however, as the federal. adiation Policy Council has

recommended, that such exemptions should be determined on a apecific waste basis. In this regard, a recent rulemaking (46 Fn

16Z30) established such en exaeption in a new S 20.306 for certain

levels of tritiun and carbon-14 contained in liquid scintillation

and animal carcass waste. Other wastes may also readily lend

themselves to treatuent in this mannar. The Commission will be

working over the next 2 years to define these wastes end provide

for additiocal exmptions as appropriate. Thus, Part 61 will not

establish a generic "de nininia category for waste..."

Northeast Utilities supports the "do -i-mus concept and encourages the

prompt establishment of the necessary criteria. It appears to us that

broader use of the "de mininus" classification would result In conserva- tifo of scarce disposal site area while maintaining protection for the

health and safety of the public. The All's National Environental

Studies Project has issued a report entitled "Us Minimum Concentrations

of Radionuclides in Solid Wastes" which should be reviewed by the Commission.

5. Public Hearines

Paragraph V.C. states:

"...The life of a typical facility cam be brokan Into S phases:

preoperational, operational, closure, poastclosure observation, and

institutional control... at intervals specified in the license, (the

normal tem for materials license Is currently 5 years) the licensee

would be required to submit a licene renewal application (S 61.27).

At this time, the disposal site closure plan and funding requireets

would be updated and, financial arrangements for assuran of adequate

funding reviewed. A public hearing would be offered..."

Northeast. ltilities baa reviewed the five phases that aka up the life

cycle of the disposal facility. Within these five phase there are

provisions for multiple public bsarings.

1. The first public hearing is provided for subsequent to dockatlag

the license application.

2. During operation, public hearings are provided for at each of the 5

year lice renewals. for a typical facility with a 25 year life.

public hearings would be held at 5, 10, 15 an4 20 years after

initial operation.

3. A public bearing is provided for at the time of sfts closure, I.e.,

the 25th year.

4. The final bearing is provided for at the time of license transfer,

i.e., about 5 years after closure or the 30th year.

Thus, for a disposal facility with a 25 year operating life, the regulations provide for a total of seven public hearings.

Although Northeast Utilities supports the concept of public participation, and believes that all pertinent issues should be addressed prior

to cosenccmmt of construction, we have also observed the obstructionist tactics some parties have utiliaed at public hearings and the

disastrous influence these have had on cost and schedule of a project.

The provisions for a multitude or public haarings with their pernicious

affect on orderly and predictable constructio, operation, closure and

transfer of license processs makes US deeply concerned that no private

entity will be willing to subject themselves to this degree of regulatory

uncertainty.

A-38
-g- -7-

NOrth1eaee tilities believes that the conditions for facility construction.

operation clo ure and license transfer must be specified and agreed

upon at the outset by the licensee. A public bearing vill be held at

that time, if requested, for public input .to the process. Subsequent to license issuance. the NRC should monitor and inspect tbe activities at the facility to ensure they are in conformance with the license. Unforeseen events can be accoodated by amending the facility license.

Purther participation by the public is not necessary to ensure the

facility is being operated properly. The prospect of repeated public

hearings every five years to consider continued operation of the facility

is totally unnecessary and most be eliminated from the final rule. A sote

appropriate and effective oversight vould be provided by assigning a

full. time RC inspector to a disposal site.

Additional Coaments on IOcTR61

Title of Proposed Rula:

It is essential for the public to begin to distinguish between high,

level nuclear wastes which will require disposal in geologic repositories and low-level waste which, under 10 CGlt 61; will be permitted to be disposed of in shallow land burial sites. Furthermore, the act

P.L.96-573. which gives authority to states to establish regional com- pacts end for which 10 CER 61 will be a major guideline Is. is titled the

"?ov Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" (emphases added). -, ThrTfore,

we believe that it is entirely appropriate to change the title of the

proposed rule to "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Wastes."

Paragraph 61.59(g)t

The 100'yeir institutional control period should be extended for as long es the governing body exists. This would extend the surveillance period and protect against site intrusion until the governing

body determines the site could be reopened to the public.

Paragraph 61.62(g) '

"Pay as you go" surety requirements for closure should be permitted, as opposed to surety bonding for an entire site.

General Coment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (NURZG-0782)

The Comession should indicate how the adequacy of quality-scaling

factors (used to estimate nuclides not readily identifiable) will be

determined..'

General Comernts on 10 CPR 20 Proposed Changes

Notice should be provided as to when the Regulatory Guide on classification of radioactive waste vil be available. In the interim, guidance

should be provided regarding classification of wastes as required by

20.311(c).

Paragraph 20.311(d)(3) and (f)(5):

The degree of implementation and criteria for the quality assurance

programs, required under these paragraphs should be indicated. We

would also recommend that the term, "quality assurance" be changed to

"quality control" so as not to be confused with the quality assurance

requirements of 10 CFX 50, Appendix D.

Should you have any questions regarding our comuents, please feel free

to contact us.

Very truly yours.

NORTHEAST M~ITIS SERVICE C0MPAN

W. C. Counsil

Senior Vice President

VicPVrcsidet gelear and

Environmentsl Engineering

0)

A-39
l. . -

Docketed Comment Number: 21

Commenter: Northeast Utilities

Response(s): Item 1 - In Chapter 7 of Volume 2 (Main Report) of the draft

EIS, NRC presented an example of the possible use of scaling factors to

estimate the presence of trace radionuclides based upon measurements of radionuclides which are easier to measure. The example used the isotopes Co-60 and

Cs-137 as indicator isotopes. The isotope Ce-144 has also been used by

licensees to estimate the presence of transuranic isotopes. The scaling

factors were developed based on reported concentrations obtained from a number

of studies involving measurements of radionuclide concentrations in reactor

wastes. One of the intents of the example was to inform the public that NRC

staff recognized the difficulties that would result from a reouirement to

strictly measure every radionuclide listed in Table 1 in every waste package.

NRC staff recognized that compliance with the waste classification requirement

would be of concern and used the example as a means of helping to focus input

on the subject. Specific factors that might be applied at a particular

facility would be determined based on measurements of radionuclide concentrations in waste generated at that facility. The accuracy of such factors would

be confirmed through periodic specific measurements.

In the final Part 61 rule, NRC intends to help clarify its Intent regarding

waste classification by allowing indirect methods to determine-radionuclide

concentrations and waste classes. Further, the NRC Low Level Waste Licensing

Branch of the Division of Waste Management has prepared a draft branch

technical position (BTP) on waste classification and has made it available for

public review. This BTP outlines acceptable methods by which a licensee may

comply with waste classification, including the use of scaling factors, and

will eventually be used as a basis for a regulatory guide on waste

classification.

A-40
Docketed Comment Number: 22

Commenter: Township of Lower Alloways Creek

Response(s): This condent was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS, although the comment addressed only the rule. The commentor's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

A-41
Docketed Comment Number: 23

Commenter: General Electric, Nuclear Energy Products Division

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS. although the comment addressed only the rule. The commentor's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

A-42
;t . January 4, 1962 a

Secretar7 of the Commission \ AAZ f

U.sS.Nuetun RDegculatory Conniss g77y¢ \t d

^1T:X: Docketing and Service Branc C 6 V(,~8

Dear SIr/Zs.: D ut.. -

I would like to coctent on tnte propo-ed rule, `-:^enqnp7

Aequtrements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (46 F7A Soon),

and or. the Draft Lnvirormental Lnpazt State-ent, M1IR10G-0702,

supporting that proposed rule.

In light of the troubled history or land disposal of radioactive waste, this proposed rule Is an aul-rable-atteapt to

regulate such facilities. The provisions which would subject

these factlities to the Nt1C hearing process, thareby encourasi;ng

puolIo deoute, aie sepecially comnerdable. iowever, I fal- that

insufficient consistration 3as Octn Civer. to the long-term

consequences of sballcii land burial of radloactive wastes.

* realistic extrapolation or past and present societal trends

would reveal seot flaws ir the analysis presented in !.M.MG-07U2.

hadlokctive wastes remain dangerous for certuries; their safe

disposal is dependent upon a statle social structure for at least

5OO) years. Aistory (and current events) clearly shots that-suc'

staoility cLrnot be predicted, much less irsurbd. _t is questionamle

whether the United dtates, as we now l.ws it, will exist SOJ years

from now. T.e stabllity -of te -financlal "orld Is even nmre uncertain. The financial assurances proposed in -MUL'J-07-"2 are not depression-proo,. Should t'ls ::ation be Intact in. tt.e future,

its econo.y rost surely would noz bave remained ststic. -hc ef'eCts

of war a;uve not been considereds even a conventional wur fourat

netr a wast% disposal site would release large quantities of

r-dioaet!vit7 to the -envirornment.

The DIIS a-alysis is particularly de Icient In-its assRXsnent

o:-future land use. present.trends In populat'on ;roith, soil

erosIon, and water resources indicate th-At 'n the future landr

and 4ter-will be extremely precious ccrnodities. T:ere is a*-

read, a water shortage in nany parts of t:e country. As tnt

population In.rekses and more and more farnland is lost to erosier

and uroer growth, arable land will be Ir. short supply. ;t na =a/O

be thAt tat "Intruder scenarlos" ?roowsed ir tne :MIS will not oe inal7eptant, As is now assuned; the need for land and food //c Aay ..-

oe so severe tut, t..e use of wastu ourill sites for agriculturb AW

may be p-r:3tt-d. S.is is estpclly lA6ly since tne sIte c.iAr °

acterlstics (topoGraphy, soil permsab'llty, neteorology) cost

favoraole for waste disposal are also t'-. best for takin; or 4

residential purposes. The water crisis ma7 be so ser'ous that

tn- Us rof contaninated wells will be allowed.

..n ex&-ple of an analysis tn the L'. th-at is deficlent nubS-. ei.

*een In t^.e ccnte.t Of tocky's soc:et7 is tha^t of expo3urt calcuL1tions *'or thc 'rtt-uder-asrlculturv scenarlo, *ppendix 3, sectior @

82126047s 820104

2 46FR3"1g ~d y t =rdi).z4qi'.`

3.4.2. TnL intruder is ussumed to :a an individual wzo lives In

a rouse on tae w7aste ourlal site und consumes food rao-n In a garden on tie sIte. The lntruder i3 assuMed to woric at a regular

Job during the da, and spend only aoout half his t're a -ntde.

Tnis scenario does not consider a more plausIble fmil- intruder,

in wnich the followink factors would alttr the risk analysls:

(1) sone me-bers of te:e frmly ray not work or -a- ark ln t:.e

come, tnrs sperding much tore thme at tihe sate; (21 sote fan.ly

nembers may cc children or pregnant wormen, who art more sensit:ve

to radiation. Ti's unalys~s is ina~aquate for present-day socity";

its applicaoility to the future Is e7en more uncertaIn.

Tne DAIS also neglects the Palnerabillty of shallcw land

ourial to acts of ter-orism or stootage.

! ftar that the proposed rule, if adopted, wcli eneourage

the proliferation o: wuste disposal sItes. This is undesiruble

for the reasons detailed acove. :nstead, tae proolem of radiokctivc waste disposal should be udiressed f'ram arct:er perspective,

tniat o:' waste reducticn. itather than contin':Ing to proCe::t wastes

woen ttero is no satisfactory netikod to dtspose of them, a norateriu: on waste production from those waste scurce2 for which

toere exist alternative means of obtaining the sane benc'Sts is

appropriate. The use of nuclear fIssion to generate electrlc't7

is an oovious candidate. liable alterrnati7cs exist f'or the prcduction of electricity: solar, wind, cOal, nugnetoydrodvn.atis,

eco. Tne costs, of waich waste GeneratIon is cne.. oar cut-eo-;

t.q zenefIts of ruclear po ar plints. .n I2we=tiac s-mcdc"n cf

all operatirn plnts will decrease thre volume of auste to oi

aspOos6d of 07 anout 65A (accordIrg to eIgures on p. D-6S of

t:rekaG-0782). This would pt;Sit toe use of exlstlno raste fac!l3_t:s

w-hile alttrnutives can be developed for institutIonal and Industr al

uses of radioactive =aterilsis. This ulternatIve, whion. Ias not

cons.dered In t::e ZZIS, Is clearly the most reascrable solu..ior. +.o t.he problem of radioactive waste dispqsl.,

/ ~.~ !-'*/: Sineesely,i

A*y S. Hubbard

3o0 3636-

Cleveland, Ohto 64101

A-43
Docketed Comment Number: 24

Coementer: Amy Hubbard

Response(s): Item 1 - The safe disposal of radioactive waste at a near-surface

disposal facility is not solely dependent on a stable social structure for at

least 500 years as noted in the comment. The approach NRC has followed in

defining requirements for safe disposal of LLW is to establish controls on

each of the principal components of a disposal systemo--the waste form and

package, site characteristics, facility design and engineering and Institutional controls. Complete reliance is not placed on any one component (e.g.,

institutional controls), but each acts with the others to collectively ensure

safe disposal over the long term. Thus, Part 61 does not assume total and

complete reliance on institutional controls to prevent disturbance of the

waste. Rather, Part 61 assumes reliance on active institutional controls for

a limited time frame (100 years) after which the waste form, site characteristics, and facility design and operations continue to provide the necessary

control. :

If the social structure were to change radically or if a major war were to be

fought, as noted in the comment, the impacts from such changes would probably

be far more significant than the radioactivity which might be released from a

disposal facility.

Item 2 - The approach NRC has followed in Part 61 is to ensure

that if someone unknowingly intrudes into a disposal facility after the end of

active institutional controls, that individual or individuals would not receive

an unacceptable dose. Based on NRC's analysis, exposures to such individuals,

assuming reasonable activities would result indoses only a few hundred millirem

at 100 years and a few millirem at 500 years.

Part 61 would allow productive uses of the site provided such uses would not

affect site integrity or lead to disturbance of the disposed waste. If at

some future time it is decided to use the site for productive purposes (such

as farming as noted in the coment) the potential impacts of doing so would

have to be weighed and balanced against the benefits.

Item 3 - For purposes of analysis NRC considered 3 intrusion

events. These were selected based on evaluation of the broadest range of

events possible, those potential events considered by other investigators and

the likelihood of occurrence. The 3 events can be characterized as intruderconstruction (exposure to workers constructing a house at the site),

intruder-agriculture (exposure to individuals living in the house constructed

and consuming food grown onsite), and intruder-discovery (exposure to an

individual who digs into'the waste, realizes that something is wrong and

ceases his excavation activities). NRC assumed that only a few individuals

would be exposed through such activities based on the number of people normally

required to construct and live in a house. NRC could have used much more

conservative events and assumptions regarding the types of individuals involved

and time spent at home. Given the unlikely nature of the assumed event, and

the conservative nature of many assumptions in the analysis, NRC did not make

such assumptions. NRC has generally tried to consider a more realistic set of

likely individual actions rather than a less realistic worst-case approach.

Item 4 - NRC did not consider the effects of terrorism or

sabotage. Besides the unlikely nature of such events, their consequences

would generally be limited and involve only onsite effects.

Item 5 - The proposed rule is not intended to encourage

proliferation of waste disposal sites. Rather the purpose of the rule is to

establish comprehensive national standards and technical criteria for siting,

licensing, operation, closure and institutional care to ensure the safe

disposal of LLW.

We concur that waste reduction is a laudable goal. The staff has encouraged

waste generators to use available technology and administrative procedures to

reduce the volume of shipments. The disposal site operators and state

governments have also encouraged volume reduction.

With respect to the suggestion for immediate shutdown of all operating nuclear

power plants as a means of waste reduction, this action would result in

imnediate and severe impacts to society as a whole without corresponding

A-44
clearly-defined benefits. At the same time this would not eliminate the

generation of waste from the shutdown plants or from nonfuel-cycle sources.

Moreover, in the absence of compelling public health, safety and/or

environmental reasons, NRC is not empowered to take such an action.

. 'I .

A-45
Secretary of the Commission

A.".: Dockstins *nd Service Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Sir:

'c2 Si1! 1; P:0t2

: .: . . 1,:

:= fPR-b

C4' S I? )

Enclosed are comments on the hc draft LIS on regulations for shallow-laud

bu;Iel of radioactive waste (10 CrR 61). Questions on these comments should

be directed to either Dr. John C. Podgers or Dr. Betty A. Perkins, Group tS-6.

Environmental Science Croup, Los Aloamo National Laboratory. 7s 803-3167.

Sincerely.

OaEERAL COMMENTS ON THE£ DRAFT EIS FOR IOCFRSI (NUREC782)

Environmental sce~ntists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have made a preliminary review of the Craft llS for thc proposed NRC regulatorns 1001'61.

The following comments, grouped as general and technical. are offered as brief summary

statements.

Genceal "ssucs

1) This EIS Is to be commended for trying to bring a volurninom amount of data into one sct of documents that can be used as a beginning for open discussion on the Issue of disposal of radioactive wastes. Moreover the presentation of the concept of Intruder scenarios is iMportant In dctermining possible pathways for mobilization of radlondclides. The documents also

suggest the necessity for de minimus. shallow land butial. end deeper confinement classification

types of wastes, which Is Impottant.

2) The proposed regulations purport to provide a generic waste classification system which Is an 'umbrella' (MaLn Report 7.) under which the disposal of all types of non-high level wastes can be rtgulated. This umbrella approach. In -e maner In which the regulations are formu- lated. is flawed because in some cases the lInking of the waste classification system witit the

specific disposal requIremlents for near surface lend disposal SSD (Main Report 7.1) has tl-.

result of itrposIng technologicalfltixe (such as waste form, anc laycrig) cn e sses of wastes

whieh might have otherwise been candlidates for dispsal by some fo~rm of eater confinement

disposa (GSDJ system. These technologi cat b

t les" arc quest ionable because their long-term

containment properties are poorly understood and largely untested uder the expected geophysical conditions of shatllw land burial andl possible tuture land use.

3) Tbe regulations. In classifying wastes as concentration as a function of volume, appear to

encourage dilutIon as a means of allowing NSD for some types of wastes. The draft DS should

discuss whether this type of "technical fix" ts desirable cr whether greater confinement facilitles should be the preferred mode of disposal.

4) The regulations In classifying waste as a function cf radlonuclidc content place an ex- tremely large burden on the accurate measurement of these radlonuclides. In mary cases the use of scaling factors will not be satisfactory because of the variation of rndionuellde distribution as a function of time, operating paramelers, specific events during operation. and

inital conditions. These accurate measurement requirements (many of which are technically difficult to make) in turn place a large burden on the waste generator, disposal stc operator. end finally on the governmcntal manager (who must accept that the wastes have been ac- curately classifled).

S) There arc many uneertaintles in the data ban used to develop the proposed classification

system. The draft FM itself contains numerous references to the highly uncertaln and orten

extremely variable natune of much of the data used in determining the concentration, inventory.

and hazard potentlals of low-level wastes (Note il particular the discussion of uncertainties In source Ciarcterlzatio. It section 3 of AppenMix D, of intrusion pathway characterization in the

Main Report Ch. 4, and especially the problems of definang the uncearintlcs In the proposed

methods and parameters used to assign hazard reduction credits for supposedly stable. nondispersible. low-leaching waste forms in the Xain Report. section 4.3.4. The propagation of these

untertaintles through the system to the formulation of waste classification itself is nowhere

explicitly evaluated, and incorporated in lMes regulatlons. The order of magnitude Increase of

waste classifleatlon limits tor Cs-137 over calculated concentration limits (Main Report. Section

7.2.S) Is particularly questIonable, in light of these uncertainties.

1

b0hcyra ll~;E<

Robert T. Lovrey

Director. ' ste tanagement and

7

i zo-_ _52t -7;-V..o i_ j 5- rA-46
'. , ' *

6) Although ALARA considerations are mentioned In the Et S (Main Report. sections 7.2.5

7.2.f and elsewhere) It is always with the qualifiers Tin the Interens ofr or 'In tn e spirit of

ALARA on the part of NRC, rather than where It Is perhaps most needed as part of performance objectives for waste generators and site operators (as wa6 the case in rezrli vortekt 3

of tnese regulatlons). Thus, the requirement to meet or exceed (in the sense of ALARA) the

performance objectives of thcse regulations has been Improperly litted from the requirements of

this Part.

t ) An oversight noted Is that NRC has not stated Its support fo. regulation of the hazard- |( Z ous. non-tadlodetive components In low-level wastes. or how these regulations might be Integrated with the requiremen ts of this Part.

8) Neither the documentation of the data bases for waste stream characterbzation (references

5 and 4t. Ap D). nor documentation of the data and methodoldgy for the pathway analyzes

(references 1, 6. and 12. App. C) have been available for review due to a failure by NRC to NL

have them published asid availoble with the release of the ElS. This severely limits a thorough

assessment of the suitability of the EIS on the proposed action.

9) While the draft EIS covers burial sites that may be licensed In the future, the draft does

not discuss the Impact of the regulations on sites that are presently In use or have been used.

Some type of Appendix Is needed to Indicate how the proposed regulations may affect these

existing sites. - -

Technical Issues -'--

1) As5 mcntioned In the general comments, there are uncertainties and technical diffieultles

In determining radlonuelide content, yet the regulations are very specific about permitted concentrations in the three waste categories. The responsibility for crrect segregating and

propcrly certifying that wastes meet the requirements of this Part rests solely en waste generatos." The NRC recognizes that waste generators face severe operatlonal difficulties and

economic penallties meeting the requirements by direct measurement, and are prepared to.

compromise in terms of 'scaling factors' (Main Report, setlon7.5). The stated (Main Report.

Ch. 7 and App. 0) examples of how this might work are fraught w th many technical difficulties, Including two In parUcular:.- 1.) Because the data on radionuclide concentration In

most waste streams are highly variable (App. G). or completely unknown and must be guessed

at (Main Report, Ch. 7), resort has been made to dubious techniques such as forming products

of geometric avereges of basic data with gcometr averages of ratios of known to unknown

concentrations to obtain what arc claimed to be 'reasonable' sceled estimates of unknown radionuclide concentrations. These very data btescs lad one to wonder If requisite correlations

between known and unknown radlonuclides can be established with sufficient reliability to mke'

the sealing factor approach acceptable, as attractive as It may be from an operational view-.

polnt; 2.) In application. (e.g, Main Report Table 7.6). the sealing fator' concept seems to be

applied as though there were no other radionuclides present In a given waste stream except the

pair of measured and target nuelides. and that the sum of fractions rule (Main Report. section

7.4.2) for mixtures does not apply. For these a¢d other ressons the concept presents a disturbing prospect for quality assurance end enforcement. Ultimately It may force disposal site

operators to prepare their own verification system in self-defense, rs has been seen In some

recent temporary site closures In Nevada and Washington. rrom a larger perspective this issue

can be seen to be the result or having drawn a box around the problem of low-level waste

disposal cnd then attempting to force the solution to fit the box. nhe box is the linking of"

waste classifIcatIon and the requirements of waste form and disposal by shallow land burial.

The solution ihen ony seems to rquire some means for the generator to practically and economIcally segregate, IdC eIy speclfic radionuclido cntent, and modify waste form or package

so as to meet the requirements of disposal In the near surface enlronment, But of course

another solution is to reformulate the problem In terms of the construetve role greter confinement disposal technologies can play alongside IISD. and thereby redefine the requirements

for disposal, taking Into account the many advantages GCD offers with respect to contaminant

migration and human reuse of a sIte, and thus, considerably modify and ease the burdens of

measurement and waste form modification for the generators. Such a solution would grealtl

enhance the prospects for quality assurance (QA) and enforcement es well.

2) The NRC should directly address the QA and enforcement Issues of these proposed regulations In the E1S. and not leave them to a proposed Regulatory Guide (Main Report section

7.5). The NRC has Itself Identified elsewhere many problems with QA programs In other aspects of the nucleir Industry, Including unqualified workers and QA inspectors. falsified reeords

lack of authority, lack of ommunication, inadequte orrective action systems, lack of super- ision and poor to non-existent proeedures. The proposed sheme o Implement waste clas

cation minimally sketehed out In the ESS (Main Report Chi. 7) culd too easily suffer thes

sorts of QA defiiencies and should be earefuly reconsidered. Prelrabl such reconsideration

would be done in a context that would make It possible to ompare the overll QA and enments, forecment plus potential adding scaling of the preferred factors to make altternatie the (linking aystenm practicable), waste classific with tlon that and of NSD a system require- that

decouples watst classification and disposal requirements to an extent that permnits OCD tchnology to play a constructive role. Then the possble institutionaleconoic, and QA penalties of the proposed action of the E1S can be more directly evaluated,

3) The presumption that any NSD facility will be a man-made attifact whose hazard potential (particularly due to various forms of Inadvertent human reuse) might wel outlive institutional control measures Is a common feature of many governmental and private Industry studies

of shallow land burial regulation (Main Report. section 4.2). NRC nsas commendably foilowed

this lead. However, NRC has significantly limited the intruder scenario. This limitation should

not be justifled on the grounds that LItruslon Is "only hypothetical' (Maln Report. section 4.2).

Artificial restrictions In the bastc Intruder scenarios, which have been used to get waste classification limits Include: 1.) the Intruder who builds a house canrot live In It (Main Report,

4.2.1); 2.) the Intruder who lives In a house cannot drink water drawn from a well onsite or

nearby (Main Report, 4.2.2.2); 3.) the agricultural Intruder cannot grow deep rooted plants that

would contact the wastes through' remaining trench covers (App. CO 3.4.21, 4.) the agricultural

Intruder cameot di4 soekponds, septic tanks, drain fields or utility trenehes (App.' C, 3.4.2h. 5.)

the agricultural intruder cannot work or, normally stay at home (e.. be a farmer, housewife. or child) (App. 0O 3.4.2); 6.) and the agricultural Intruder cannot oecup the basement he Is

assumed to construct and thereby be exposed to gaseous relees Into that space.(e.g.-trithated

vapors. C-14 labeled gases, etc.) (App. G. 3.4.2). The treatment of Intruder contact with artIfact

or relatively stable waste forms Is unsatisfactorf and unconvincing (Main Report. 4.3.4). The

only justification given In this MS for a lack of attention to the consequenecs of burial of

stable waste forms containing high surface contsminstion or large conetntratlons .of tong-lived

radlonuelides Is simply that "it Is not credible" that extensive human reuse of a YSD site or of

extended contact or recovery of persistent waste forms buried In It would occur (Main Report,

4.3.43). - The EIS should discuss the alternative of limitin NSD disposal to those wastes that

by nature of decay and dilution In trench materials will not present a hazard to any Inadvertent human reuse foilowig lo"s of Irstitutional controls, and disposing of higher activity.

and/or longer lived non-high level waste In GSD systems.

4) NRC has gone only part way toward bringing thelr radlo!ogical dose assessment methodologies up to date by switching from those used in Regulatory Guide 1.109 to the Task Group

Lung ModeL To the extent that Ingestion doses continue to be baed on ths Guide (App. C.

:-'

K

A-47
2I4.2) thcy may be based on outdated data and assumptios For

urtaniumt ingesUon doslmctery for environmental sources have result

conoentratlon In public drinking water to 10 pCi/l (Adopted In thea

Lions In section 61. 41). These a not reflected In the pathway d

T1csc factors also need to be taken Into account In cons cring thi

depleted uranium (which Is in the proposed regulations up to the n centration, Uain Report 7.2.2).

ixample. current revisions in

d in EPA limiting uranium

proposed Part 61 regult- i

)st conversion factors.

disposal of natural nd

tural specific activity cor5) In attempts to teptoduce the NRC Intruder scenario computa on of concentration timilts

It was found that in the agricultural Resnrls plant uptake was ba d en the l4hing of wate

to thc Interstitial water and that only the fractions of radionuclld transterre4 from waste to

water. was assumed accessiOle to roots (Appendix 0. 3.4.2). The C Icuiatlonal proccduires used

in the 1NRC calculation do not have a clear basis In the literature and moreover considerably underestimate plant Uptake.. The NRC calculations should be a ed to reflect iheso consJdcrations.

6) If the pathway assumptions and models given in Ute draft , for the nrld sito are used.

the calculated arid sits coneentralliw limits for Pu are more restr tlva than the generic site

by an ordor of magnitude (data from App. J. Table J3., methodolo y from App G Ch3 1). There Is no technieal basis for the NRC conclusion (Main Report .2.4) ht thi consequence Is adequatcly. oftct by consideratlon o difterenecs in Intruder be vlon at arid situ. The

NRC shold set gencnie concentration limits based on the most Gi Iting site condition

7) The proposed flexibility reserved for deciding the final form r waste Classification limits

Is objectionable If It Is to be baed on the kinds of arguments adh40d In the ca4e Of CS437 L-C1

(Main Report. 7.2.5). The quality of the source Characterization dtr used In this EIS pAovides I. no ral assurance that an additional dlutIon factor of 10 to 20£, arrted partJcultrly I4

lIght of tie anticipated averaging and scaling practices to be used y waste generators.

8) A more complete discussion of waste processing than Is prese cd In Appendix G - section i

S Is needed. Emisslons as a function of processing temperature, oqgas treLtment systems, M

type of Process equipment used, and operating conditions should be disussed.

9) A propose regulation In 10CER81 requires separation of unlts so that thero Is no inter- i

action between them.' The dralt EIS should disc-s w hether Ut possil3e n terms of hydro- , carbon (such as methane) migration. pending of water from subside ce and subsequent ntovement Into adjaeont regions, etc.

10) n c draft falls to address all types of wastes whih may nel disposal before 2000. it

would appear likely for example that at least some pilot plert rep e ssJng wasto might need

disposaL Since W'6 facility wastes p crsently contain and Th Aa a slaee these Wil be present as daughters of uranium as the uraium age thes radonuellds should be considered In U\1

tUe regulations as soon as possible. In addition wastes from the thxlum high temporature gas

cooled reaetor fuel cycde also need to be considered.

Docketed Conment Number: 25

Connenter: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Response(s): Item I - Prior to responding to this consent. it is useful to

briefly review both the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking action and the DOE greater

confinement disposal (GCD) study program. The Part 61 rulemaking is Intended

to cover land disposal of radioactive wastes (generally referred to as lowlevel radioactive waste) which are not covered by other regulations. That Is,

the scope of the Part 61 regulation excludes disposal of uranium mill tailings,

disposal of high-level and transuranic waste in geologic repositories. and

disposal by-the many other possible methods defined in 10 CFR Part 20 (e.g.,

disposal by transfer to another person, disposal by release to air or water,

disposal of H-3 and C-14 by less restrictive means). The current Part 61

regulations provide overall requirements for land disposal as wellas a number

of specific requirements for disposal of waste reasonably near the earth's

surface. Concentration limits for near-surface disposal for a number of

radionuclides were set-forth In the proposed 10 CFR 61. Space is left at

appropriate points in Part 61 to provide for additional specific requirements

which may be developed in the future for disposal by other methods thanlnearsurface disposal.

NRC expects that only relatively small quantities of wastes currently being

sent to operating near-surface disposal factiltles will be generally unacceptable for near-surface'disposal under the Part 61 concentration limits. However

there may be larger quantitites of such wastes generated In the future from

such activities as decommissioning nuclear power plants or plutonium recycle.

NRC intends to examine in the iu1edlate future the impacts of disposal of such

waste streams-by disposal methods which may offer greater confinement capability than near-surface disposal.. These methods may include, for example,

deeper disposal, use of engineered structures, or mined cavity disposal. NRC

expects that this analysis would be performed in a similar manner as the

current analysis.

.6174

A-48
tSw¢;*- &|

DOE defines greater confinement disposal as "the disposal of LLW in such a

manner as to provide greater confinement of radiation, reduced potential for

migration/dispersion of radionuclides, and greater protection from Inadvertent

human and biological intrusions in order to protect the health and safety of

the public." (Reference 2) Greater confinement disposal (GCD) is intended

for a few higher activity waste streams which are being generated oi may be

generated in the future from commercial or defense operations. DOE has

defined this disposal method very broadly to include disposal at greater

depths, use of engineered barriers, waste containment, and waste solidification. In Reference 2, DOE also stated their Intention to demonstrate the

concept by constructing and operating demonstration GCD facilities--one In an

arid western environment and another in a humidi eastern environment. Preliminary designs and concepts for these demonstration facilities would indicate

that while the design facilities would involve only minor modifications to

existing priactices or experience, facilities separate from existing DOE nearsurface disposal facilities are envisioned.

NRC staff 'found a lack oi clariiy in the commentor's statements that the rule

islflawed because the' waste classificat1on system is linked to specific disposal requirements NRC's regultitons ar'e based upon the principle that

progressively restrictive disposal requirements should be imposed on progressively more hazardous waste. fthus, 1n the d~aft Part 61 regulations,

Class E waste is required to be st'abilized either as part of disposal facility

design or through a stable waste form or package. Class C waste must meet the

stability requirement as well as a requirement for an intruder barrier (layering).

The stability requirement accomplishes a number of safety objectives. including

protection of groundwater, enhancement of overall site stability, reduction of

long-term care costs, improved operational safety, and reduction-of 'potential

inadvertent intruder impacts. The intruder requirement improves operational

safety as well as reduces potential inadvertent intruder Impacts. The above

criteria also reduce impacts due to potential intrusion by burrowing animals

and deep rooted plants as well as reduce potential impacts (already negligible)

from release of tritiated methane. The commenter states that there are

classes of waste (possibly Class B and Class C Waste) which should be disposed

by 'some form of greater confinement disposal system." The commentor further

questions 'technical fixes" such as waste form and layering. However, NRC

notes the 'technical fixes" that the commenter questions accomplish similar

objectives as those set out by DOE for "greater confinement disposal." For

example, waste containment and solidification are defined by DOE-as one method

of achieving greater confinement. Deeper burial (e.g., layering) is another

method suggested by DOE of achieving greater confinement. In addition, the

commentor has provided no rationalefor his supposition that a "greater confinement disposal system" will be any better tested or understood than the

"technical fixes" in Part 61. Thus, the concept of "greater confinement" of

some wastes, as suggested by the commentor, is already an intrinsic part of

the Part 61 regulation.

Item 2 - Neither NRC nor Part 61 encourage dilution. In addition,

NRC staff does not believe that requiring disposal of waste in some non-specific

type of "greater confinement disposal facility" presents a reasonable alternative to the potential for dilution of waste to meet a particular waste class.

That is, one is not an alternative to the other. It is even possible that a

"greater confinement disposal facility" would increase the potential for waste

dilution. Assuming that NRC required large quantities of waste to be disposed

into such a facility, then waste dilution to avoid potentially more expensive

requirements could be used.

With respect to the second part of the comment, in establishing generic

requirements for low-level waste disposal, NRC recognizes that there is a wide

variation in low-level waste characteristics, Including waste form, waste

volumes, radionuclide quantity or concentration, and chemical content. Some

requirements must be established on the basis of a radionuclide concentration.

For example, cohcentration limits can be used to establish de mininis requirements for certain waste streams, or to establish different requirements for

wastes suitable for near-surface disposal facilities. Assuming that disposal

by some non-specific "greater confinement disposal facility" was required for

some or all (except de minimis) waste, then concentration limits would

ultimately be about the only practical means to identify such waste.

A-49
Item 3 - NRC staff recognizes the difficulty of making detailed

measurements of radionuclide concentrations in waste. To assist waste generators in complying with the waste classification system, NRC has prepared a

technical position which outlines acceptable methods by which a licensee may

demonstrate compliance with the classification system including the use of

scaling factors. HRC staff continue to believe that a compliance program may

be implemented by licensees in a reasonable wanner. The use of scaling factors

is discussed further in the response to Item 9 below.

Item 4 - As the commenter states, there are.uncertainties in the

radioactive waste data base. This data base was used to assess various

alternative performance objectives and technical criteria for the draft

Part 61 regulations. Despite these uncertainties, however, NRC staff believe

that the data base is the most complete data base yet devised for low-level

waste. Regulation of radioactive waste disposal is an ongoing process; it did

not start with nor will it end with the present Part 61 effort. Additional

information, as it becomes available, will be incorporated into NRC's program.

For example, updated information on distributions of activity in LWR process

wastes has been included in the calculations for the final EIS.

NRC staff also believe that the uncertainties do not preclude making an

intelligent decision on Part 61 requirements. All decisions are made under

the restrictions of available information. NRC staff believe that the data

base and assumptions are conservative. although an effort has been generally

made to avoid over conservatism. NRC staff does not believe that the uncertainties warrant adoption of much more restrictive requirements as are

apparently advocated by the cocmentor.

In response to one of the specific parts of this comment, in the impacts

analyses methodology, NRC made certain assumptions regarding the relative

ability of certain waste forms to resist airborne dispersion by an inadvertent

intruder and uptake by plant roots. This was done to explore the relationship

of waste form with potential inadvertent intruder impacts. (Previous work

had suggested that a poor waste form would tend to reduce intruder exposures.

Through their analysis, however, NRC staff determined that this was exactly

the opposite.) In most of the calculations in the EIS and in establishing

the waste classification limits, however, no credit was taken for improved

waste forms to resist airborne dispersion or plant uptake. This was a

conservatism that was included in consideration of uncertainties of the

long-term performance of waste forms.

Regarding the final waste classification limits for Cs-137, it must be

remembered that the limits in Table 1 were formulated based upon a number of

considerations. One of the considerations was protection of the potential

inadvertent intruder. This consideration was the main consideration, for

example, in determining limiting allowable concentrations for near-surface

disposal. However, other equally valid considerations are costs to licensees

(especially small entities), groundwater migration, site stability, long-term

social commitment. and operational safety. The need to reduce the potential

for groundwater migration, reduce long-term social commitment, and improve

site stability were especially important to developing limits for Class A

waste disposal. (These points were perhaps not set out as clearly in the

draft EIS as would be desired. An effort to clarify NRC's intentions has been

wade in the final EIS.)

The Cs-137 limits as calculated from intrusion considerations were judged in

the draft EIS to involve a large cost impact to licensees. Cs-137 limits used

in the final rule are similar to existing license conditions at operating

disposal facilities. Cs-137 is only moderatively long-lived (Z 30 years

half-life) and the increase made essentially no impact on long-term intruder

impacts.

Item 5 - 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 (161.43).

Item 6 - NRC agrees with the need to address the potential

non-radiological as well as radiological hazard of LLW. For most LLW (probably

greater than 90%) the predominant or controlling hazard potential is radiological. For those presenting an associated non-radiological hazard, NRC

believes the requirements in Part 61 provide a high degree of safety in disposal.

In addition, existing conditions in effect at the three operating sites prohibit

A-SO
the disposal of waste having a higher non-radiological than radiological

hazard. NRC plans to address this issue further in coordination with EPA. In

the interim, the existing state license conditions should help minimize the

potential for disposal of chemically hazardous wastes at the LLW sites and the

Part 61 requirements coupled with coordination with EPA should assure an

adequate level of safety in the disposal of radioactive wastes also containing

associated chemically toxic material.

Item 7 - The data bases for waste stream characterization and

documentation of the data and methodology for pathway analyses were presented

in NUREG/CR-1759 published in November 1981. (Reference 3.) Los Alamos

National Laboratory was included in the general mailing of this multi-volume

report. -

Item 8 - Part 61 requirements are not intended to specifically

apply to existing closed sites. The performance objectives regarding longterm stability and releases to the environment as well as technical requirements on conditions for closure, post-closure care and linstitutional control

canhowever, serve as guidance in the finaliclosure-and post-closure care for

such sites. The implementation of the requirements at any specific site would

need to be considered on a case-by-case basis considering site-specific

conditions.

The application of Part 61 requirements to existing operating sites must also

be handled generally on a case-by-case basis. NRC believes uniformity must be

achieved in the application of, the waste form and classification; design and

operation; and manifest reporting and recording keeping requirements In the

future operation of the existing sites. NRC plans to work closely with the

Agreement State regulatory authorities to achieve uniformity in appication of

these and other requirements.

Item 9 - The use of scaling factors to estimate concentrations

of trace radionuclides in waste streams is believed to be a reasonable approach

based on existing information. This approach is also believed to be conservative. In work in many previous documents, often only the principal radionuclides in low-level wastes were characterized. By including trace radionuclides, a more conservative estimate of impacts has been obtained. NRC also

believes that the use of inferential measurement techniques, including the use

of scaling factors to estimate concentrations of hard to measure isotopes, can

be a practical and reasonably implementable approach to showing compliance

with the waste classification requirements. A particular set of scaling

factors, however, would be best developed for a specific facility's conditions. Such inferential measurement techniques have in fact been developed at

Los Alamos National Laboratory and are in use for measurement of transuranic

levels in waste.,

The discussion in Chapter 7 of Volume 2-of the DEIS regarding the use of

scaling factors was included to communicate NRC's recognition of the need to

implement a workable approlach to compliance with the waste classification

requirement. Another intent was to provide a stepping off point for public

comments on the subject. It is possible that NRC was not sufficiently clear

on this matter. In any case, based upon input on the draft rule, DEIS. and

from other sources, NRC staff believe that a compliance program may in fact be

implemented by licensees in a reasonable manner.

Finally, NRC staff does not believe that the commentor.'s "greater-confinement

disposal" system necessarily holds any inherent advantages in terms of easing

the burden to licensees or enhancing the prospect for quality assurance and

enforcement. NRC staff also found some lack of consistency with statements

relating to the constructive role of "greater confinement disposal" alongside

of near-surface disposal; or the many advantages that greater confinement

disposal has regarding contaminant migration and human reuse of a site. In

the first place, regardless of what advantages an undefined "greater confinement disposal" system offers, it does not follow that the burden of. 'measurement and waste form modification" would be eased for waste generators.- There

would still have to be an upper and lower limit for "greater confinement

disposal" to be complied with, and waste form would in any case be of concern

from operational safety considerations. Neither has it been shown that .

quality assurance or enforcement would be enhanced.

In any case, the concepts of greater confinement disposal which are included

in DOE's own broad definition of the term are already incorporated into the

A-51
0 R . *1 |.

Part 61 rule. The rule incorporates improved stability of some wastes, deeper

disposal of some wastes, and sets a concentration limit for near-surface

disposal.

Item 10 - Enforcement of the requirements proposed in 10 CFR 61

will be carried out in a similar manner as applied to all NRC-licensed

activities--through the NRC inspection and enforcement program. The rule

proposes no new requirements in this regard.

Quality assurance of waste classification is, as the DEIS carefully points

out, a subject which can result in a number of operational difficulties. The

rule requires the waste generator to implement a QA program to assure compliance with 5561.55 and 61.56 and to include in this program provisions for

management audits. The adequacy of each proposed licensee's QA program will

be determined on a case-by-case basis. NRC staff does not understand the

concluding part of this comment about decoupling waste classification and

disposal requirements to an extent that permits greater confinement disposal

technology to play a constructive role.

Item 11 - The very approach suggested in the last sentence of

this comment is the approach NRC has followed in developing regulations for

near-surface disposal of LIW. NRC intends that wastes determined to be

unacceptable for near-surface disposal should be disposed of with greater

controls such that the performance objectives would be realized.

A basic dilemma faced in determining the concentrations of waste acceptable

and not acceptable for near-surface disposal are the pathways which should be

assumed for analysis. The intrusion pathways which could be considered range

from very trivial events (e.g.. walking across the site) to events which could

cause relatively significant exposures (e.g.. an archaeologist working in the

waste for extended periods of time reclaiming artifacts). Each pathway may

also have a different probability of occurrence. Rather than assess probabilities of occurrence, NRC conservatively assumed that a limited number of

intrusion scenarios would occur based upon considerations of typical human

activities. However, given the fact that such intrusion may never occur, NRC

assumed that reasonably conservative actions on the part of the intruders

occur. Thus, NRC did not assume the worst, most conservative case and most of

the actions discussed in Items 1-6 were not considered. NRC did consider the

use of water by an intruder drawn from an onsite well. (See for example,

Volume II, Section 5.2, page 5-4; and Section 5.2.2, page 5-13 of the DEIS).

Item 12 - Actually, there are a number of factors which go into

the pathway dose conversion factors for calculating dose equivalents from

ingestion of radionuclides. Starting with a given concentration of a radionuclide in a biota access slocation, there are a number of transfer factors

which relate the transfer of the radionuclide through intermediary stages to

man (for example, transfer of radionuclides from soil to plants to cattle to

man), where a dose may be calculated. In the analysis, the dose conversion

factors were taken from Regulatory Guide 1.109 and HUREG-0172. (References 4

and 5.) This is consistent with NRC's policy in licensing of uranium mills

and other fuel cycle facilities. However, the transfer factors for the various

radionuclides were determined based upon review of a number of other sources.

(References 6-11.) This is discussed in Volume 3 of Reference 3. Thus, the

pathway dose conversion factors for ingestion are considerably updated frcm

Regulatory Guide 1.109.

Item 13 - On the contrary, it is the practice of assuming that

radioactive waste exists in a form immediately available for plant uptake, as

assumed in other documents, that does not have a clear basis in the literature.

All of the analyses that have been performed to date by various parties have

used transfer data from references such as Regulatory Guide 1.109, which was

originally written to calculate impacts to the public from releases of trace

quantities of radionuclides from nuclear.power plants. The radionuclides

would be so released either as fine particulates (submicron range) into air or

as dissolved in water. The radionuclides can arrive at a point where they may

be ultimately ingested by humans through settling out of the air, for example,

or water may be used to irrigate a garden. Radionuclides may be then transferred into plant roots and this process may be quantified through use of

numerical transfer factnrs. Values for the transfer factors are generally

determined through experiments in which radioactive tracers are added to soil

in a form issediately and readily available to plant roots.

A-52
On the other hand, at a former low-waste disposal site, radionuclides within

disposed waste are contacting or contained within a number of different forms

such as spent resins, trash, activated metals, etc. When emplaced within a

disposal trench, radionuclides are not in a form which can be immediately

taken up by plant roots. That is, there must be a transfer factor which

relates the presence of radionuclides within waste to their presence in a form

readily accessible to plant roots. Certainly radlonuclides bound up within a

block of cement or contained within activated metal cannot be immediately

accessed by plant roots. NRC staff believes that to not consider the existence

of this transfer factor is to overestimate plant uptake.

This is consistent with NRC's overall approach regarding consideration of

impacts to a potential inadvertent intruder. The potential for inadvertent

intrusion should be considered, but the potential for severe economic impacts

should also be considered. NRC staff believe that inadvertent intrusion to

the extent considered in the EIS is very unlikely. Merely to assume that it

occurs is conservative. Therefore, NRC staff believe that a reasonable

approach is required for setting forth typical scenarios for intruder exposure.

It accomplishes no good to multiply one conservatism after another merely for

the sake of being conservative.

Formulation of'numerical viuesl for iatransfe, factor between waste and a form

available for plant uptake is somewhat uncertain (as is the entire intruder

scenario). As a first approximiation of this transfer factor, NRC staff have

used leaching data from disposal sites at Maxey Flats, Kentucky and West

Valley, New York. The physical conditions under which the data were collected

involved a condition iA which waste was continuously saturated for a number of

years.

Item 14 - In the draft EIS, different potential disposal site

environments were considered. It was observed that the environmental conditions at a particular site affected the potential for dispersion of radionuclides as dust. This was accounted for numerically by development of a

transfer factor, Tso, which relates the concentration of a radionuclide in

soil to the concentration of that radionuclide in air inhaled by an intruder.

Of the four hypothetical sites considered in the draft EIS, three were located

in humid environments while one site, the one with the highest value of Tso

was located in an arid environment.

In response, NRC disagrees with the cormentor's suggestion that generic concentration limits derived from consideration of potential inadvertent intrusion

should be based upon the most conservative site conditions. As stated in the

response to Item 13 above, NRC staff believe that a reasonable estimate of

intruder exposures is preferable to the most conservative. NRC expects that

over three-quarters of the waste generated in the country will be generated in

humid environments. Assuming that regional disposal of radioactive waste is

implemented, this means that over three-quarters of waste will also be disposed in humid environments.

In addition, NRC staff believe that there is no technical basis for not considering differences in waste form and intruder behavior at arid sites. In

formulating a reasonable set of intruder scenarios, NRC staff believe that

likely human activities must be considered, which is different from considering the most conservative possible set of human activities. Merely multiplying conservatisms by conservatisms leads to unrealistic results which may

lead to severe economic impacts. Regarding arid sites, one would expect that

degradation of waste into a readily dispersible form would proceed at a much

lower rate at an arid site than at a humid site. This would tend to reduce

potential inadvertent intruder impacts in two ways: First, the waste would be

in a less dispersible form, and second, the fact that more of the waste is in

a form recognizable as something other than soil would tend to reduce the

likelihood that an intruder would spend significant time in contact with the

waste.

In any case, there are operational techniques which may be used to further

reduce the potential for intruder exposures. In 1IRC's analysis, an intruder

barrier equivalent to 5 meters of soil or low activity waste was assumed to be

effective for only 500 years. After 500 years, some credit was taken for the

potential for dilution of waste disposed below 5 meters. This is a conservatism for Class C waste. This is even more conservative for disposal sites

located in an arid environment, since the depth of disposal is generally much

greater than for a humid site. Thus, waste containing higher concentrations

A-53
of transuranic radionuclides may be placed at greater depths, further reducing

potential intruder exposures due to transuranics. This would be relatively

easy to accomplish at a western site because of the greater disposal depths

possible.

Item 15 - NRC staff disagrees. The analysis shows that the

dilution factor is warranted. In any case, Cs-137 is not a particularly

long-lived radionuclide, and the additional dilution factor makes no

difference in long-term impacts.

Item 16 - Section 4 of Appendix D to the DEIS provides a more

complete discussion of processing impacts considered in the DEIS and the data

presented In Section 5 of Appendix G. In addition, Volume 2 of the

Data Base for Radioactive Waste Management (Reference 3) contains additional

information.

For purposes of analysis, NRC assumed that only incineration resulted in

additional potential population exposure as a result of processing. Other

processes, such as evaporation, compaction, solidification and packaging were

assumed to result In no potentially significant additional population exposures to those already considered and analyzed as a part of each facility's

license. Since there was no potentially significant incremental change from

existing practice, NRC did not specifically analyze it.

Item 17 - The staff considers the separation to be physically

possible, and the staff anticipates that in some cases Class A wastes may even

be disposed of at sites separate from those for Class 8 and C wastes.

Item 18 - NRC recognizes that several waste streams and specific

radlonuclides, not addressed as a part of this first effort, need to be

addressed to the extent possible. NRC has attempted in this feIS to address

radionuclides and daughter radionuclides present or expected to be present in

waste streams to be generated over the next 20 years. In addition NRC plans

to further analyze specific waste streams (e.g.. certain reprocessing and

decommissioning streams) as a part of subsequent work to that already performed. Such work may result In amendments to Part 61 for disposal of such

wastes.

A-54
COMUNO 0. 0SRO.1 J Jn. G*|..*...

Otatv of 'CP S ifrO* :I.: 4001 Z04P, o Ar-cI

%e^S 1e |..

R. Dale Smith -2- January 12, 1982

916/323-6237

January 12, 1982

R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington D.C. 20555

L,,00ET =XECRn 

I ®_ A

C'/4 FPR -'o44

*.1.4 5;.: a; !- * - _

C q FLPV 5176 -)

We are pleased to transmit the comments of the State of California on the Nuclear Regulatory Cormission's proposed, rulemaking on land disposal of low-level radioactive waste

(10 CFR Part 61) and the related draft environmental impact statement (EIS). Because these two documents are closely related, this letter transmits comments on both. However,

to facilitate differentiation of the issues, -each will be

discussed separately. -

ROPOSED RULEMAKING ON LAND DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE l(1 cR Part 61)

The-comments of various State agencies on the proposed rulemaking-are included below. 1 would like to raise the - following additional points.

1) Part 61.52(af 6) states that the 'waste must be placed and covered in a manner that limits the gamma radia- tion at the surface of the cover to levels that are within

ajew percnt above the natural background levels of the

site (emphasis added). This terminology is unnecessarily

vague. We recommend that the term "a few percent' be re- placed with a specific number.

2) Part 61.55. With.regard to waste classification, we share the view that segregating.waste-into different classes can be beneficial from the standpoints of protecting public health and maximizing disposal economies. However, the language of the rulemaking does not appear to definitively rule

out the possibility of a 'low-level disposal site for - x transuranic-contaminated waste. Part 61.55(d) states that

waste with a concentration exceeding the values shown in the

accomnanving table is not acceptable for near-surface disposal

- /

"without specific Commission approval pursuant to Part 61.58 of this Part". Part 61.58 is one very brief paragraph which

appears to permit the Commission to authorize "other provi- sions for the classification and characteristics of waste on a specific basis" measured against criteria and an evaluation

process which are not specified in any way. It is therefore unclear to us under what conditions the Commission would exercise its authority tLder:Part 61.58 and whether or not waivers could be grantod for waste that exceeds the concentrations in Column 3 of Table 1. Our view is that transuranic-contaminated waste should under no circumstances be considered low-level waste

and should not be included in low-level waste disposal sites. Rather, this material should be disposed of at the specifically- designated sites operated by the federal government to receive

and dispose of transuranic-contaminated waste.

-3) Part 61.54, similarly, in one brief paragraph appears to permit the Commission to authorize provisions other, than those set forth in detail in Parts 61.51 through 61.53 of the proposed rulemaking without any discussion of the considera- tions that would go into such a decision. One can only wonder

why the specific elements of this rulemaking are included if the Commission is empowered at the same time to unilaterally change the requisite requirements for segregation and disposal of waste on the basis of what appears to be an arbitrary finding. This part should be clarified or deleted.

4) -Part 61.62 -- Funding for disposal site closure and stabilization. The financial arrangements, while on the right track, do not appear to us to be sufficiently comprehensive. It is unclear whether the annual review by the Commission of

the-financial arrangements would include the requirement that the size of the post-closure funding be increased on an-annual

basis to account for inflation and unforeseen problems and costs. The financial surety arrangements mentioned in subparagraph (g) (surety bonds, cash deposits, certificate of deposits, etc.) are not instrumnents which increase in value over time to compensate for the effects Jf inflation. We suspect that a device such as a sinking fund would me a preferable vehicle, but this receives no mention. Additionally; there is no mention whatsoever of the funds that would be required or the source of such funds if problems should ocqur at the site which would require considerably greater post-closure expense than that budgeted on an assumption of normal operation. Surely the experience of the State of Kentucky with Maxey Flats testifies to the importance of making contingency funds available in the event that serious problems occur.. This issue should be addressed and the rulemaking changed accordingly. - -- '

5) Suboart F -- Particioation by statergovernments and

Indian tribes. We are disturbed by of Subpart F.

As drafted, it appears to set up' an adversary relationship

A-55
w w l -

-4-

R. Dale Smith -3- January 12, 1982

between the states and the federal government. Rather there

should be full cooperation between state government and federal

munIScies in all phases of low-level waste management. This

rulemaking as drafted does not lay the groundwork for that

cooparation. For example, the state proposal for participation

required under Part 61.72(b) and. (c) calls for a submission by

the--state of various specific items of information at a time so

early in the process that all the state's concerns may not yet

be apparent because of -lack of information. While we understand the Commission's desire to avoid an unnecessarily protracted participation by a. hostile state, nonetheless the

-legitimate interests of state governments should be accommodated in a more thorough and flexible manner. The regulations

as drafted do not accomplish this. Note also in Part 61.71

the statement that "upon request of a state or federal government body, the director nay make available Commission staff to

discuss withrepresentatives of the state..." (emphasis added).

As a first step in the right direction, surely the word 'may'

zhould-be replaced with 'shall." This section should be com- pletely revised to facilitate collegiality between the federal

government and the states.

6) Part 61.82 -- Commission inspections of land disnosal

facilities. We thoroughly endorse the notion that thq Cormission should be afforded an opportunity at all reasonable tines

to inspect radioactive wastes and the premises, equipment, etc.

An explicit provision should be added that host states enjoy a

similar right.

:-:1 7) Part 2, Suboart 2.764 (a) (b) (e). The intent and consequences of these parts are unclear. They appear to authorize an initial decision by the Commission that would preclude effec-

*tive appeal by either a concerned party or state. Immediate

?fectiveness, as it has been implemented by the Commission in

reactor licensing, has had the effect of denying states effective participation, discouraging cooperative efforts between

-state and federal goverrments, and rendering state's appeals

ineffectual, since a facility would commence operation before

appeals had run .their course. The implications of these sections. should be clarified.

. Below you will-find additional detailed cscenaets bf vari- ous State agencies on the proposed rulemaking.

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

With regard to site suitability described in Section

61.50(a) (5), the criteria should be changed to require a lower risk of flooding. Currently, the section would

allow waste disposal in a floodplain that is likely to ze flooded less than once every 100 years. The current

ratings of flood risks are crude at best. For example,

in California we have had floods rated as a 100-year

flood and as a 300-year flood, both within the last 25

years. This experience has led many people to suggest

that our estimates of flooding potential are much too low.

Based on the California experience,we would suggest that

the 100-year floodplain discussed in the regulation should

be increased to at least a 300-year floodplain and, preferably, to a 500-year floodplain. Where the purpose of

the disposal site is to keep the wastes isolated for a period of at least 500 years, surface flooding of that

site should be avoided within our best estimates of what

would be likely to happen within that 500-year period.

The experience at Maxey Flats, Kentucky, should convince

people that flooding of the disposal site should be avoided.

Third, the performance objective in Section 61.2 concerning - protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion should

be strengthened. - Some kind of permanent sign or warning

device should be in place at the perimeter of the site.

The warning sign or symbol should be designed to last 500

years and to rerain' effective as a communicator, even if

the language spoken in the area changes within that period.

An example could be a combination of the skull and cross- bones and the symbol for nuclear radiation.

Fourth. although the regulations describe minimum requirements 'or waste characteristics to be accepted at a disposal

site, the regulations do not appear to require some kind of

checking of the condition of the materials at the site. 'A

site could experience the problems found in the past when

sealed steel drums were delivered for disposal and no one knew what the drums contained. If there is no program for

checking the contents of the dru.,, either at the site of

origin or at the disposal site, the requirements for waste

characteristics may well be ignored by many of the waste

generators.

A-56
t; .- O. . .

-5- -6-

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

Following closure, the draft assumes the State becomes the

site owner (pp. 3-36 of NUREG-0782, V-2.). However, paragraph 61.59 of Part 61 states either the state or the

federal government shall become the site owner. Governmental ownership is certainly desirable; however, the

apparent conflict should be clarified.

Paragraphs 61.1 and 61.3 indicate that licenses will be

issued by the NRC. In paragraph 61.70 through 61.73, provision is made for a state or tribal government to participate in the licensing process, yet it is quite clear the

NRC retains sole authority to issue the license. This

suggests that a local jurisdiction has neither a voice in

determining whether or not a site is established in their

locale nor the conditions under which it is established

and operated. The NRC should take steps to facilitate

participation by affected local governments, including

consideration of funding such participation.

If the State government has little or no real control during

the functional life of the site, there is some question

whether it would wish to assume responsibility for the site

when it was closed. This would be especially questionable if

the new site owner (i.e., the State) was expected to fund

the cost for maintenance and monitoring.

Although several methods'are mentioned for providing funds

to the institutional'authority,.the rule makes no provision

for it. In fact, the Commission admits it has no authority

to I... require land disposal facility licensees to provide

financial responsibility for activities occurring after. the

original licensee's responsibilities have ceased and the

license has been transferred to another party.' we would

suggest the.Commission ask Congress-for authority to require

financial assurances-for licensees for the active institutional control period.

For additional comments please see Part 7.2 below of the

comments on the environmental impact statement.

The California Department of Conservation (CDC) has reviewed the subject document for its geotechnical and

procedural aspects. We. . .feel Section 61.72 is very

important, providing for State participation in the review of any license application that affects the State.

These procedures are very important to assure a real

opportunity for the states, and thereby any affected

local government, to have an effective input in the lowlevel waste (LLW) disposal process and specific site

decisions which inevitably will impact all 'host' states.

However, we believe that there-is a significant defect in

Subpart D, Subsection 61.50, Disposal site suitability

requirements for land disoosal. These requirements wlli not provide adequate protection to usable groundwater or

to the environment from radionuclides that could be

transported from the site by groundwater.

None of the stipulations in the disposal site criteria

refer specifically to preventing migration of radionuclides into usable groundwater. Item (7) in Subsection

61.50 states, The disposal site must-provide-sufficient

depth to the, water table that groundwater intrusion,.

perennial.or otherwise, into the waste, will not occur.

The Commission will consider exceptions to this requirement if it can be conclusively shown that disposal site

characteristics will result in diffusion being the predominant means of radionuclide movement and the rate of

movement will result in the performance objectives of

Subpart C of this part being met.,"

Our concern is that the above-quoted stipulation is~concerned only with groundwater intrusion into the facility

and, furthermore, would allow diffusion of radionuclides

in groundwater as an acceptable concept in the disposal

of waste. .

What is lacking in these criteria is the fail-safe approach

to planning and design. The uncertainties inherent in geologic, design, and operational factors for any LLW site

cast serious doubt on.the-assumption that the wastes can

be guaranteed to be isolated for the prescribed time. Ifradionuclides should prematurely escape from their confinemtent at the site, it would be difficult and expensive, if

not impossible, to prevent their contaminating the groundwater. Therefore, CDC recommends that Item (7) in Subpart

D,-Section 61.50 be rewritten as-follows:

A-57
†i † .X

-7-

-8-

Deoartment of Conservation (cor.tinued)

The dismosal site must not be located I/ within basins

containing usable groundwater or their rech roe areas,

O- 2/' within geologic formations which will permit the

diffusion of radionuclides to the environment, or their

transport by groundwater to a degree exceeding the 2erformance oblectives of Suboart C.

Ne recogn... that the adoption of this recommendation

will have the effect of decreasing the number and size

of the search areas which would be eligible-for consideration as potential LLW sites. lNevertheless, we

believe that the seriousness of the risk of any radioactive contamination of groundwater warrants this degree

of effort to assure that even if radionuclides were to escape,'they could not contaminate any usable aquifer.

Tne regulaoions aiso fail to specify in Subpart G, SuDsection 61.81 the nature and extent of Records, Reports,

Tests and Inspections which will be required to ensure

compliance with Subpart D - Technical Requirements for

Land Disposal Facilities. Greater specificity is necessary regarding geologic, hydrologic, and other types of

surveys and/or research to determine that potential

sites comply fully with the regulations.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6N 10 CFR PART 61 'LICENSING REQUIREZIENTS

FOR LANDDrsPOSAt OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

The Draft Environmental Impact Statemehtfs lh-aimportant

Adcoipkbiying document, without which the proposal rulemaking would be difficult to assess. Comments from several state agencies are included below. First, however, I would

like to make a few additional points.

1) Part 2.3 -- Alternative Disoosal Methods. The EIS dis- cusses briefly ocean disposal of low-level wastes. Although

this disposal alternative is not addressed in detail within

the EIS, we want to express our opposition to the use of the oceans for disposal. of low-level wastes.

2) Part 4.6.1 -- Institutional Control Req1irements. We

support the concept of permitting disposal of low-level

wastes only on land owned by the federal government or by

the states, since the need for control of near-surface

disposal facilities will last, in some cases, for several

hundred years.

3) Part 5.5.1.22 -- Site Characteristics. With regard

to-the location of future sites; we believe the criteria

should be changed to require a lower risk of flooding.

We reiterate our comment (see comments above -from The

Resources Agency) that the 100-year floodplain may not be

conservative enough. We suggest that a 300-year floodplain or, preferably, a 500-year floodplain be required to avoid

surface flooding of a site.

4) Part 5.5.1.3(21 -- Desion and Ooerations. We share

the view that prior to any license application, the applicant shall gather information concerning 'the ecology,

meteorology, climate, hydrology, geology, and seismicity

of the site.' However, we disagree with the requirement

that 'for those characteristics that are subject to sea- sonal variation, data shall cover at least one full year., We believe this should be strengthened.: Any locale's

susceptibility to changing environmental factors requires

that an attempt be made to gather historical data so as to try to accurately reflect how a proposed site has changed over time. We suggest that this section be amended to require collection of historical data going back a reason- able period of tine, to the degree such collection is

feasible.

5) Part 7.2 -- Waste Classification Based Upon Consideration of a Potential Inadvertent r. Th discussion

of financial requirements during the operatirn of the

A-58
* I.:

-Ilpostclosure period touches on most of the relevant issues.

However, there is a lack of depth to the analysis, and

adequate solutions are not suggested for problems that

have been identified. For example, per our comments above,

it is clear that a sinking fund or some similar financial assurance mechanism would be the most preferable alternative for ensuring that necessary funds will be available

for the lifetime of the site (i.e.,- including postclosure _ lifetime). Steps should be taken by the Commission to

seek the authority to explicitly require that a sinking

fund be established. Instead, the document endorses less

satisfactory alternatives while at the same time the Commission recognizes'the shortcomings of this approach.

Additionally, the EIS, like the-draft rulemaking, fails

to account for the possibility of serious problems occur- ring at the site. it does-not make contingencies for - such problems or for the costs which a state would no doubt incur if such problems occurred. 'This is-a major

failing of the document and should be rectified. Costs

and cost estimates should reflect the possibility of a serious failure of the site -- a failure of greater con- sequence than those that have already occurred at

existing sites. .;

6) Part 7.2.6 -- Transuranic Isotopes. We support the

retention of the 10 nanocurie per gram limit for surface

disposal of low-level waste. we believe that wastes that

exceed this limit should not be considered low-level waste

and should not be buried at commercial low-level waste

disposal sites.-

7) Part 8.4 -- State,-Tribal, and Public Participation.

we would like to reiterate our point made earlier in

Part 61.71 of the proposed rulemaking that there should

be full cooperation between the state and federal governments in all phases of low-level waste management. This

cooperation will strengthen the working relationship

between the states and the federal government and thereby

facilitate the safe establishment of necessary new disposal

sites.

Below you will find additional detailed comments of several

state agencies on the draft Environmental Impact Statement.

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

General Comments:

1. In California, disposal to land of all but very low

level radioactive wastes is prohibited by state law

(California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sertion

30288, attached).

The entire document fails to emphasiae the need to

prevent significant movement of pollutants from the

disposal site to underlying ground water. The placement of an impervious cap over the waste will not

preclude gravity drainage of liquid pollutants through a pervious trench bottom. Further, if the trench

walls contain pervious beds (even lenses or 'stringers"),

water from precipitation or other nearby sources can move laterally into the trench, leach out pollutants.

and then percolate vertically to underlying ground

water. These ground water pollution threats can be

essentially precluded by requiring disposal trenches

to have impervious bottoms and sides. An engineered

impervious barrier such as a clay liner could be re- -

surie4_fpretach disposal trench. Better yet, the

trench site should be in an area having a substantial

thickness of clay. ISee Class I Disposal Site Criteria, California Administrative Code, Title 23,

Section 2510.)

Soecific Comments:

I summar. rdoe-llzt The abbreviations, PWKR and BWR'

should be interpreted (re Report Page 3-10, bottom).

2. Report. Pages 10-6 and 13 et sea. - The southwest

"hypothetical regional site! is described as serving

the western half of the country. The "High Plains".

location, however, is far from the significant con- centration of nuclear generating facilities on the

west coast. It would be more appropriate for the

western hypothetical site to be located near the west

coast facilities.-

3. Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 61:

A. Section 61:40 sets standards to avoid excessive

exposure to humans. Excessive exposure to animal

life should be avoided also.

B. Section 61:50 should include criteria requiring

impervious material (natural or 'engineered")

beneath and along the sides of all disposal

trenches.

Attachment

A-59
113:t3'3I 5. W.AIV3' Ussi3,43'Al. 3130 IAND3

Attic-le 3. (Cellr.43 P1ro3.loos

Z1,.7x O)(rmi~tionu or Terms. (ai) *3Di8sliena %Ii-'. i~nevol n 5)' II)g53

tL''I 3S -wag 3rallnsenet 1olil fit o 3

144111 oftditcharge 3Sf)*oj% .1182.,

.33iips3swCa it lbitt liscstlous ol the %.lc which~ hos r-rccbesl or

I. 3v31)3 3381

I( 510401 ri~,oIpo oCo 3.3 1sa333 r~383

tell -1 3

1rs33e330g48331843ir siS 53c w.83318338 8'ioctoIes loo 3334i,43 83(11133

I33 sn3.r 8.33. 8 (433 541 3 304 )) 1343.3) 3.8 .I. I .

I iiot .~ 4S 83331i 133 ilit335Lo i'3I3"3'. 4 30 3I3358s1333 833111% 110383on %831 433133

till ire."hi~ l~3 II 3380 1()316333 or 313333. WL1(188.13 to atchi~eve iStabilioa.

3w,,, ,f dtt.,8.lspovin~g %ison lO t a sit sil 433 rl? t33.t 3ec.4c3.t or 333e rate or

$!83613sivr 33o ofl gases is Ila3( 3083gm a thrcsd to l)41510 (31353by.

215381 11A. 3 383%.22013.ihe Ilks.3ks,~8...538 i8.).m 72.,Nm, M3.

Asil 2. (141millcu31on of MVntV Mycli300 Sites1

4.111ti.t (:11813-ionI- 3prov3ided rowx 311 filchjs8fors0 tlre 83389(083of8g33333d

533833 Wate..~ ~skrs fr,833 3 *a 30 30,1i( theieinod43( 1IRW)333t hazardm

3333

33lie 31(. t and513333( ,3343iiae restmercri. 3130 follow333f criteria3 8I3tn be

cul .4353

L :11(33 333(' 833( mio between3 (rl30 iidan g3)3333(530s.nliflin r h

(33Ir,31t33: 33 33335I) t,,ptssic~ or p311'v?35S333 iat33.153

IO~13( OuSit (33 h 513) gco(3gi03?.O C fomtions 0()V3101ft. or thei (r30Ck3 (3105311C

331o lisslrr o 1133(mi03333)30ri I th83e53.ii3 333)31i a( iqid orf333303 1 gase10( 30 I

333. 83353333*3 'ite to t3*533,3 %va33081

183 5311*8835333r1 83.i333 r081

34dr'0884C83 of Ilie reg3i03353 board.41

1(2 . 813 hst nod I)33*48(3e 11owVlit 1130 IS33R3(3 (3% (31of 3(tdan3 L

0 I go ,3u lk M3,535for o tl 33335I 3In. t 3 l33t1 8).8ff 83584

0( cuIlo 333 CT, 3 b.4d(1b' SyV)(t3,85'CC.. -II

3~,1

(( 783 t8((5V0 ( 583301 831 

N3 0a.3

333.

to .... .1 11.

I% I.

olptrI .2 ~l. ny intta 

3333l i Ilieu~ Cr3,318 g %t 344.4* eo v 33u I 8e l %V;36i in33 the3S3 33 83u3ser's nv.;-!,

it 3Wi Inme 33335 CA M 'j)). 1 t," i'k1 je 15311180 3 I 8 N 1 e yo s831Ch3 l lot N - le 0 'I 80:

:t0O 303 D ispos ed8.1 b 111T I'll3 in Scal. . I 8 4 3533 (( 301 ) C 8

.11,3ctis'.' l,~%11010 t is) JI VSuru it soil 01) Oli"ISall

(3 h o3~ 308.33 ,

3

83;8353 y o rf ran,3o 3.3 0 8'8 o338)8 1 8533 N a t1 .1 8 3

3(5 53101 s h' 3.33 3~~'%.5 3 bCX oVM . 3 thev ti33.n uf 6,aris. 3

. LO W~K I Vn -

C a t io 3 ur. 4 IsG 3 * 3 3 8 3 3 1 3 3 t t o o r 3 1331;

(2 )~ l3 3i. (1* .Is a ot~ a M I * 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 * a 31 1333 s55303 11 3,1 sit0 3

And(3* rut li35)33 

8*0 333 n o3 ri3 als3 itte To be0 o338for P-13 30. 33~33~

f i l l8 3 3 'I h p e 0 1 * 1 ( 3 w(3 1 S 1s 3 3 r ( . 3 1 8 1 3 3 3 8'4 3 8 3 . i F o

t : 3t32i 'j r 11 C 833331 n3 i o~a lr 3)33 3331to 013Y C P33Ci0 11 13 1033 lih 34 3)1011385(31l

01 ( (83 0)4 1o elsl4 to .4r 18a t D k i~cm als I t! Ill o r 3 i ~ 3 e o p 3 p i

s3 s 3 d 4 3 l~ T ise (33335 1. s a li t tia8 l 35 n c35 03 0sr t~tio 3 33.8333 as. p l

3 3(e303l.L~o

A iti c l O 0 . 3A0 0 1 8 3 *.1I I tPO i 538 1 41 3 Y 0 -fC5 3 t 3"' 

.4 he. ft1830313 1., , &A I :1.sc tss. 1341 11535133 3,,.333%.351 t

3.1(30 W fit

t

c fl 10,01(3). as (01 3oM,11:

31) h e I 0)4(olls IA cath CI f 3)0 0(3 3.4I 513 388lo , 3i53007 ;t3d test.

(3) 3:3h yevvis3. tvan if3r .wats dli ~ n 3 0 5 0 1 0 f 3 f d ~ i

(33 335 383 533 38 81' *I) 94 ,4 all Iss-r313333)5o 3' fo r - b -3031 p 0110 n !4?5.

b e0 1:o t on lrp 5 1 3 3 8 1 0 3 1l% V c31n t 1 1 1 2 3 6 5 u 1 8 3 3 3333333 c 1 M l 1 3 3 3333 h330

Ile (8135 a p scriod or linoc not C,00081

l33V. al(o C'.430 18l31 uli e

1i) liesvil1 of gndcdI l 015t313ninal30(ss andc '03 4313S30 P341l 33( I

Section 30-177.

(),) I., 100(3 o 3(8 re33301 cei3ved by Indiv34id~ sl snd ci

33l (i 3,33t CSam i3331t

O5 3581( bi "~Slsy 5333311 tie ET re i30 tto ile1fl3 Y

348331 the Departnis snl autho3853.3s their dibprisd 1E ch Isthef rq~~

of the occuotCnce thmt It811130 suhiocI of such irtcold.

9.9(43*t 108 818.. 1-.18.783

303131. Appe3ndix112. AI'PINDIX IT

elk.. 4.. to.

A I.AJ..... 3. .... . . 3. ...... - - 8 A too.

A I....7.3 .... 4 .o is 6J.3. 3....... ...... I

A .53.f............4.8` . 3. ... .. ..

83 35. 3..............7... .5. ... .433 35 3.(..3

(3.334 .38** I-3.3..8

to .......... I of ....... 8 

431 .33.8...... 310i, . ..... .

le ...... I & _. _ I. 3t II..... ....... ...... .

........... to: ... ..

8... 333 .3 . 3 .3 .. 7....

8 .... .31 338 8 3 .............. 4. ..... 3.353 8. 4... 3 30 3.3..-83 ...

388 3 =8.. 33. feeg . Io 381 . )3w 4...

340 P1.,5 .. o 7 4 3 4 3

3 4) 3 .) 88 33.....3* 33 543l

le .V..3 too 0

I 34 A 5 . 3 3

Is3..I

is.03 3

off. *4 3 34 4...8 .3 ..... 34 83..3 3 . 3 3 8. 3 5 ..

33-5. .. .. 1 3 .53.

359 .. . 3)4 .4 .4 40 l 3. 3Al3 . ..

j 1 _ k b r J PEF -(1

(!38 ,55 1 , ( S 3

~,~-2_74g
-15-

-14- Department of Conservation (continued)

along with uncertainty in th- capability for adequate

enforcement of the regulations relative to proper packaging

RESOURCES AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION and disposal, we recommend that item 7 in Subpart D, Section 61.50 of [the proposed rulemaking for] 10 CFR Part 61

be rewritten as recommended above.

The California Department of Conservation, based on review

by the Division of Mines and Geology, has considered the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to geotechnical aspects and procedural requirements.

In the DEISS URC discusses *the use of high-integrity disposal package containers with extended containment life

(approximately 300 years) for use in the disposal of highconcentrations wastes, as a waste processing option (DEIS,

Ch. S.2.4.8, App. D.4.3).. This section also discusses

potential use of similar containers for lower concentration

wastes, but usage of this type of containerized disposal is

not required by the proposed regulations. Also, for less

concentrated wastes, the proposed regulations appear to

require that the disposal package containers maintain their

integrity only during the operational phase of the disposal

site trenches (DEIS, App. D.4.3). However, we feel that

because the less concentrated wastes could still release

radionuclides similar to, or-even the same'as, those con- tained in the waste packages for high-concentration wastes,

container'integrity is essential to preventing the release

of radionuclides into groundwater (prior to adequate con- fined decay time) to insure that the resultant activity

level is low enough to not pose a danger to public health

and safety.

As discussed in the DEIS, the proposed regulationi in 10

CFR Part 61 assume that in the event of early release of

radionuclides from disposal containers, or from decontainerized disposal, the site design, including the geologic

setting, should be capable of preventing. radionuclide

migration out of the disposal trenches and into the sur- rounding groundwater and environment. However, the proposed regulations provide no fail-safe assurance that this

will be the case.'

Even if the wastes were to be segregated according.to the

active life of the different radionuclides and disposed

of in containers which could maintain their integrity for

the necessary containment time of each of the different

classes of radionuclides, there does not appear to be

adequate provisions in the proposed regulations for enforcement of this degree of detailed inspection during waste

processing. We feel that the potential for migration of

radionuclides from the disposal site and subsequent con- - tanination of groundwater in the vicinity of the disposal

sites could, coupled with adequate site planning and design,

be minimized by containerized disposal of wastes in contain- ers capable of maintaining their integrity for a minimum

confinement period of 100 years (10 CFR Part 61, Subpart A,

61.7 (4)). However, due to the lack of provisions in the

regulations to require containerized disposal of all wastes,

A-61
* .... . *

-17-

Deoartment of Health Services (continued) -16-

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

We continue to be troubled by the cost issues and their presentation in this EIS draft.

First, we are discouraged to find NRC using their own regions

for the waste data bases. The states have been working for more than a year now with regions and waste volume projections based on U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) studies.

Comparison, then,. with the USDOE data becomes difficult or impossible. However, because we know something of USDOE's

efforts, their strengths and weaknesses, there is a need

for careful comparison of data and conclusions on such an important matter as this. The final EIS should facilitate

those- comparisons.

Secondly, costs are based on the 20-year period from 1980

to 2000. We think it important that costs be shown by year

from 1986 (when exclusionary authority may be conferred by

Congress) through 2000. For some regions (as defined by

current state actions, or the USDOE), initial costs may

verge on prohibitive. A review of USDOE data indicates

that by 1986 only three regions would generate the volume

of waste on which the EIS was based. One, Region 5 (USDOE),

would not have the waste volume by the year 2000 (see

Table I).

Given the history of some existing disposal sites, one key concern should be the assurance of adequate financial resources on the part of the applicant to construct and

operate a disposal facility and to provide adequate financial provisions for site closure and long-term care.

The EIS, although it cites no specific cost figures, appears

to underestimate the short- and long-term costs of operating

and maintaining a low-level waste disposal site, and fails

to recognize the problems small companies (as identified in

the EIS) have in meeting financial requirements in operating a waste disposal site. :t seems likely that few small companies can raise the necessary capital for plant development,

set aside trust funds, cash deposits, purchase surety bonds

against short-term financial needs and further set aside

additional money for 100-year care costs within the life

span of the disposal site. The most careful attention

should therefore be paid to the financial resources of any

applicant who seeks to develop and/or operate a new site.

The 'unanticipated contingencies" not addressed by the EIS

(i.e., problems 'occurring at a site) should, we believe, be

explicitly addressed either by the NRC or the Congress.

To the extent that all national sites zeet or exceed a

common design and performance standard, the Congress might

accept such a responsibility. That uniformity might, however, require some special handling as was done for uranium

mill tailings.

To summarize, the EIS should contain a section specifically

developed for informing the Congress on the impact of its

impending action as authorized in PL 96-537. That section

would chart waste disposal needs and costs by regions as

they actually exist or are planned by the states. The conclusion of such a piece might well be that the implementation date of 1986 is too early in terms of waste volume,

and unaffordable. Additionally, given the amount of time

necessary to bring new sites into operation (4-7 years),

the 1986 date in PL 96-537 may be premature, if safe management and disposal of these materials is to be assured.

A-62
-18-

R. Dale Smith January 12, 1982

?A5LE I

Fraction of Rearesentative Site Waste Volume by Region'

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

1986

120%

46%

140%

87%

19w

52I

2000

230%

97%

29C%

le8%

40%

94%

Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment

of these documents. This is a most timely issue, and one which we-are =ure-iwil-benefit from the careful attention

and input provided by all interested parties.

Sincerely,

4/1S~/ c./< ,-

Phillip A. Greenberg

Assistant to the Governor

for Energy and Environment

*Tterencev Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Report, prepared by tee

U. S. Department of Energy, March 13, 1991.

A-63
Docketed Comment Number: 26

Commenter: State of California, Governor's Office

Response(s): Item 1 - There is no conflict between §61.59 of the rule which

states that either the state or the federal government shall become the site

owner and the assumption on page 3-36, Volume 2 of the draft EIS that the

state would be the site owner. The rule identifies the two parties who may

become the site owner and the draft EIS merely assumes for the purposes of

analysis one of those two parties.

Item 2 - Ocean disposal of low-level waste was discontinued in

1970. Responsibility for licensing this disposal method, should it be resumed.

rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a result of the Marine

Protection Research. and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The state's opposition to

this disposal method is noted.

Item 3-- The staff considers the 300- or 500-year floodplain to

be too restrictive since the major impact of flooding is inundation of disposed

units which have not been covered or stabilized. Part 61 requires that each

disposal unit be closed and stabilized as it is filled and covered. Thus, each

disposal unit will be open a comparatively short time. In addition, Part 61

requires that disposal unit covers direct surface water and Infiltrating water

away from the waste and that the site be designed to eliminate the contact of

percolating or standing water with the wastes after disposal. Therefore, given

the short time frame that disposal units will be open, the staff considers the

100-year floodplain (Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines)

to be adequate protection against inundation. Other site flooding will be

handled by the site drainage system.

Item 4 - The staff considered this requirement and determined

that the one year period is adequate for data collection. However, in branch

technical positions and regulatory guides under development, the staff will

advise applicants to collect existing information from government agencies and

other resource centers to allow a determination to be made as to the representativeness of the year's field data.

Item 5 - The staff is aware that explicitly requiring a licensee

to establish a sinking fund for long-term care would be the most effective

method of ensuring that sufficient funds be available for long-term care.

However, at this time, NRC lacks the statutory authority to require that a

long-term care fund be established. The Commission has presented testimony

requesting this authority. Until such authority is granted, the Commission

cannot require licensees to establish a long-term care fund.

The amount of financial assurances that a licensee is required to provide for

closure and post-closure care will be determined by the Commission during the

licensing period. The Commission will ensure that such funds are adequate and

will consider the position of the state and any other parties involved as to

the amount and type of the licensee's financial responsibility for closure and

post-closure care.

With respect to financial responsibility for long-term care, the amount and

type of coverage would be established between the licensee and the site owner

in a lease or other type of binding arrangement. The Commission would review

this document at the time of licensing and periodically thereafter to ensure

adequate financial responsibility for costs during the long-term care period.

Item 6 - A considerable number of comments were received on the

limit on near-surface disposal proposed in the draft rule for transuranic

radionuclides. These comments were received from persons addressing the draft

Part 61 rule as well as phose addressing the rationale set out in the draft

EIS. Due to this interest, NRC has reevaluated this limit and has determined

that the 10 nCi/gm limit may safely be raised to 100 nCi/gm for wastes in

which transuranic nuclides may exist in only trace amounts. For example,

measurement of transuranic content in wastes from nuclear power plants have

indicated that the TRU content is typically well below 10 nCi/gm and only

occasionally in the 10-100 nCi/gm range. These latter occurrences have

furthermore been associated with past incidents of failed fuel. Fuel performance has since generally improved. For wastes in which the transuranics

may be the principal radionuclide within the waste (e.g., from decommissioning

former MOX fabrication facilities), additional criteria would be imposed. The

disposal limit would be placed at 100 nCi/gm, but such waste would be required

A-64
*I * . :

to be treated at least as Class C waste. That is, disposal with an intruder

barrier such as a 5-meter thick cover would be required.

Item 7 - NRC staff agrees the states will have a major role in

the development of new sites. Under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-573), the states are responsible for providing for the

availability of adequate disposal capacity. The Act provides for the establishment of regional compacts to meet this responsibility. Proposals for new

sites should come from Policy Act activities and.the siting arena which the

Act establishes. Thus the state willibe involved from the beginning and NRC

plans to work closely with the states in the licensing process.

The state will also likely be the landowner and provide Institutional control

after site closure. The lease and other arrangements made to fulfill the

institutional requirements of proposed Part 61 will afford another means of

early state involvement; These-arrangements also afford a means of continuing

state Involvement during operation and closure of sites.-

Item 8- The use of impervious clay liners will trap any

infiltrating water in disposal trenches leading to soaking of wastes in standIng water and the need to periodically pump and treat the trench waters thus

created. NRC does not believe that leachate collection systems and water

treatment are acceptable means of disposal and lead to the need for long-term

active maintenance water treatment are acceptable means of disposal and lead

to the need for long-term active maintenance. The need for such maintenance

is contrary to the performance objectives of Part 61.

Item 9 - "PWR. is an abbreviation for pressurized water reactors

and *BWRI is an abbreviation for boiling water reactors.

Item 10 - The location of the hypothetical southwest regional

site was chosen to be roughly central relative to existing and future nuclear

generating capacity in NRC Regions IV and V.

Item 11 - A preferred alternative identified in the draft EIS

was that all waste should be placed into a stable form or container to

eliminate the need (and cost) for long term active maintenance. It was not

selected, however, because stability was not warranted for all wastes on the

basis of public health and safety protection and because of the high cost to

small waste generators of having to place low activity wastes into a stable

form. NRC selected the alternative of only requiring higher activity wastes

to be placed into a stable form. The concentration limits calculated for the

low activity wastes were determined on the basis of their disposal in an

unstable form and their not resulting in the Part 61 performace objectives

being exceeded.

Item 12 - The state is correct in its assumption that the proposed regulations do not provide fail-safe assurances. The rule's basis is

that waste form, site characteristics, site design and site operation and

closure constitute an interactive system which will provide a reasonable

assurance that the performance objectives of Subpart C will be realized.

Items 13 - See response to Item 11 above.

Item 14 - The work done in projecting waste data as a basis for

the rule was begun well in advance of passage of the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Act of 1980 and subsequent waste volume projections by DOE.

Moreover, NRC's regional waste projections were made in support of the

development of a regulatoiy program for land disposal of radioactive waste and

for this reason the staff considers the use of these projections appropriate.

Item 15 - The staff believes that a year-by-year breakdown of

costs will add little to the overall evaluation of benefits and costs associated with the proposed 10 CFR Part 61. The purpose of the rule is to assure

long-term public health and safety and environmental protection, and conclusions

about the efficacy of the rule made on the basis of costs incurred in a single

calendar year are not considered by the staff to be appropriate.

A-65
With respect to the cormentor's observations on waste volume projections. the

regional breakdown may or may not give rise to questions about the need for

additional disposal capacity. However, the staff feels that waste volume will

continue to increase nationally, and the proposed rule is considered necessary

to deal with this increase in a manner consistent with NRC's statutory

responsibilities.

Item 19 - As stated in the introduction, the scope and purpose

of this EIS was to examine and provide a decision basis for the requirements

in Part 61 to ensure safe disposal of LLW. It is not a generic EIS and it is

not intended to provide a planning basis for the identification and selection

of new sites. Such work is being performed by DOE, and NRC has not and does

not plan to prepare its own independent assessment. NRC and DOE have cooperated

closely in this area and plan to continue to do so in the future.

Item 16 - The staff has reviewed the financial history of the

existing disposal facilities, and shares these concerns for the need to

require licensees to provide adequate financial resources for closure, postclosure, and long-term care. The proposed rules require licensees to provide

financial assurances for closure, post-closure, and long-term care of the

low-level waste disposal facility.

Item 17 - The Commission staff agrees with the importance of

having a licensee possess sufficient financial resources, and they will

therefore examine the financial resources of the'license applicant at the time

of the license application review.

Item 18 - The proposed rule provides that responsibility for the

costs of closure and post-closure care at a low-level waste disposal site will

be determined during the license application review. The NRC will ensure that

such funds are adequate and will consider the position of the state and any

other parties involved as to the type and amount of financial responsibility

the licensee should provide for during closure and post-closure care. Financial responsibility for all events during the long-term care period will be

covered in the lease or other type of binding agreement between the licensee

and the site owner.

The staff also thinks that Congress, in passing the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) has already-enacted a program

to provide for financial responsibility for the cleanup of unanticipated

contingencies at a low-level waste disposal site, such as a release of

radioactive materials.

A-66
DPUKE Powra Co%1PAImYT /

rowts z~s1wt7/=w .

422 SOU5 CMe SrmT?. CPEXa rM &. C. M/ *; - ;-

W w P " "- e January 13, 1982 -

v.t p~.fet.\\,,,,,

Secretary of the Comnission _- . i 7 _

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission ~--_ ~ t 

Washington, D.C. 20555 FR

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Subject: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive 'Wastes;

Proposed 1OCFR61 Supplemental Duke Power Company Comnents

File: G5-811.02

Duke Power Co. is pleased to supplement its previous corments, dated October 23,

1981, on this subject and on the Draft Environmental Impact Staterent NUREG-0782,

in accordance with the additional opportunity presented to the public to

do so.

First, we want to inform you that we generally subscribe to the comments

submitted to you on this subject from the Alf and the EEI/UNWG.

Our most important comment on the DEIS is that In no way neither technically,

nor quantitatively, does It support the values listed-in Table I of the proposed

regulation (I.e., the values in the Table are not derived in the EtS). This

of course, calls the conservatism of the Table into serious question as well

as some of the conclusions reached which are reflected in the proposed regulation.

Although originally written for somewhat different purposes, we also want

to include as our comments the Information presented on the two enclosures

to this letter. One ites in the enclosures describes a mechanism by which

the NRC can establish a generic de minimus" category for low level contaminated

trash.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit additional comments. We expect that

they will receive full and careful consideration by the Commission.

V y truly yours

|W11iam 0. Parker. Jr£

Docketed Comment Number: 27

Commenter: Duke Power Company

Response(s): Item I - Contrary to the assertion of the commentor, the values

listed in Table I of the proposed Part 61 rule are derived in the OEIS--

specifically in Chapter 7 of the Main Report (Vol. 2). Further examination of

the values in Table 1 his been performed In the Final EIS.

I/

WOPJ/LLscd

Enclosures A-

,R : 'S. ;~~~ .:L-*yri ,.lfl

A-61
Docketed Comment Number: 28 Docketed Comment Number: 29

Commenter: Arkansas Power and Light Commenter; Stone and Webster

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS, although the comment addressed only the rule. The commenter's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS, although the comment addressed only the rule. The comenter's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

A-68
Docketed Comment Number: 30

Commenter: Health Physics Society

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS, although the comment addressed only the rule. The commenter's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

, .-

A-69
* aL. ;

Betty Johnson

1907 Stratford Lane oJa Rockford, IL 61107

CM 6 r-C S11%7)

COiKiENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRODIWTAt 114PACT STATEMENT ON CFR PART 61

Licensing Requirements for Land0

dsposal of Radioactive Waste' NUREG .0782. vol. 1-4

G%-XET

Because it may help prevent repeating serious mistakes made in the past at low

level waste land disposal sites, it is hiahly desirable to have specific requirements

for land disposal of radioactive wastes-specifically for LLWJ In shallow burial sitesas proposed in 10 CFR Part 61. Mistakes made at Maxey Flats. Ky.. Sheffield, 11..

West Valley. N.Y.. Hanford, la., and other burial sites have seriously affected the

health and safety of the public and it is important that they not be repeated.

Therefore I recommend that the most careful and strict requirements for compaction,

stabilization, reduction of waste volume, and segregation of waste be used as

outlined in these proposed regulations. In spite of these strict regulations it

seems likely that groundwater, air, soil and human and animal life will be contaminated over the long ters.This Is likely because institutional arrangements

cannot be made to last for the hundreds and thousands of years that longlived, toxic

radioactive wastes must be Isolated. These proposed regulations set up cost/benefit

analysis and exceptions to regulations and minOm amounts of transuranics and other

long lived radionuclides that may be included in the waste streawyll of these may

lead to pollution from these wastes. In this draft EIS groundwater contamination Is

considered to be the most dangerous.It is likely that this will occur because of the

fact stated in this report that three fourths of the waste will be buried in a humid

environment. Also many of the proposed solutions have not been and cannot be thoroughly

tested for the length of time some elements in this radioactive waste will remain

toxic.

In February. 1981 when EPA issued its temporary landfill standards for permitting

new landfill facilities, it was stated that 'as EPA examines the problem of hazardous

waste management generally, it is becoming increasingly convinced that the long-range

potential for migration of wastes from even the good facilities argues for a longp. 2

tens strategy that involves phasing out land disposal.4

It is imperative that we find a place to put radioactive waste. Therefore, I would

like to suggest use of the alternative of above grour-1 .tructural containment as

suggested in NREG/CR-0308 UC 209-02, 'Screening of Alternative Methods for the

Disposal of Low Level Radioactive.Wastes'. If possible sites used for above ground e

structural containment should be those that are already radioactively contaminated

and also contaminated land areas that are no lonqer being used and could contain

waste, such as civilian reactors, Manhatton Project and AEC facilities, surplus or

obsolete DOE nuclear sites, and 4yt down nuclear reactors of utilities, such as

Dresden I. This would offer the following advantages:

1) Savings in cost of decontaminating and transporting wastes from these

sites.

21 Use of existing setups for security and monitoring.

3) Wastes put in storage could be made retrievable; burial mistakes are

more difficutt to remedy.

4) These above ground structures could help prevent accidental Intrusion

because they could be easily identified, labeled, etc.

51 Past acceptance of the sites for radioactive type activities by local

populations could minimize opposition and make site selection less difficult.

5) Valuable natural resources would be saved from radioactive contamination.

Agricultural land , water, air and mineral resources, such as salt, that

will be needed as world population grows would be protected from radiation

pollution

There are several hundred sites of this type which might be suitable, unless there

was poor siting of these facilities from a geological (i.e. groundwater and earthquake) or social (i.e. high population areas like lion, IL. or Indian Point, N.Y.)

standpoint. One or more of these sites could be used for small experimental land

burial sites to try-out proposals contained in CFR Part 61. Large sites of even

operating commercial reactors or other facilities could also be used for limited

land burial of LLW to minimize transportation and new site ldcatioir. Then the

A-70
p. 3

operating facilities on these sites are closed Cie, reactors after 20 to 40 years

of operationithey could be used as waste burial sites on etther land or in structural

containment.

Additional Corments *

3-30 Is a picnic ground in the planning map for this taste disposal site appropriate? /

This use could make intrusion more likely aed the plantings could cause prootems.

4-6 Even unlikely 'events' must be guarded against. Looking at 200 years of U.S.

history and the record of nuclear facilities in a time span of less than 50 years 6)

shows loss of records, and many accidents and mistakes from unpredicted events.

4-12. How can it be assumed that these radiation Impacts will be very small? Radiation

Is cumulative and concentrated as it moves up the food Akin, and new discoveries

are still being made about its long-term effects.

4-34-37. Waste disposal sites should never be put on land that is needed for food

production now or in the future: As world 'population grows every availaole oit

of agricultural land will be needed..

5-16.1 agree that it is very important to prevent closing of landfill sites

prematurely without sufficient funds to protect the site. Should insurance be

mandatory?

5-117. Urea formaldehyde is toxic and should not be used for stabilization. Why

add to the potential for pollution with another toxic material?

Federal Resgister Proposed Rules:

p. 38083--Says the inadvertent intruder can't be reasonably protected against and

that it may be one or a few individuals. There could be many individuals. so

this assumption is faulty. 55 mrem/yr maximum Indivlduai exposure limit is not

acceptable for children who might be the intruders.

p. 38085--Smoke detectors contin transuranic Am-241 in concentrations greater

than 10 nCf/g and they are being generated in significant volumes. they should

be required to be disposed of In low level waste repositories.

p.4

Institutional Control--There should be some sort of automatic signal for leakage

required. As past experience has shown, operators of the waste disposalc an't be

depended on to report accurately and monitor carefully.

Financial assurances--See comment on 5-16.

p. 38085. Shipping regulations proposed are good, but may not preclude accidents.

Preoperational "hase of site selection--There is no adequate provision for meaningful public participation. There should be a representative citizen's committee

and mandatory public hearings at every step of the site selection and licensing.

Site selection should be governed by Federal and state rules for hazardous waste

disposal. The state and local fovernmentsmust concur with the disposal option.

p. 38088 How to minimize duplication with superfund requirements? Incorporate these

requirements where possible and add those needed for long lived hazard of

radioactivity.

p. 38091. I question whether or not institutional control can be relied on for periou

up to 100 years, and diposing of A and 8 waste without protection; past experience

with sites less thwn 100 years old find this did not work. Also 500 years calulation is not long enough for the most long lived waste.

p. 38092. 61.53--Environmental monitoring. There is a need to also monitor the health

'of the human population in the area. The monitoring system must have an automatic

alarm for early warning monitoring. Could the wate be color dyed or given an odor?

:

I participated in the 1980 workshop held by the Midwestern Regional Office of the

Council of State Governments for the central region and Midwest., and I am pleased

by the careful efforts that have been made to get public input on proposed CFR 61

regulations.

Betty J

* Notations of setions and/or pages placed by these comments are not cross-indexed

and should be applied to other references to these same problems in the draft EIS.

A-71
@-*6J**01

Docketed Comment Number: 31

Commenter: Betty Johnson

Response(s): Item 1 - Based upon past experiences (both good and bad) and

analyses of LW disposal, NRC selected requirements leading to long-term site

stability. These types of requirements have been found to work well at existing

sites, (e.g., the Barnwell, South Carolina site). NRC recognizes. ho'ever.

the difficulties in demonstrating and assuring that the requirements will

continue to work well. With this in mind; NRC plans to assure that Part 61

requirements are properly implemented through a structured licensing program

including periodic updates and inspection of operations. This will enable

the operating history of each site to De properly reflected in the conditions

of operation. Also. Part 61 provides for a period of observation and maintenance after active operations cease to ensure the site has reached e stable

condition before releasing the site operator from his responsibilities.

Item 2 - The EIS and requirements developed for Part 61 do not

deal with identification of specific near-surface disposal alternatives for

actual disposal of LLW. Rather, they establish the safety limits and technical

requirements which should be applied in disposal to ensure public health and

safety over the long term. Each of the options mentioned in the comment can

be evaluated against the requirements in Part 61 as well as against the types

of social and political factors raised. Part 61 does not preclude their use

but establishes the requirements on how they should be sited, designed,

operated, closed and cared for over the long term.

Item 3 - The picnic area shown in Figure 3.3 of the DEIS,

Conceptual Layout of Support Facilities. is not intended to be a public

facility and therefore, would have no effect on the probability of disposal

site intrusion. The picnic area is intended for the use of site workers

during operations and no waste would be disposed of in the area indicated.

Item 4 - A basic problem in determining the requirements for

disposal of waste was the choice of pathways and events which should be considered in the analyses. The commenter suggests no specific 'unlikely event"

which should be guarded against. As a part of the analyses, NRC considered

both credible and potentially unlikely events (e.g., intrusion into a closed

disposal facility). In addition, NRC analyzed potential accidents which might

occur at a site during operations such as dropping a container of waste

releasing a portion of its contents and a fire in a disposal trench. In the

final EIS, NRC also analyzed one additional pathway, trench overflow and

surface water transport. NRC staff believes the pathway and events considered

in the analyses in the FEIS are adequate to assess the impacts of disposal of

LLW.

Item 5 - The staff believes that the comment refers to a statement in the first complete paragraph on page 4-12, Volume 2 of the DEIS. This

statement notes that for the purposes of the EIS, operational releases from

other waste processing operations (e.g., compaction and solidification) would

be very small and as such were not included In the analysis. Only potential

additional impacts from waste incineration were included in the analysis.

Perhaps the statement in the DEIS was not sufficiently clear as to NRC's

intent. For purposes of the Part 61 rule, NRC wished to analyze the costs and

impacts of different waste form and packaging options. For example, incineration of combustible waste material combined with solidification of the resultant

ashes has the advantage of placing the waste into a stable form, helping to

promote disposal site stability and reduce potential groundwater impacts. On

the other hand, waste incineration is not currently practiced by most waste

generators, and involves an additional expense as well as an airborne release

pathway.

For the EIS, it was recognized that waste processing activities such as waste

compaction or solidification are currently being carried out by a number of

licensees such as nuclear power facilities. A$ such, these activities are

already being included as part of assessing the potential impacts of operation

of a particular facility. In'such assessments, the effects of radionuclide

being incorporated into food chains are considered. Such assessments have

indicated that the potential impacts of such "normal" waste processing opera-,

tions are indeed small. Waste incineration, however, has not been extensively

used by waste generators, and so estimates of potential airborne impacts were

included in the draft EIS.

A-72
In any case, the purpose of the EIS was not to perform a detailed environment States of South Carolina and Washington also prohibited its acceptance.

survey of all waste management operations, but to address costs and impacts Urea-formaldehyde was prohibited at the three commercial disposal sites due to

only to the extent that they relate to development of the Part 61 rule on Its inability to consistently produce a solidftfed product which would meet the

waste disposal. In this case, it was determined that waste incineration was a disposal site free-standing liquid requirements.

useful means of helping to ensure disposal site stability.

Item 6 - The siting requirements developed in Part 61 require

consideration of projected population growth and future development to

determine their effect on the ability of the disposal site to meet the

performance objectives. Almost any type of land with proper treatment and

sufficient water could potentially be used for agriculture. As such, given

the commentor's assumption, all potential sites could be eliminated from

consideration. Since the number of sites required for LLW is small and the

hazard duration for the waste is short, they should not have an irpact on the

overall U.S. or world agricultural production. In addition, Part 61 would

allow productive uses of the site provided such uses would not affect site

integrity or lead to disturbance of the disposed waste. If at some future

time it is decided to use the site for productive uses such as farming, the

potential impacts of doing so would have to be weighed and balanced against

the benefits. '

Item 7?:7 The staff agrees with the importince'of requiring the

licensee to provide financial responsiblity for closure, post-closure, and

long-term care of the disposal site, and the proposed rules require that the

licensees obtain these types of financial assurances. However, at this time,

the Commission does not require 11W disposal site operators to obtain third

party liability insurance; although the operators of all the operating LLW

disposal sites currently carry this type of coverage from the nuclear insurance

pools as a normal business practice. The Commission staff is currently conducting a generic review of mandatory insurance for a varIety of types of

material licensees, and depending on the results, the Commission may require

LLW operators to obtain this type of coverage.

Item 8 - Urea-formaldehyde (UF) has been used as a solidification

agent for liquid radioactive wastes. In 1979 the State of Nevada prohibited

the acceptance of urea-formaldehyde at the Beatty facility. In 1981 both the

A-73
Atomic Industril Forum. Inc.

710t Weofn Av*.ue

Wastuon. D.C. 2001

TecPhon: 13011 5S.9260 TWX 7108249602 ATOMIC FOR DC

IO...,...*1

LbI ra '3t 2 "; lI P. _n,-7-

F 6r5(a January 18, 1982

Secretary of the Commission 3)

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission

Washington, D. C. 20555 -; *l

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch fe 177

Re; Notice on Proposed Rulemaking "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 10 CFR Part

61 £46 Federal Register 38081) and "Draft Environmental Impact Statement," NUREG-0782

Dear Sir:

The enclosed comments on the proposed rule and the draft

EIS were prepared by two AIF subcommittees on low level

radioactive waste.

The consensus of the subcommittees is that the proposed rule appears reasonable; however, some suggestions and some exceptions to the proposed rule and to the draft EIS were made and are reflected in the enclosures.

Sincerely,

John\U. MacMillan

Chaihan, AlP

Commit ee on the Nuclear

Fuel Cycle

JIN4:gpg

Enclosures

Comments on the Proposed NRC Rulemaking: "Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste", 10 CFR Part 61, and on the

"Draft Environmental Impact Statement", NUREG 0782

prepared by The AIF Subcommittee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste and

the AIF Subcommittee on Solidification of Low Level Reactor Radwaste

Comments on "Supplementary Information":

p. 38084 The first paragraph in this section under "Disposal Para V,C Site Design, Land Disposal Facility Operation and Dispos- al Site Closure Requirements" calls for operations and

design which will result in the elimination of ongoing active maintenance after closure, requiring only minor

custodial care. "Active maintenance' is not clearly defined here or even in the definition in Para. 61.2 "Definitions". In the definition active maintenance is described as a "significant remedial" action. It is sug- gested that the postclosure maintenance requirement should be site specific and incorporated in the license

conditions.

p. 38084 The first paragraph under "Waste Characteristics and

Para V,C Classification" points out the desirabLlity-of the physi- cal integrity of-the waste and the site lasting until

radioisotopes decay "to levels where they are no longer of concern from the migration standpoint". What standards should be applied to satisfy this requirement?

p. 38085 In the section "Waste Characteristics and ClassificaPara V,C tion", there is a discussion of a "do Minimus" classification for wastes which would be exempt from

10 CFR Part 61. It is noted that the NRC in the next two

years will work to define these wastes and "to provide for additional waste exceptions as appropriate." We

support the need for a "de minimus" concept and encourage the expeditious establishment of suitable criteria for

this concept. A "do minimus" classification would result

in the conservation of valuable disposal site burial

space while at the same time protecting the health and

safety of the public. In this connection, the Commission

is urged to permit case by case reviews of requests for

specific applications of the "de mizimus" concept during the period criteria are being developed. We will be

pleased to be of assistance in the establishment of "do

minimus" levels and would like to call attention to the

.. b-j =.-d.1 ]A ;k Iua,.v-f

A-74
. I

.3- -2-

report by the Forum's National Environmental Studies Project entitled "De Minimus Concentration of Radionuclides

in Solid Wastes", AIF/NESP-016. Also, the-Utility Nu-

_in:. L- ~Cleat Waste Minagiment:Group sponsored a study, "Suggested Concentration Limits for Shallow Land Burial of

Radionuclides", which should be of value.

p. 38086 In reference to the "Manifest Tracking System" we urge

Para F the Commission to ensure that any changes in manifest

tracking systems are compatible with existing systems in

order to minimize or eliminate possible duplication.

p 38086 The five phases of the life-cycle for a typical land

Para G disposal facility discussed in the proposed rule are:

preoperational,- operational, closure, post-closure observation, and institutional control. Some discussion is

needed to indicate that several of these phases may proceed simultaneously at the same site as part of the nor- mal disposal site operation.

There should be a sixth phase In the-life cycle for a

land disposal facility Identified in the regulation;

namely - release for uncontrolled use. This phase, which

occurs gfter the radioactive contents of the landfill

have decayed, should be stressed. It is further important to stress the need to keep toxic or mutagenic chemlcal forms out of landfills intended for radioactive

waste. Chemical wastes are present forever and the land

used must be'restricted forever.- Radioactivity decays

away in time and land use can be recovered.

p. 38087 The proposed rule requires a license renewal every five

Para G years.- For a facility of.this type, a five-year license

renewal pollcy appears unreasonably short. Disposal

sites should be provided with a full term license,

subject to appropriate review. The fiscal basis for site

- operation and monitoring assumes a reasonable operating

life. Licensing similar to that under 10 CFR SO would

appear to be more appropriate.

p 38087 The proposed rule states that the Institutional Control

Para G Board has a responsibility to "keep people off the

site". This approach may be unnecessarily restrictive.

Limited use of the land may-be desirable in the future.

A more appropriate action might be to control access to

the site. The control board should have the flexibility

to institute suitable control options depending on the

particular condition existing at the site.

Comments on Part 61:

p. 38089 See our comments on Para. V,C p. 38084 on "active mainPara 61.2 tenance".

p. 38090 In the definition of "Disposal" isolation of radioactive

Para 61.2 wastes from the biosphere should be clarified. A better

definition would be: "Confinement of the wastes with no

provision made for subsequent retrieval."

p. 38091 The primary safety objectives for a near-surface disposal

Para 61.7 facility should be .redefined in a manner that will (a)

(b)(l) keep the site personnel dose as low, as reasonably achievable and (b) keep the environmental-impact and population

dose:below specified limits. In.the existing statement

of objectives the word "prevention" should be replaced.

with "minimize". To minimize migration- of radionucludes

Is to provide a-means~towards achieving the primary

safety objectives. "Prevention-of exposure to "inadvertent intruders" is a special case of (b)i above, andshouid be regarded-as a secondary objective._.

p. 38091 In the first sentence the word,"eliminatedll>should'be

Para 61.7 modified or omitted. The requirement may not be possible.

(b)(2)

p.38092 It is not apparent what is.-required for "demonstration"

ara 61.13 or how analysis will be accomplished. This section

Cb) should be clarified.- This comment-applies to Paras.

61.23(f),(i) and (j). -

p. 38094 The section on "changes" is too restrictive. The

Para 61.25 licensee should be allowed to make changes when deemed

necessary, providing they do not decrease the level of

protection to the public and' provided they are brought to

the attention of the Commission in-a timely manner Ci.e.,

Subpara.(d) provisions for changes similarjto those in 10

CFR 70.32 (d)). . -

p. 38095 The closure period should be included In the closure

Para 61.29 plan rather than the-regulation. -The required period of

observation should be a function of-specific site characteristics. - -

Z

rn

,--I ... -4

.21

A-75
.1 -; *a'

P. 38095

Para 61.30

(S)

p. 38096

Para 61.50

(a)(3)

p. 38096

Para 61.51

(a)(4)

p. 38096 ara 61.52

(a)(1)

p. 38096

Para 61.51

(a)(6)

p. 38096

Para 61.52

(a)(4)

p. 38096

Para (a)

(7)

p. 38097

Para 61.55

(a)

-4-

The requirement for transfer of the license to Federal or State custodial care should be part of the closure

agreement and not the regulation. Transfer should be

contingent upon licensee satisfaction of required

conditions. Transfer "when the agency Is prepared"

leaves an open-ended commitment by the licensee which

is not warranted.

Projections of population growth should be limited

to useful demographics. Projection to 100 years or evenSO could be a useless--exercise or worse, could

rule out an acceptable site.

Replace "prevent" with "minimize".

Replace "no Interaction" with "no significant interaction".

Replace "eliminate" with "minimize".

The word "orderly" should be deleted or sxplained.

"Accurately located"-depends on the state of the art.

The word "accurately" should be defined or not included.

Table 1 has a footnote eliminating wastes containing

chelating agents in concentrations greater than 0.11

except as specifically approved by the Commission.

This requirement eliminates most routine decontamination'techniques to reduce occupational exposures and

thus adversely affects ALARA programs. It is not

clear why this restriction is being imposed. Guidance on acceptable packaging and disposal techniques for

these agents- is needed.

-5-

p. 38097 Table I is a specific list of radioisotopes with

Para 61.55 their respective concentration limits for three classifications of wastes, Class A segregated waste, Class B stable waste, and Class C intruder waste. While some of the concentration limits shown are reasonable,

demonstrating compliance for others would be difficult

(for example Ni-59 and Ni-63) because of problems in

sampling and long delay periods for off-sito transport

which consequently result in additional increases in

personnel radiation exposures. Additionally, the

measurement of TRU in the 10 nanocurie/gram range in

the presence of other interfering radionuclides-is3

very difficult. Detection of 10 nanocuries/gram can be accomplished readily-if TRU isotopes are the only ones present. Further, the present policy of volume

reduction increases the concentration of radionuclides

in the waste and in some-cases may cause the waste to

exceed the Table 1 concentration limits. -For these reasons, the concentration limits in Table 1 should be

reevaluated to determine their ability to be achieved

in a realistic situation and in a cost-effective man- ner.

p. 38097 Change to read . .. "that does not significantly exceed

Para 61.56 atmosphere at 20 degrees C". If this requirement is

(a)(7) not modified, waste generators may be required to

package gases under reduced pressure or elevated

temperatures. The basis for the 100 curies should be

provided.

P. 38098

Para 61.56

(b)(l)

By specifying a-St limitation on the physical waste

form, the proposed rule may well be unintentionally mandating a high integrity container for Class B

wastes.- Experience has shown that drums and liners can normally be filled to-about 80% of their volume.

Demonstrating compliance with a 95% criteria could be

difficult. Also, the 50 psi compressive load criteria

may eliminate bitumen media as a waste stabilization

process. The compressive load crieria-may also be- more appropriately relatedto individual disposal site

overburden characteristics .rather than specified as .a generic criteria. -. - - -

A-76
-6-

p. 38100 Eliminate radioactive waste already disposed of and

Para 61.82 covered from NRC inspection requirement.

(a)

P. 38100 It Is not understood how this paragraph applies to

Para 2.103 10 CFR 61.

p. 38102 Regulatory requirements suggest rewording section to

Para 20.311 "conduct operations in a manner which assures com- (d)t3) pliance with Paras. 61.53 and 61.56 of this chapter." Existing wording Implies that a separate qual- and ity assurance program will be used.

M(ES) Same comments as suggested for 20.311td)(3).

17

-7-

Comments on Draft Environmental Imp act Statement on 10 CFR Part 61

Licensing Requirement tor Land lis~oaal of Radioactive Waste'

NUKhQ 0u8s

p. 2-2 Generic performance objectives should be limited to

and 2-3 occupational and environmental impact limitations and

Para 2.2 should be specified in the regulations.

Prescriptive requirements that lisit site inventory or quantities shipped to protect against excessive migration of rad onuclides in ground water are site

specific and should be incorporated in site licenses.

p. 2-8 As noted, de miniimus levels may be readily applied

Para 2.4 to other waste streams. -We urge the NRC to develop

these levels as-well as levels for other radionuclides.

p. 4-49 Consensus of opinion indicates thai the institutional

Para 4.3.6 control period may reasonably range from 100 to 300

years. Since this parameter is somewhat arbitrary it

should be the last parameter selected In the equation

for determining prescriptive requirements.-

p. 4-6S The SOO rem/yr ilmit t'o an inadvertent intruder is

Para 4.5.4 too conservative when considering the low probability

of acquiring such a dose commitment..

p. 7-3 A "generlc on-site-specific waste classification

Para 7.1.1 system" will be too conservative. Waste generators

shall normally only need to consider one site to dispose waste. They shall normally only need to be con- versant with the classification system specific to

that site. Publishing generic classification systems

shall not enable waste generators to ignore site spec- ific limitations since these can be expected to be

complex and many. A site specific waste classification shall allow optimum site utilization.

p. 7-13 On this page and on several other occasions the ALARA Para 7.2* concept is incorrectly used to justify excessive re- strictions., Levels should be defined as ALARA when

the costs to reduce radiological parameters to these

levels-are justified by the benefits accrued and where

costs to reduce radiological parameters below these

levels are not justified. It is not necessarily ALARA

merely because it Is lower. It Is not necessarily

ALARA when industry has learned to comply to an exces- sive restriction. It is not reasonable and therefore

not ALARA to require industry to reduce environmental

impacts 2-3 orders of magnitude below impacts from

other-conventional Industries.

(D

or

(D

b_,

A-77
-3-

p. 7-16 The 10 nCi/gm limit for disposing of TRU waste is not Para 7.2 AALARA even though industry has complied with this reg- ulation. The only alternative requiring indefinite

storage of TRU waste exceeding 10 nCi/gm Is not rea- sonable.

p. 7.23 Industry will have difficulty in economically arrang- Para 7.3 ing waste to ensure that it complies go the conditions of a particular category:

o This may lead to generators assigning conserva- tive estimates to waste concentrations and conse- quential under utilization of a waste site,

o Inability of regulatory authorities to assay con- tainers of waste renders control by assay unen- forceable.

o The scaling factors recommended to simplify waste analysis are not applicable to Industries gener- ating a wide range of wastes.

General Comments on the Above:

o The product of a large number of conservative estimates will be unreasonably conservative even if Individual estimates are only marginally conservative. A better method for combining parameters is to use best estimates of each

parameter and to propagate uncertainty errors to generate

upper and lower confidence boundaries. A simplified ver- sion of this approach using a range of values for each

parameter (e.g. as used in the BEIR IXX report), is pref- erable to compounding conservative estimates.

o Since the inadvertent intruder is identified as the criti- cally exposed group for most radionuclides more effort should be directed into determining the probability of

Intruder scenarios occurring. Waste concentration limits should then be relaxed if these interaction probabilities are factored into the impact calculations.

o Credit should be given for improving critical waste forms

to reduce plant uptake in the intruder-agriculture scen- ario.

J

.9-

O There is no discussion of the potential impact of techno- logically enhanced natural radiation (TENR) due to cali- bration operations or changes in pH. Radon and potas- sium-40 levels in groundwater may be increased due to site operations. The EIS should show that such an impact would

not be likely to violate EPA drinking water quality regu- lations and then TESR can be explicitly excluded from. 10 CFR 61.

o Although there is provision for exceptions to the proposed limits on a case by case basis there should be some calcu- lations to show the impact expected from radioactive gas. Also the wide range in toxicity of labeled compounds' should also be addressed.

o Provision should be made to allow waste generators to cat- egorize waste by an inventory process. The quantities of waste generated in a year or present in an individual

shipment could be determined with greater accuracy than by making separate determinations for individual containers.

This comment is particularly relevant to very low level

waste and to rad onuclides that are restricted by the ground water migration scenario. -

o Scenarios assume that all waste is emplaced just before site closure. However, in practice waste will accumulate over a 20 to 60 year period and a considerable fraction shall have decayed before site closure. Hence a relaxa- tion in concentration limits should be considered when applied to the short half-life radionuclides received dur- ing the initial period of burial activities.

o Studies are quoted in the EIS which indicate that the av- erage radioactivity concentrations in waste can be ex- pected to be from l to.lO% of-the maximumconcentration.

Hence concentration limits should be relaxed by at least an order of magnitude and still provide adequate intruder protection.

o We have been unable to iind any justifications for the quantity limits for containers. Individual container

limits appear excessively conservative.

o For waste buried as received the DOT limit should apply since airborne release and nonoccupational exposure is the controlling factor.

o For waste produced on-site the limit for individual con- tainers should be 10 times the DOT limit since it is occu- pational exposure which provides the limiting scenario.

(91

0

1@

A-78
,; 1, -, .; ,

.-.--.. lHe. An.

Docketed Conment Number: 32

Commenter: Atomic Industrial Forum

Response(s): Item I - NRC staff agrees. This is the very approach adopted

and used by NRC. Part 61 establishes overall performance objectives which

define levels of protection for individuals and populations which should not

be exceeded in the disposal of LLW. Part 61 also states that the inventory of

specific nuclides disposed of at a particular site will be controlled on a

site-specific basis.

Item 2 - NRC agrees that development of de minimis levels for

radioactive waste is of importance and has programs underway in this area.

(Also see the response on this issue under Item 4, Comment 11.)

Item 3 - NRC analyzed a range of institutional control periods

from 50 to 300 years. Based on the analysis NRC found no compelling reason to

select one particular institutional control period over another. Use of a

longer institutional control period would theoretically allow higher concentrations of some radionuclides to be disposed of as Class A waste. The limit

of 100 years proposed in Part 61 was selected because:

(1) It agreed well with previous estimates on the effective length of

Institutional controls made by EPA;

(2) It was consistent with the consensus arrived at from the regional

workshops on Part 61; and

(3) Public comments on the preliminary draft of Part 61 was that 100 years

was about the right time period.

Based on public comments received on the proposed Part 61 rule, NRC has not

changed the 100 year institutional control period. NRC does not believe

raising the institutional control period to 300 years is acceptable since it

raises long-term care costs, it may place an undue burden on future generations,

and it creates greater uncertainty in analyzing LLW disposal. (It is more

difficult to postulate what may happen over such a long time period.) In

addition, several commentors stated they believed 100 years was too long.

Raising the institutional control period to 150-200 years would have the

effect of raising the radionuclide concentrations for Class A wastes based on

intruder protection considerations. Since the stability requirement for

Class B waste is of more importance for other reasons besides intruder protection (i.e. migration, operational safety and long-term stability), NRC does

not believe changing the 100 year time frame for active institutional control

is warranted.

Item 4 - NRC has not adopted a higher dose limit for protection

of an inadvertent intruder. Rather, given the hypothetical nature and low

probability for such an event occurring (e.g., passive institutional controls

should prevent it from occurring), NRC has performed a more realistic analysis

in determining concentrations of specific radionuclides acceptable for nearsurface disposal. Based on the analysis, concentration limits for certain

radionuclides were raised. The impacts to an 'inadvertent intruder over the

long term, however, were not found to change. They are still only a few

millirem at 500 years.

Itei 5 - NRC staff disagrees with the comment. Although waste

generators normally send waste to one site, there have been numerous instances

in the past in which waste shipments originally headed for one site have

actually been disposed in another. Waste generators have also made use of 2

or more different waste disposal facilities' within a year. This has occurred,

for example, as a result of temporary closure of disposal facilities. A_

site-specific classification system would increase the potential for some

wastes being acceptable at one site and not in another. Such a system would

also be difficult to enforce'and would tend to increase the number of shipment

violations (e.g., wastes delivered to a site in forms or having radioactivity

concentrations unacceptable at that site). ''This situation'w6uld be worsened

if the number of disposal sites grows as a result of development of regional

disposal compacts.

A-79
NRC staff believes that case-by-case consideration of exemptions to Table I

should be allowed for specific waste forms and specific disposal site conditions. Provisions have been included in the Part 61 rule to allow this.

However, NRC staff still believes that the most workable overall approach is

a generic waste classification system rather than a site-specific one.

Item 6 - NRC staff does not believe it has necessarily

incorrectly used ALARA. In response to the comment however. NRC has deleted

reference to ALARA in the two instances specifically noted in the comment

(Paragraph 7.2.6 of Chapter 7 and Paragraph 6.3 of the summary). This change

has been incorporated into Appendix E, 'Errata."

Item 7 - The reader is referred to the response to Item 6.

Comment 26.

Item 8 - Compliance with waste classification is an important

issue and NRC has taken a number of steps to clarify the matter. These

include:

o reducing the radionuclides listed in Table I to those which are really

needed;

o specifically allowing indirect measurement techniques;

o allowing averaging of C-14, Tc-99, 1-129 and other radionuclides over

the volume of the waste;

o In addition, NRC staff is developing a technical position on waste

classification to set out further guidance on compliance with the waste

classification system.

Item 9 - The staff believes the current approach is the most

reasonable considering the level of available information and the generic

nature of the analysis.

Item 10 - NRC has not performed a probabilistic analysis of

inadvertent intrusion. Rather, NRC has conservatively assumed a few individuals

will be exposed through-inadvertent intrusion involving reasonable productive

uses to which the land could be put in the future. As discussed in Item 4

above, NRC has performed more realistic analyses involving inadvertent intrusion

which has increased concentrations for certain radionuclides.

(The reader is also referred to Item 3, Comment 24.)

Item 11 - The staff included provisions in proposed Part 61 for

improved waste form to be considered on a case-by-case basis. At the present

time there is insufficient data for most waste streams on the relationship of

imprcved waste form to reduced plant uptake to allow a credit to be factored

into the intruder-agriculture scenario for such improvements.

Item 12 - Technologically enhanced natural radiation (TENR) has

been defined as those natural sources of radiation that would not normally

occur without the presence of some technological activity not expressly

designed to produce radiation. Examples would include the release of concentrations of natural radioactivity to the environment from the combustion of

coal and natural gas to produce electricity and from the mining industry. NRC

staff is unsure of the appropriateness of application of such a concept to the

construction activities which might take place at a LLW near-surface disposal

facility. The staff believes that impacts from TENR at a near-surface disposal

facility would be similar to those'resulting from any large construction

project. In addition, they would be very site-specific with respect to the

concentration of natural radioactivity that would be present in the specific

site soils and ground water. As such, NRC has not addressed them in this

FEIS.

Item 13 - NRC considered the full range of potential pathways of

release of radioactivity to the environment. The pathways considered included

groundwater migration, plant and animal intrusion, wind and surface water

transport and gaseous releases. (See Appendix M of the DEIS for details.) Based

on consideration of existing data and measurements, NRC concluded that gaseous

A-80
releases were not a significant pathway for release and thus no detailed

analyses were performed-in the EIS. NRC did not specifically analyze the

range in chemical toxicity of labeled compounds due to a lack of information

about the specific compunds used and more importantly, due to the lack of an

accepted methodology of assessing biological effects of exposure to such

compounds.

Item 14 - This comment relates to the basic issue of compliance

with the waste classification requirements. NRC recognizes the difficulty in

directly assaying for some radionuclides on a routine basis and will allow

indirect measurement techniques. NRC has prepared a branch technical position

which outlines methods and procedures acceptable to NRC staff for complying

with the waste classification requirements.

Item 15 - The staff does not agree with the commentor on this

point. Rationale for the staff's position is contained in the response to

Item 10, Comment 38. -- *- -

Item 16 - Several commenters have remarked about the concentration

limits in Table 1. As noted earlier,'the staff has conducted more pragmatic

analyses and as a result the concentration limits in Table 1 have been revised.

Items 17-19 - The 100 Ci limit is based on the license conditions

for the disposal'of gaseous wastes now in effect at the Hanford and Barnwell

disposal sites. These-limits have not resulted in unsafe environmental conditions at the disposal sites nor have they resulted in overly restrictive

situations for waste generators.

The 100 Ci limit is consistent with an accident evaluation assuming a dropped

package producing occupational exposures to site workers. The DOT limits,

however, are established based on accident doses to the public. For tritium

and Kr-85 in uncompressed gaseous.forms, the DOT limits are 1,000 Ci in a

Type A package and 50,000 Ci in a Type 8 package (49 CFR 173.389(1) and 173.390(a)).

For gaseous waste forms the occupational exposure case is the limiting condition.

A-81
US EccM9oy. Mc.

620 eooe4 Mud. Uso. Sam

P 0. got 7246

La.$nU*. XqOW.k? 44taY s4a 4:.7t6a

'*! ;-.- 1i t ' I

- 2 -

Us T-ology (,Pa)

January 13, 1982 CY6FR i0 )

R. Cale Smith, Chief * .. 3

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch . -

Division of Waste management ;,/ rp 7; (7 a.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Smiths

CS Ecology has reviewed the proposed NRC rules for the land disposal

of radioactive wastes (10 CFR 61) published in the rederal Register on

July 24, 1981, and cccuent as followst

1. Disposal Site Desion, Land Dlsoosal Facility, oeration, and

Discosal Site Clesure Requirements. Page 38084. Col. 1.

This section as well as others in the ptcposed regulation refer to .l4inating the need for active maintenance after site closure.'

it is impossible to ensure that the need for no active maintenance

can be achieved, so we would suggest that the word 'minimize' be

used in place of eliminate.;

2. waste Characteristics and Classification.

a. Page 38084, Ccl. 2.

This section states that the stability of the waste and the

disposal site should last long enough for the radioisotcpes to

decay to levels where they are no longer of concern from a migration standpoint. Without any reference to appropriate

standards it is the regulatory agency's interpretation

which mrust be used as a standard. References to applicable

standards should be given.

b. Page 38084, Col. 3.

The limit of 10 nanocurie per gram for TRA waste is excessively

conservative and is counter productive. Lizits of this nature

may dissuade waste generators from practicing volume reduction.

c. Page 38085, Col. 2.

Decreased burial efficiencie vwilL.be experienced in burial

facilities if the Coruission fails in the establishment of a

lower limit Class A segregated waste concentration. It is

suggested that de minimus quantities be established to properly

categorize those wastes that are suitable for alternate disposal

methods. (e.g. sanitary landfills).

-3. Financial Assurances. Page 3808S, Col- I..

whe Coomission indicates that certain types of surety mechanisms

are acceptable. It is recommended that representatives of the

cormercial insurance industry be given definitive criteria against

which to base any bonds in order to ascertain whether or not -uderwriters will accept the risk and default provisions set forth in

these regulations.

4. Manifest System. Page 38086, Col. 2 and Pages 3al02, 38103, Section 20.311.

The manifest tracking system provides for three (3) copies of the

manifest. It has been the experience of this company that a greater

number of copies is needed. A total of 5 identical mAnifests would

provide a copy for the generator, carrier, an advanced copy to the

intended recipient, one copy with the shipment and one copy as a

receipt for the waste.

S. Regulatorv Flexibility Act. Page 38088, Col. 1.

The lack of a de minibus quantity as well as any lower limits on the

Class A segregated waste concentrations conflicts with the Department

of Transportation Regulations governing the transport of radioactive

material. 49CPR section 173. 389 defines radioactive material as

"any material or combination of materials which spontaneously emit

ionizing radiation. Material in which the estimated specific

activity Is not greater than 0.002 microcu-ries per gram of material,

and in which the radioactivity is essentially uniformly distributed

is: not classed as Radioactive material.

6. 61.2 Vefiniticns

Page 38090. eCl. 1.

'Disposal' is defined as isolation of radioactive wastes from

the biosphere. This is not possible as the "bicsohere' can be

interpreted as meaning pert of the world in which life can exist.

Pany micrcorganisws will exist In and around all the waste. It is

suggested that disposal be defined as isolation from the blosphere~s

inhabited by =an or his food chain.

A-82
- 3 - - S -

7. 61.5 Interpretations

Page 38090, Col. 3;

By placing the responsibility for all regulatory interpretations

upon the General Counsel and preventing other Commission personnel

from makinq intetpretatons, the Coesission could significantly

disrupt operations by slowing the regulatory process. To avoid

this, the regulations should establish a period, for example 10

days, within whl-h F- General Counsel must respond to requests for

itnterpretation.

8. 61.7 Cc) (2). Page 3S091, Co.

Sinca closure plans are to be submitted with the initial license

application and periodically updated until final closure occurs,

the licensee should not have to apply for a license anendment to

close the site. The closure plan wili have been periodically

reviewed by the licensing agency throughout the disposal site

operational phase,-therefore, closure of the disposal site in

accordance with the final updated and approved closure plan should

be sufficient.

9. 61.13. Page 38092

The definition of whit is required for 'demonstration" or how analysis.

will be accomp2ished should be provided. The comments apoly to

61. 2 (f) (i).(J) .

10. 61.24 Conditions of Licenses. _

61.24 Mf). Page 38094. Col. 2..

This section refers to pNssession of radioactive materials and should

be clarified to indicate that buried waste is no longer in the

eossession of the licensee. -.

11. 61.25 Changes

61.25 (al. Page 38094, Col; 3.

This section on changes is too restrictive. 'he licensee should be

allowed to make changes when deemed necessary providing they do not

decrease the level of protection to the public and ptovided they

are brought to the attention of the Commission prior to implementation.

12. 61.29 Post-Closure Observation and Maintenance: Page 38095. Col. 1.

if the Commission or licensing agency closely monitors the closure

per 61.28 and is familiar with the site, the minimum period of five

years for poset-closure observation and maintenance could be shortened

commensurate with the condition of the disposal facility as closed.

Provisions should be made for a period of less than five years if

conditions warrant upon request of the licensee.

13. 61.30 Transfer of License.

61.30 Ca) (5). Page 38095, Col. 2.

Shis section will allow the long-term custodial care agency

even though prior commitments have been made to delay in

accepting its responsibility. The use of the phrase "when

the agency is prepared' in effect negates all prior cernoitments

of long-term custodial care agency.

14. 61.50 Disposal Site Suitability Fecuirements.

61.50 (a) (2). Page 38096, Col. 1.

Yodelirg of any site can only be approximate. Sone statement

as to what criteria should be used to define 'capable of being

iideled' is required.

61.50 (al M3). Page 38096, Col. 1.

A time frame for projecting population growth and future development

is needed.. is this time frame the 100 year custodial care period or

the 500 year engineered barrier life span?

61.50 (a) CS). Page 38096, Col. 1.

Clarification is warranted as to the requirement for well-drained

and free of areas of flooding and frequent ponding.. Is this a

selection criteria based on 'as is' conditions or las can be

engineered. -

61.50 Ca) (11). Page 38096,. Col. 1.

If the environmental monitoring program is masked then it is

not going to be a proper indication of the stability of the site,

therefore, the use of the phrase "significantly masked' is not

appropriate. -

15. 61.51 Disrosal Site Desion for Land Disposal.

61.51 Ca) (4). Page 38096, Col. 2.

nSo cover will totally prevent all water infiltration. This section

should require that covers be desigred to mininize water infiltration.

61.51.Ca) C S). Page 38096, Col. 2.

;h a humid area some minor erosion will occur. This is one of the

criteria.which rust be taken Into account when selecting and

closing a disposal site. St is not possible in a humid area to

ensure that erosion will not result or that active maintenance

will not be necessary in the future.

A-83
,-.. t:.

- 6 -

16. 61.52 Land Disposal Facillty Cperaticn and Discosal Site Closure

61.S2 (a) (4) Page 38096. Col. 2.

The word 'orderly should be deleted or defined. Crderly placement

is often inconsistent with the principles of ALMA.

61.52 (a) (7) Page 38096, Col. 3.

The requirement to accurately locate each disposal unit is

reasonable if an allowed tolerance is indicated.

17. Table I Page 38097.

Having no lower limit activity concentrations for Class A segregated

waste conflicts with the definition of radioactive caterial used

in 49CFR.

18. 61.56 wast. Characteristics

61.56 (a) (7) Page 38097, Col. 1.

49CFR allcws limited quantities of radioactive gases to be

packaged in greater quantities than 100 curies. This is inconsistent

with the requirements of these proposed regulations.

61.56 (b) Page 39093, Col. 1.

By specifying a 5% limitation on the physical waste form, the

proposed rule may well be unintentionally mandating a high

integrity container for Class 8 wastes. Experience has shown

that drus and liners can normally be filled to about 80i of

their volume. Demonstrating compliance with a 95% criteria is

unrealistic as a practicle matter. Also, the 5C psi compressive loam

criteria may eliminate bit=4e media as a waste stabilization process.

The copressive load criteria would be more appropriately related

to individual disposal site overburden characteristics rather than

specified as a generic criteria.

2. Page 3-35, Section 3.6.3.6 Security

Full time security personnel have not been used at the present

commercial burial facilities. The full time security provisions

such as fences, signs and periodic law enforcement visits have

provided effective security and have not resulted in any security

violations that would warrant the employment of full-time security

personnel. The use of radio communication to contact emergency

and law enforcement agencies is not warranted as the fastest and

casiest method is the telephone. Many years of experience has

shown that the use of telephone commucation in emergency situations

has proved reliable.

3. Page E-13, Section 2.1.

It appears that the Co;mmission is basing site selection on the

ability of the locations to fit their computer model. Due to

projected site complexity, it is not realistic to require a location

to fit present computer models.

4. Page Q-16 and 17, Section 4.1.1, Table Q-7.

The cost of building demolition ($300,000) seems high in view of

the fact that the three buildings to be demolished cost only $423,850

to build (See Q-3) nd about half of that would have been materials.

5. Q-16, Section 4.1.2.

Vibratory compaction equipment will be effective only in granular fill.

6. Page X-45, Section 5.1.

The last paragraph of this section factually states that this

fund is inadequate to pay for long-team care of the site but

does not properly state that monies were placed in the State's

qen&eal fund'and not earmarked for the use intended.

7. Page -50, Section 5.5.

The statement that tbe fund Is inadequate is not based on

current facts. The surcharge has increased by 10% in 1981

and the proper investment of the funds will take care of the

effects of inflation. Further increases can and are being

implemented which will provide substantial funding to the State.

Prsi t

.JSsdb

Craft ETS Cocrents

In general, the Environmental m-pact Statement (ESS) states

current practices and also cites alternate methods. it is

unclear whether-the Ccmmission accepts either case or prefers

the alternates. t is important for the Commission not to

specify a meotod as any proposed site for disposal will be

unique.

1. Page 5-106

Vibratory compactors are reco3 nded by the EIS. Such

compactors are good for granular soils but are less effective

for cohesive soils. The Comission should specify a degree

of compaction or required permeability rather than a method

of compaction.

0

A-84
-.r * .*rs -

Docketed Comment Number: 33

Commenter: U.S. Ecology

Response(s): Item 1 - The purpose of the DEIS was to examine current and some

past practices and alternatives which could be applied in the near-surface

disposal of waste. Based on the examination preferred alternatives were

selected which are reflected in Part 61 as performance objectives and technical

and other requirements. The minimum technical requirements must be met in the

siting, design, operation and closure of a near-surface disposal facility and

allow flexibility In how they might be met at any particular site. The

requirements generally reflect current practices with some additional improvements (e.g., requiring deeper burial of certain wastes exceeding specified

concentrations).

Item 2 - Page 5-106 of the DEIS discusses "using commercially

available compacting equipment such as vibratory compactors.' This is only an

example, which indeed, may be most applicable to granular soil. With respect

to a degree of compaction or required permeab lity, these will be determined

on a case-by-case basis due to differences in designs and site soils. Additional guidance will be provided in a technical position paper on site design

and operations.

Item 3 - Full-time security personnel are in fact used at one of

the present operating commercial disposal facilities. Use of full-time security

personnel at future disposal facilities will be at the discretion of the site

operator and the licensing authority. Similarly, radio communication capability

with emergency and/or law enforcement agencies is present at one of the current

operating commercial disposal facilities and will likewise be a discretionary

feature at future sites.

Item 4 - The NRC is not basing site selection on the ability of

a site to fit any computer model. However, modeling of a site is one basic

tool in site evaluation. As indicated in a December, 1980 interagency workshop

on modeling and low-level waste management, NRC believes that adequate modeling

capability already exists for non-complex sites. (Reference 12.) For the

complex sites, either existing or new models must be available to adequately

represent the site conditions and potential migration from the site. In the

case of new models, the applicant should expect that NRC will review the model

as well as its use to predict site performance.

Item 5 - The consideration of cost of building demolition was

estimated for the draft EIS based upon the cost for building demolition estimated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. as part of their preliminary site closure

and stabilization plan for the Barnwell disposal site. (Reference 13.) In

this closure and stabilization plan, an estimate of $525,000 was made for

decontamination and demolition of most of the onsite buildings (some would be

left standing for use by the site owner following license termination), conservatively assuming that a private contractor was hired to perform these

services. Recognizing that CNSI carries out a number of additional activities

at the Barnwell facility besides waste disposal (e.g., truck, transporter and

cask refurbishment, mobile solidification units, development of solidification

agents), a building demolition cost of $300,000 was estimated for the reference

disposal facility.

It should be recognized that actual closure costs such as building decontamination and demolition costs would be specific for a particular site and

should be evaluated specifically for that site. Whether or not the assumed

decontamination and demolition costs for the reference disposal facility are

overconservative does not change the essential conclusions reached in the

draft EIS regarding the need to consider and plan for facility closure prior

to site licensing and the need to assure that funds will be available to carry

out closure activities. In the interest of completeness however, these costs

have been reduced to $200,000 for the final EIS. This change does not alter

the conclusions reached in the EIS but is reflected in the cost/benefit

analyses and estimates of unmitigated impacts.

Item 6 - See staff response to Item 2 above.

Item 7 - The staff agrees with this comment and has included it

in the Appendix E, Errata in this volume.

A-85
Item 8 - The staff has revised its statement for the FEIS and

included it in the Errata Appendix of this volume.

A-86
A.* . ,

t>I 9nLMA

CoeW DOALD W. MOOS

Dmctor

K)HN otLMAN C~overnor

STATf ()FVW&9*TnN

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

(1y",4. Weapron 98504

January 13, 1982

AtN Ias

shem

STATE OF WASHNTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Mad Stop PV-II * Ofyr 9

,ij. asMl'tron 98504 * (0) 4594W

January 13, 1982

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Ilanagement Office of Nuclear Material Safety S

Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 2055S

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental

impact statement on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste". As the state's coordinator for

NEPA documents, we notified all state agencies of the availability of the ESIS. The Department of Social and Health Services was the

only agency to respond. A copy of their comments is attached.

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Nancy Kirner, Department of Social and Health Services, at (206) 753-3459 or Mr. Greg Sorlie, Department of Ecology, at (2061 4S9.6016.

- Dennis Lundblad, Supervisor

Comprehensive Management Division

DL:lc

Attachment

cc: Ms. Nancy Klrer

Mr. Greg Sorlie

TO: Barbara Ritchie

Department of Ecology

PV-l1

FROM: X4tancy P. tirner, Supervisor

' Radioactive materials Unit

Radiation Control Section

SUBJECT: COkSWENTS ON PROPOSED 10 CFR 61 ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

The environmental impact statement for 10 CFR 61, "Licensing Require- ments for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," appears to be well

written and it adequately supports appropriate regulation of a radioactive waste disposal site having more than 10 inches of rain each

year. The environmental impact statement and its proposed regulation, however, fail to accurately address realistic concerns and place realistic conditions on the operation of a radioactive waste disposal site at an arid location.,. Among the major problems of an arid site are slumping and wind erosion. More emphasis should be

placed on mitigating these two Impacts, absent infiltration of ground and surface water.

While it is conceded that the stability of the waste form enhances

safety, the strong reliance placed upon scenarios involving groundwater infiltration appears inappropriate for an arid site such as the

low-level waste disposal site located near Richland, Washington. Without the liklihood of groundwater or surface water transport of

radionuclides, segregation of class A and class B wastes seems to be unnecessary when weighed against the burden of operating separate disposal units. For the arid site, a case can even be made to allow

co-mingling of waste classes in an attempt to lower the average con- centration of the most hazardous wastes. The same logic can likewise

be used for class C wastes at an arid site, provided class C wastes are placed at deeper depths and solidified in a relatively leachfree matrix or otherwise segregated for their hazardous lifetime.

The proposed regulation and its supporting environmental impact statement do not appear, however, to make a convincing enough argument for the establishment of a third disposal unit to handle only class C

©

A-87
Barbara Ritchie

Page 2

January 13, 1982 Docketed Comment Number: 34

Commenter: State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services

wastes at an arid site. Washington does not believe that the segregation of waste by classification should become a matter of compatibility.

Since the draft environmental impact statement on 10 CFR 61 was written.

the state of Washington has increased its perpetual care and maintenance funding. Descriptions of Washington's funding mechanisms should

be revised on pages 9-6 and K-50 to reflect these recent changes as

follows:

a. The Perpetual Care and Iaintenance (PC&M) Fund contribution

by U S Ecology. currently at 50.275 per-cubic foot, will

increase to $1.75 per cubic foot. Ibis renegotiated contribution will provide a total fund of approximately S6 million

by July 1. 195. The total accumulation will be determined

by the actual volume of waste disposed.

b. In addition, US Ecology will contribute $0.2S per cubic foot

of waste disposed to a newly established Contingency Closure

Fund. A contribution at this rate will yield a fund of

$800,000 by July 1985, assuring that the state of Washington

will be able to adequately close the radioactive waste disposal operations conducted at the site if and when needed.

c. On Jaunary IS, 1982. the company will post a surety bond in

the amount of $SOO,000 for a period of one year to protect

the state if the company should leave the site without meeting

closure conditions as stated in the license.

Thank you for the opportunity to incorporate our concerns.

NPK/db

Cta.

Response(s): Item 1 - NRC believes the requirements established in Part 61

for achieving long-term stability will be effective at both humid and arid

sites and the requirement for segregation of compressible from stable wastes

should reduce slumping of trench covers for trenches containing stable wastes.

The control of surface erosion at both a humid and arid site will need to be

considered on a site-specific basis through establishment of a proper surface

water drainage system at a humid site and establishment of a cover that is not

easily eroded by surface winds at an arid site.

Item 2 - As discussed above. NRC believes the segregation of

compressible and stable wastes will help reduce trench cover slumping and

associated increased potential for wind erosion of the cover due to cover

instability and slumping. As such, NRC does not believe the rule should be

changed. NRC believes, however, that site-specific considerations can and

should be addressed through the licensing process.

Item 3 - The staff agrees with the points raised in this comment

and has included them in the Appendix E, Errata in this volume.

A-88
C-h>

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 198Z

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DIVIION Page Two

AUrUCAiu Nel;TUT or CHuEMICAL rmicRs

'-2 I!:-" 1 7 ,*,:

: 'Q.<

January 11. 1982

: ; - :

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington. D.C. 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

s.I t\ n I o bI

.. .0R PkAor, 48 

,. . 1 :.. . -1 - L

Dear Sir: CO

The Nuclear Engineering Division (NED) of the American Institute of

Chemical Engineers appreciates this opportunity to comment on the

proposed regulation related to lard disposal of radioactive waste

(10 CFR Part 61) published at 46 FR 38081 on July 24. 1981.

r; 5/ 7)I)

The American Institute of Chemical EngineersLs.a professional organitaticn

representing over.50.000 chemical engineers, many of whom are members

of the Nuclear Engineering Division. A number of these persons have had

decades of experience In most (if not all) of the technologies related to land

disposal of radioactive waste.,. ;

NED heartily concurs with the urgent need for regulations codifying requirements for land disposal of radicactive waste. However we believe that

Subpart D of the proposed regulations is so basically flawed that it should

be deleted and the proposed regulation rewritten and republished for comment.

Generally, the regulation should present not "technical requirements" but

"performance objectives." If technical requirements persist in the regulation:

* Overconservatism now embodied in the propoied technical

requirements should be considerably reduced.

* Cost/benefit considerations should be based on the entire

fuel cycle as now defined by the Administration and recognized

by the Commissioners of the NRC.

* The definition of transuranic waste should be made realistic

recognizing the entire fuel cycle with a rational application of

the ALARA principle.

* Full recognition of the beneficial consequences of "layered"

- disposal should be reflected.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

The primary flaw in the proposed regulation consists of the abortive

attempt by the NRC to formulate generic limits for disposal. This will

deprive a potential disposal facility operator cf the opportunity to either:

e Take advantage of natural or engineered features of his operation

to permit him to accept materials of above-normal radlonuclide

content and dispose of them with quite adequate protection of the

public in both the short and long term, or

* Limit his receipts to less contaminated material to permit him

to avoid some of the more costly proposed NRC requirements,

still with adequate safety, to be able to offer a service less

costly to his customers (and, therefore, the public).

An unacceptable reason given by the NRC not to adopt a performance

objective appears in Section 2. 2.1 of NUREG-078Z (hereinafter, the NUREG).

where it Is stated, "In addition. it may not be totally clear to an applicant or

interested person how to design and operate a disposal facility to meet the _

general objectives." We submit that anyone so naive or lacking in thorough

understanding of all technical aspects of waste disposal should not be involved

In a responsible technical position related to a land disposal operation. The

role of the regulating agency should be that of regulation, not the establishment of design bases.

We have felt repeatedly in past years that NRC regulations resembled more

and more a "cook book" approach. As with other nuclear operations, waste

disposal cannot be left to unqualified persons to be carried out simply by

rote. It must be done under the supervision of highly qualified management.

Accordingly, there should be no reason why the NRC should not adopt only

performance objectives for waste disposal rather than the limits and criteria

proposed. To the contrary. It appears that the former would offer worthwhile benefits. Granted. Subpart D does allow departure from Its requirements

if it can be shown that there will be compliance with Subpart C; however,

the very existence of the requirements of Subpart D will Inevitably present

a major obstacle to an applicant endeavoring to benefit from an especially

good site or operational provisions..

UNDUE CONSERVATISM

We feel that t;-ere is gross cverconservatism in the NUREG. The proposed 13

A-89
Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 1982

Page Three

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 1982

Page Four

requirements are. to a great extent, not cost-effective and extend far

beyond ALARA requirements. There are many examples of this. including:

* Both NUREG-0456 and NUREC/CR-1005 are frequently referenced

in the NUREC. Indeed the conclusions of all -hree documents

bear many similarities. However. In the two referenced documents

no credit was taken for the waste package nor for waste stabilization

or solidification. The proposed regulation carries with it requirements for all of these. That all documents are similar at the bottom

line but so very different In basic premises shows the extreme

conservatism In the NUREG.

* It is well known that the mixing of 1291 with stable (lZ71) iodine

results in directly proportionate reduction in iodine related dose

to the thyroid and other organs. This is recognized in the NUREG

(for exam ple. on pages 4-16 and 5-73) but then ignored in consideration of IT91 limits.

* As addressed below, the only scenarios for transport of radionuclides

from a disposal trench when the waste is emplAced at moderate

depths (say 10 meters) below grade are the water pathways. Sections

61. 51(a)(4) and (6).require that the disposal site design be such as

to prevent water infiltration and to eliminate the contact of water

with waste. If the proposed regulation is adopted, it seems fair

to presume:that a prospective disposal site operator would be

required by the NRC to give reasonable proof that it is probable

that these requirements can be and will be met. If so, then there

exists no credible water pathway, making limits proposed quite

irrational.

SOURCES OF WASTE

The NUREC pointedly ignores significant sources of waste. It references

what is now known to be an interim federal policy against recovery of

valuable, irreplaceable energy resources by reprocessing spent fuel

This is no longer the policy. as was recognized by the Commissioners

in their Second Prehearing Memorandum and Order dated November 6, 1981

in the waste disposal confidence rulemaking (PR-50. SI). In that document,

the-Commlssioners stated, "On October 8, 1981. the President issued a

statement outlining a policy favoring commercial reprocessing. " It is

well known that the operation of a reprocessing plant generates sizeable

quantities of "low level" waste. One must include in such quantities the

waste also discharged from the operation of the plutonium and "high level"

waste solidification facilities.

Further, it Is the policy of the current Administration that the nation should

proceed with a breeder program.. This will require the processing of plutonium for fuel. generating more waste not addressed in the NURZO.

Indeed, the NRC in its proposed 1OCFR Part 60 recognizes the possibility

of reprocessing in the definition of "high level radioactive waste. " (60. 2)

The nature and quantity of reprocessing, high level waste solidiflcaticn,

and plutonium processing wastes mandates that they be included in consideration of land disposal regulation.

TRANSURANIC (TRU) WASTES

The definition of the waste form called "transuranic" must be redone for

at least several reasons:

e The quantity of wastes from those portions of the entire fuel

cycle Ingored in the NUREC. much of which would likely be

in the 10 to 100 nCl/cm3 range, must be taken into account

in assessing the cost-benefit balance on the ALARA principle.

One of the more significant components of these wastes isL

for instance,. leached fuel cladding hulls. It is likely that

the transuranium content of hulls will be below 100 nCIlcm3.

To unnecessarily Identify them as being excluded from land

burial could result in large and wasteful expenditures of

money. Other components of these wastes likely will falU

in the same range.

* It appears that, ix tying the 10 nCi Limit to lung dose, the

inhalation pathway has been used. With layered disposal

(see below) this pathway for transuranics should not be

applicable. The water pathway would lead to, first, only

an ingestion pathway, and second. oniy to the requirement

-for an inventory limit rather than a concentration limit

* The "fact" that the 10 nCi limit is readily complied with now

loses its meaning when aUt real (even if not now generated)

wastes are taken into account and the principle of ALARA

is sincerely applied.

VALIDITY OF PROPOSED LIMITS

As noted above. the NUREG frequently references NUREO-0456 and

NUREC-CR/1005. Both of these documents (with deep involvement of

A-90
I .

Secretary of the Commission

Janaury 11. 1982

Page Five

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 198Z

Page Six

NRC personnel) concluded:

* intruder-construction and intruder-agricultore scenarios would

require concentration limits to be imposed on waste to be disposed

of by land burial.

* The potential for other intruders and the potential (likely or not)

man-rem consequences to a few individuals lead to the conclusion

that such a scenario is unimportant in the future.

* Water migration scenarios would require not concentration limits

but total site inventory limits to be imposed.

* None of these scenarios Is expected to take place while there Is

Institutional control {taken in the NUREG to be 100 years).

* The "layered" mode of disposal as described In the NUREOC

obviates the need to address any intruder scenario for the

higher activity wastes.

* There I no need for speclal packaging or stabilization of wastes

to make the above conclusions valid (the; referenced NURErs

assumed no such requirement).

Therefore, the limits proposed in the draft lOCFR 61. 5; must be recomputed. There should be a clear recognition that waste buried at the

bottom (say 10 meters deep) of an operation Is only subject to sitespecific Inventory limits (a performance objective). Further, credit

should be given for compliance with the requirements of 61. 51 "disposal

site design for land disposal."

Also, the consideration ox subsidence should be redone We can see no

valid reason why, during the period of institutional control with monitoring

by the NRC, any subsidence could not .and would not be promptly corrected.

In line with this, we believe that even without the proposed requirements

to prevent or minimize subsidence,, all significant subsidence could be

expected to tak, place well before the expiration of the 100 year period

(after site closurq of institutional control. Accordingly, the costly requirements proposed In Part 61 are unnecessary both during the priod of Institutional control and, after. ;

Finally, througout the NUREG, numbers on concentrations, doses, etc.

are expressed to as many as three or four significant figures. Such a

presentation is very misleading In that It implies that our knowledge is

that precise (which It is not) or that such accuracy is needed (which it

is not).

We do note with approval that the discussion on 46 FR 38083 indicates that

de minimis waste classifications will be established. Hence, potentially

lower cost disposal options may develop for materials at lower concentration

levels. We encourage establishment of such de minimis limits outside the

scope of Part 61. This: approach should allow consideration of both the

form and type of waste.

In conclusion, IOCFR Pa;t 61 should be rewritten based on simple performance

objectives. Any competent applicant has available all the necessary tools

(hydrological, geological, climatological, etc., data, codes, etc.) to support

appropriate site-specific limits for his proposed operation. We urge that

he be given the latitude to take advantage of site-specific benefits or to

search for an improved site which would give him an opportunity to offer

a better service at a reduced cost.

We request the opportunity to answer any negative response by the NRC

to any aspect of this discussion.

Sincerely,

R.L. Newman - -

Chairman, Nuclear Waste Task Force

Past Chairman, Nuclear Engineertig Division

A-91
Docketed Comment Number: 35

Commenter: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Nuclear Engineering

Division

Response(s): Item 1 - The reason cited by the commenter for NRC not adopting

purely performance objective requirements is only one of several. Others

included the additional time required to develop only performance objective

requirements, the additional time that would be required in licensing specific

facilities due to the large number of factors that would need to be considered

to determine compliance, and the fact that, while workable, it would not allow

for establishment of more detailed prescriptive requirements in those areas

where specific guidance is known to be needed. Based on the comments received

on the rule the majority of commenters supported the combined approach of

setting overall objectives to define an acceptable level of performance and

minimum technical requirements on the siting, design, operation and closure of

a LLW disposal facility.

Item 2 - NRC staff believes that the commentor has not provided

an adequate basis for his assertions regarding either the level of conservatism in the draft EIS or the cost-effectiveness of the requirements in the

draft Part 61 rule. The commenter has given three examples to back up his

assertions. NRC's responses to each of these examples are as follows:

(1) Besides the draft EIS, the commenter references two other NRC publications,

NUREG-0456 and NUREG/CR-1005. (References 14 and 15.)

While there are some similarities between the earlier work and the draft

EIS, the draft EIS applies more recent dose assessment methodology and an

improved handling of groundwater impacts. A number of important conclusions are also quite different--for example, the importance of waste form

in limiting the consequences of potential contact of waste by an inadvertent

intruder is not considered in the earlier work. This results in some

large differences in the limiting concentrations calculated for near-surface

disposal. In this regard, NRC staff believes that by not considering

waste form, it is the earlier work which leads to overconservative

conclusions rather than the draft EIS. NRC staff believes that adoption

of the limits proposed in.NUREG/CR-1005 would have had a greater impact

on most waste generators.

(2) The potential for reduction of thyroid dose due to dilution of radioactive

iodine (1291) with stable iodine (1271) was briefly considered in the

draft EIS. Work performed by Leddicotte, et. al., was cited, for example.

(Reference 16.) At the time. NRC staff believed that while information

gaps and time limitations precluded taking credit for dilution by'stable

iodine in the draft EIS, it was a matter that obviously needed to be

further examined. This potential for dilution by stable iodine has in

fact been examined in more detail in the final EIS.

As it turns out, whether or not dilution by stable iodine is considered

makes essentially no difference in determining whether a waste generator

meets waste classification limits obtained from consideration of exposures

to an intruder. Iodine-129 typically exists in only trace quantities in

low-level waste well below (typically one or more orders of magnitude)

the maximum concentration limits. However, dilution with stable iodine

may make a large difference in long-term groundwater impacts and

consequently any site-specific inventory limits.

(3) In the draft EIS, the effectiveness of layering waste in order to reduce

potential intruderexposures was considered insofar as this technique

could be implemented in all regions of the country. It is not clear what

type of waste the conmentor Is referring to in his statements regarding

disposal at a depth of 10 meters. Since this would be unreasonable for

all wastes, NRC staff believes that the commentor is referring to Class C

waste. NRC has not required in the draft rule that Class C waste be

placed a minimum of 10 meters below grade as such a requirement is not

necessary and might also preclude disposal of Class C waste in many humid

disposal sites. Rather, NRC has required 5 meters of depth which

provides an adequate level of protection against intrusion for the

limited period of time required. It is also not clear that the only

credible pathways (as the commentor asserts) for waste disposal at a

depth greater than 10 meters are water pathways. It is true that

A-92
**l i w

pathways such as erosion or human intrusion from housing construction are

probably extremely unlikely. However, this does not preclude other

activities such as a well being drilled onsite which passes through

waste, bringing contaminated material to the surface. Disposal of waste

at greater depths will be considered by NRC in subsequent work.

Finally, it appears that NRC staff was not sufficiently clear regarding their

intent with paragraphs 61.51(a)(4) and (6) in the draft Part 61 rule. The

intent was that requirements in Section 61.51 such as preventing water infil-.

tration or eliminating contact of water with waste be considered as objectives

to be strived for rather than absolute criteria. This intent is being clarified

in the final Part 61 rule.

Item 3 - The requirements and classification system developed

for Part 61 can be applied to any waste whether currently generated or to be

generated in the future. The requirements define safe disposal and establish

minimum controls which should be applied to ensure safe disposal of waste

regardless of type or point of.generation. Some wastes are not considered

generally acceptable for near-surface disposal and will need to be analyzed

further. A preliminary analysis indicated that certain reprocessing wastes

may fall into this category. .(See response to Item 4 below.) NRC plans to

address disposal of such wastes through subsequent work which may result in

amendments to Part 61 setting out requirements for the disposal of such wastes.

Item 4 - Due to the volume of comments received regarding TRU

waste disposal, the limits for transuranic waste have been reexamined in the

final EIS. However, some of the commentor's rationale for his assertions may

be briefly examined. First, NRC staff continue to believe that the option of

reprocessing of spent reactor fuel and recycle of the recovered plutonium is

not likely to be a significant source of waste for at least several years.

Secondly, NRC staff compared the limits in 10 CFR 61 with some estimated

concentrations in a number of waste streams which could be projected to result

from plutonium recycle activities. These estimated concentrations were obtained

from work on the subject performed by DOE. (Reference 18.) This analysis

projects that cladding hulls, for example, would contain transuranics at

levels greatly exceeding 100 nC1/gm--e.g.,-nearly 700 nCi/gm.

Thirdly, the commenter incorrectly assumes that all waste possibly containing

TRU isotopes would be layered. It is possible that much of this assumption

comes from a lack of clarity in Table 1 of Section 61.55. In any case, NRC

staff believe that the concept of layered disposal as defined in the Part 61

rule does not automatically exclude potential inhalation exposures.

Item 5 - As discussed in response to other comments by this

commenter, NRC staff does not believe that the commenter's conclusions fall

from the premises stated.

Item 6 - NRC does not believe the consideration of subsidence

should be redone. The requirements for reducing subsidence are intended to

reduce the need for active and costly maintenance during the active institutional control period. By placing greater emphasis on stability as a part of

operations, long-term maintenance costs are reduced. In addition, if consideration of subsidence was neglected, the very same requirements for long-term

stability would be needed to help ensure safety during operations, reduce

potential for migration and reduce potential exposures to an inadvertent

intruder.

Item 7 - NRC staff apologize for any difficulties regarding the

presentation of the results in the draft EIS. Most of the calculations were

performed with the assistance of a digital computer. Since the computer was

inherently able to handle a large humber of significant figures, it was convenient to retain several significant figures throughout Intermediate

calculations and in final printouts of results. (This was believed to be more

useful than the practice of rounding at intermediate steps which could have

been the case if hand calculations were involved.) Retaining three or four

significant figures in the computer output facilitated debugging the computer

programs and checking the reasonableness of results. In the draft EIS, tabulated results were considered "Intermediate results", and were generally

reproduced as printed by the computer. These tabulated results were used to

provide a backdrop for discussions and help reach conclusions.. Rounding up to

a more reasonable number of significant figures was accomplished as part of

the discussions and conclusions reached and as part of setting forth particular

numerical requirements (e.g., Table 1) In the draft Part 61 rule.

A-93
i - - Z .

I 'c .. COSFER ENCE OF RA DIAiSX CONTROL . ROGRPA DlIRET' .ORS. I/VC.

P. 0. Box 148

Concord, New Hampshire.!03301

-i-:-20 P1:!,

.,O; =R D January 15, 1.982

eno2sM RULE P R G a 2

C+6 R FgoS 1XQ,-:Q =PX PR -v Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch 7

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Dale:

The following comments relate to the Proposed Rule for a

new Part 61, and other related amendments, as published in

Volume 46, No. 142 of the Federal Register, dated July 24, 1981.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to be commended on

this proposed regulation. This new proposed rule provides a

vast improvement in guidance and requirements for the control

of land disposal of radioactive waste. The existing regulation

on the disposal of radioactive waste contained in Part 20

provides only a limited guidance that has resulted in problems

at both NBC and state licensed burial sites.

The Conference has taken the position since the late

sixties that more federal guidance and criteria is needed in

the area of shallow land disposal of radioactive waste. The

Conferenco has passed various resolutions addressing this

concern. such guidance is imperative for uniform management

of the country's radioactive waste.

Many of the improvements in the proposed Part 61 are

responsive to some of the recommendations made by the Conference.

Proposed Part 61 also establishes, in the NRC regulatory

system, many 'state of the art' improvements that have been

developed by the states in the operation and regulation of

low-level radioactive and hazardous waste burial sites.

The Conference concurs and supports the following

proposals contained in the new Proposed Part 61:

1. An improved waste classification system that divides

the present all-inclusive "low-level' waste into

several categories based on hazard evaluation.

2. Confirmation of the definition of transuranic wastes

as recommended by the Conference several years ago.

Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 2

3. Technical requirements for burial that become more

stringent based on the increasing hazard of the

radionuclide concentration in the waste.

4. Technical requirements on stability of waste packaging.

5. Technical requirements on burial site operations that

minimize voids in trenches with emplaced waste.

6. Technical and financial requirements associated with the site

closure phase and the post-closure observation and maintenance

phase.

7. Defining a period of time for institutional control, and

relating the classification and disposal of waste to this

time frame.

8. For design purposes of new proposed sites, and until specific

recommendations are forthcoming from the Environmental Protection

'Agency, the Conference supports the objective in Proposed

Part 61 that any movement of radioactivity should not result in

calculated doses in excess of 25 mrem/year to an individual

at the site boundary, and support the application of the

EPA drinking water standard to the nearest public drinking

water supply. We also recommend the application of these

dose limits as guidelines for existing sites. Of course,

the application of ALARA should be applied to a near surface

burial site, as with other licensees.

We strongly support the proposed amended requirements to Part 20

for the certification and use of shipping manifests to track waste

shipments.

We offer the following specific comments on the proposals.

(1) 61.2 Definitions: l

a. Should include a definition for minor custodial-care."

b. "Disposal" - As stated, the temporary storage of waste

could meet the definition. Disposal into land generally

connotes long term or permanent removal of the waste

from the biosphere. Possibly the words "long term"

should be added before the word "isolation."

c. "Waste' - The definition should include levels of

concentrations of radioactive materials specific to a

particular waste stream below which regulatory control

is no longer required. This position was previously

A-94
Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 3

* Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 4

transmitted to the Commission in the form of Resolution III

which was adopted at the thirteenth annual Conference

meeting.

Although the definition for waste may not be the area in

which the following concerns should be addressed, we

strongly urge the Commission to consider the totalhazard, both radiological and chemical, in the

classification of acceptable waste for a radioactive

burial site. Although this concern is somewhat addressed

under 61.56, criteria or guidelines are needed which

specifically consider the appropriateness and/or

procedures of combining waste which is highly toxic,

chemically, but low in radioactivity, with chemically

nontoxic radioactive material.

Consideration should be given to a definition of "toxic

chemical/radioactive waste' which may require different

handling and burial requirements. This concern was

expressed to the.Commission in the form of Resolution .I

adopted by the Conference. -

(2) 61.7 Concents:

Under section (c)(4),, The Licensing Process," the concept

of license transfer to a state or federal agency after finding

of satisfactory disposal site closure-is discussed. Under

this concept, if transferred to a state, the NRC would be

licensing a state government until institutional care is

not.required. This concept for a low-level waste site may

need further discussion and refinement beforo implementation.

For example, what criteria will be used to judge the

adequacy of the state government licensee? If 'state

government' violates the conditions of the license, what

enforcement actions would be taken? Additionally, why

would the license be terminated if transferred to the

Department of Energy, but not terminated if transferred to

a state? Experience and history has shown that states have

been as effective as the federal government in assuming

responsibility for long-term care of existing sites.

Therefore, consideration should be given to license

termination after transfer to a state government.

(3) 61.12 Specific Technical Information:

Section (d) would require a description of the design basis

natural events or phenomena. Requirements should be

placed on the applicant to consider the maximum creditable

accident anticipated, and a description of actions that

would be taken should such an event occur.

(4) 61.50 Site Characteristics:

Consideration ;hould be given to a nonsuitability

requirement for burial into areas high in natural

radioactivity.

(5) 61.80 Records:

Consideration should be given to the requirement for

the maintenance of a duplicate set of vital records at an alternate location in case of destruction by fire or other loss of primary records.

We would also like to comment on the Summary Draft E.I.S.,

NUREG-0782, Volume 1. We believe the Draft E.I.S. adequately

supports the need for the Proposed Part 61, and identifies

impacts. our specific comments are as follows:

1. Pace 15, Impact Measures:

Another pathway which should be considered is trench

overflow and/or pumping of water from trenches. -

2. Page 16, Table S.4:

Impact measures should include trench overflow or pumping

of trenches, and the release of tritiated methane.

3. Page 30, 5.1.2., 4th ;aragraph:

The "bathtub" problem not only "leads to costly long-term

trench pumping," but may also release radioactivity in

the process.

4. Pace 55, Imoacts on the Public:

An additional beneficial impact with the implementation of

the requirements of the Proposed Part 61 is the reduction

of potentially large, long-term financial cost.for taxpayers in states in which sites are located.

- ' - GENERAL COWMENTS - -.

There is an urgent need for written criteria and/or guidelines

as to what constitutes acceptability in meeting the performance

I®

KD

A-95
Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 5

standards of the new Proposal. We recommend immediate consideration

be given to the following:

1. Standards for acceptable solidifying agents for liquid

low-level waste.

2. Acceptable testing procedures to determine if solidified

liquids meet the above standard.

3. Comprehensive licensing guidelines for waste reduction

methods such as incineration and compacting units.

4. Guidelines for types of acceptable or optimum geological

formations for the land disposal of low-level radioactive

waste.

5. Standards or criteria for the optimam design of a site,

considering dry vs. humid climates.

6. Guidelines as to acceptable or optimum burial practices.

7. Guidelines relating to the minimum acceptable health physics

program for a near surface burial facility.

8. Guidelines relating to the minimum acceptable nonradiological

occupational protection program for a near surface burial

facility.

9. Guidelines relating to the specific areas that must be

considered for emergency planning for a near surface burial

facility.

10. Guidelines on environmental contamination trend analysis, and

recommended protective actions based on potential increasing

environmental levels of specific radionuclides.

11. Standards or criteria which specifies what constitutes

stabilization and a decommissioned site.

12. Guidelines which identify the minimum acceptable activities

to be performed by a government agency after closure.

13. Guidelines on methods of determining financial needs for

long-term care.

14. Guidelines as to the minimum acceptable environmental

monitoring programs for a near surface disposal facility.

15. Guidelines on the application of ALARA for near surface

facilities.

16. Guidelines on ground water modeling for near surface facilities.

Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 6

Again, I would like to commend the Commission for the excellent

work contained in the new Proposed Part 61. Such regulations have

been needed for many years. We appreciate the opportunity to comment

on this very vital need to our country.

Yours very truly,

John R. Stanton, Chairman

Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors, Inc.

JRS/CHH/pch

cc: Board

Federal Liaisons

Executive Secretary

G. Wayn5 Kerr

A-96
Docketed Comment Number: 36 covers are at negligible levels. NRC staff is not aware of any new data which

would contradict this belief.

Cosmenter: Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.

Response(s): Item 1 - In the draft EIS, a scenario was considered in which a

disposal facility experiences a severe water accumulation problem in disposal

trenches. Potential costs of managing this accumulation problem were calculated,

which included pumping leachate from trenches, processing the leachate through

an evaporator, and solidifying and disposing of the concentrated evaporator

bottoms. In the draft EIS, however, potential radiological impacts from

overflow of leachate from disposal trenches or from operation of the evaporator

were not estimated. However, the potential occurrence of such scenarios was

part of the basis for NRC's position in the draft Part 61 rule regarding the

need for disposal site stability.

Item 3 - As stated in Item 1 above, an estimate of potential

impacts from trench overflow and operation of a leachate evaporator have been

included in the final EIS.

Item 4 - The staff concurs with the commenter's opinion and will

include this suggestion in the final EIS.

It should be recognized that actual impacts due to trench overflow would not

be expected to occur to any great extent. Rather, the cognizant officials in

charge of radiological health (either on a State or Federal level) would take

steps (e.g., leachate pumping and treatment, recapping disposal trenches) to

minimize or eliminate such impacts. However, the calculated impacts represent

levels of potential human exposures which could occur if such steps to eliminate water accumulation were not taken. Experience has shown that these steps

can be very expensive. Of course, operation of an evaporator to reduce the

volume of the accumulated leachate would indeed involve release of radioactive

material to the environment.

An estimate of potential radiological impacts from trench overflow and

evaporation has been performed in the Final EIS. These calculated impacts add

support to NRC's position regarding the need for disposal site stability.

Item 2 - As stated in Item 1 above, an estimate of potential

impacts from trench overflow and operation of a leachate evaporator have been

included in the final EIS. These potential impacts provide further support to

NRC's position regarding the need for disposal site stability. From data

available to NRC at the time the draft EIS was written, however, it appeared

that potential impacts from tritiated methane released through disposal trench

A-97
Docketed Comment Number: 37 (Not assigned)

Commenter: N.A.

Response(s): N.A.

A-98
.L'E RZZ 0

New England Nuclear'

~:2,:2 7 P27-~!

'T2 - !' -27 P 2 :-d5

.Jit{ET IWJL';

January 21, 1982 MP. E DUtE PR

R. Dale Smith, Chief It F i

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch 3 e %t

Division of Waste Management -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission , T

Washington, D. C. 20555 - PR* L;'.. OS

Dear Fr. Smith: Hi6 f -5 ) 7 )

I enclose this letter to alert you to the fact that New England Nuclear

chaired the NELRAD 10 CFR 61 Subcommittee and was actively involved in

the development of the detailed comments. As such New England Nuclear

endorses the report and recommends due consideration be given to it.

Sincerely,

NJ ENGLANDN 2LR

J .Brantle

VI.P. Administration, N'ENC

JCB/da

:r.uary 21, 1982

i.. Dale Smith, Chief

:o-;-Level Waste Licensing Branch

:vision of Waste Management

':uclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D. C. 20555

:ear Mr. Smith:

; enclose comments on 10 CFR Part 61 and the accompanying Draft Environ-

-ental Impact Statement. These comments are written from the generator's

;espective, compiled from safety officer input from several waste genert:ing firms in New England.

ease collective comments are a product of NELRAD activity. NELRAD is a Consortium of New England firms and institutions who use radioactive

z:zerials and have a common need for a nearby low-level radioactive waste

!isposal facility. Our group was formally organized in 1981 to support

.he efforts of the six New England states in complying with the Low-Level . adioactive Waste Policy Act.

We are pleased to be a part of the process that allows review of proposed

rezulations. In general, we approve the intent of 10 CFR Part 61 and

encourage expeditious progress.

SLicerely,

ixisD. Stelluto

Executive Director,

!:ELRAD

.DS/da

2.*4)

P. O. BOX 1267 CONCORD, MA 017421267 Tel. i617J 371-0356

549AIbanyStreet Boston, MassachusettsO2118 Telephone617-482-9595 Telex94099S

A-99
TO: NELRAD Committee

FROM: NELRAD 10 CFR 61 Subcommittee

SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Rulemaking on Land Disposal of

Low-Level Radioactive Waste.

DATE: 1/20/82

The enclosed report presents detailed comments on 10 CFR 61, the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0782) and the accompanying

summary of the proposed rule. The detailed comments are preceded by a summary of the main points.

Members of the subcommittee which prepared this report are:

F.N. Brenneman (to Dec. 1981)

M. Galanik

D. Gomer

L.R. Smith (Chairperson)

J. Stelluto

E. Tarnuzzer

Northeast Utilities

P.O. Box 270

Hartford, CT 06101

77 Main St.

Room 20B, 238, MIT

Cambridge, MA 02139

Nuclear Metals, Inc.

2229 Main St.

Concord, MA 01742

New England Nuclear Corp, DuPont

549 Albany St.

Boston, MA 02118

NELRAD

549 Albany St.

Boston, MA 02118

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

1671 Worcester Rd.

Framingham, MA 017C2

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON LAND

DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE: PREPARED

BY THE NELRAD 10 CFR 61 SUBCOMMITTEE.

10 CFR 16 Scope.

We believe that the development of performance standards in 10 CFR 61

is the best approach to establishing licensing requirements for land-disposal of low-level radioactive waste. We agree that only essential generic prescriptive' requirements should be included in the regulations and all site specific requirements should be incorporated in individual facility licenses.

Site Licenses and Inspection.

The scope and sequencd of activities in establishing safe operations and ensuring proper closure of a facility appear realistic. We recommend

that safeguards be strengthened by:

a. granting disposal facilities a full term license with appropriate review instead of subjecting a license to the public hearing

process every five years.

b. assigning a full-time NRC inspector to each LLW site during the

operational phase.

c. encouraging active monitoring and review of site records by

state authorities.

Probability of Inadvertent Intrusion.

The method used to establish generic prescriptive requirements to

protect inadvertent intruders is appropriate for estimating the lower boundaries

of concentration limits. However, these limits are unnecessarily conservative

because the probability of intruders encountering radioactivity has not

been factored into the calculations.

We believe that better estimates of maximum permissable concentrations can be made if the following considerations are included in the calculations:

a. The probability of inadvertent Intruders encountering critical

waste forms.

b. The concentration of radioactivity in waste sent to a site exhibits a log-normal distribution with an average concentration at least an order of magnitude lower than the maximum permissable

concentration.

If these probability factors are included in the calculations, mhaximum

permissable radioactivity concentrations are expected to be at least an order of magnitude higher than those presented in 10 CFR 61 and will still

provide sufficient protection to the inadvertent intruder.

Thanks are due to K. Bennert, J.D. Bernardy, J.C. Brantley and

C.B. Killian for their helpful comments and to K. Thomas for processing

this report.

L.R. Smith

A-100
3

Site Selection and Utilization.

The site could be better utilized if credit was given for the decay of

short lived radionuclides during the operational period.

It Is clear that local resources and demc;raphic developments are important considerations when selecting a suitat e site. However, demographic

predictions can be unreliable therefore we reccrnmend that the NRC consider

zoning requirements to restrict activities that ray adversely affect the site

hydrology and environment.

The potential impact of -changes In natural radioactivity In ground

water 

We recommend 

due to site 

that 

excavations 

these effects was be 

not 

considered.

conspicuously covered in the DEIS. jQ

Clarification of the Intent of-70 CFR 61.

We have indicated several instances where the intent of the regulations is not clear. The following improvements are recommended:

a. replace absolute statements by achieveable practical ones.

b. use units and terminology recommended by scientific standard

setting organizations (eg. ICRU and ICRP).

ce. clarify performance objectives by specifying internal and external

dose equivalent limits to individual crgans as suggested by the

ICRP

Waste Concentration.

Waste generators are concerned that - the difficulty in accurately

assaying radioactivity in individual containers %%ill cause overly conservative

values to be assigned to shipments resulting in poor utilization of the site.

We recommend that the NRC consider relaxine concentration limits on individual containers and, accept inventory me:,ods designating. average

concentrations in waste shipments. Using inventory averaging methods

would also enhance the generator's ability to determine if waste concentrations were below "de minimis" levels. The establishment of "de minimis" -levels

for radionucildes and waste forms should be encouraged for better site

utilization.

The 100 Cl per- container limit appears excessively conservative. We

recommend that DOT limits be adopted since tie most restrictive potential

impact scenario appears to be individual exposure from accidential breach

of containment during transportation to the site.

Use of ALARA Concept.

In several Instances the ALARA concept is improperly used to Justify

excessive restriction. We recommend that opt-Ium levels be defined at

which an operation could be described to be ALARA. Imposing further

restrictions yielding small benefits at great cost is not ALARA. For example,

the proposed 10 nCI/g limit for TRU contamirsted waste is not ALARA

simply because industry has complied with this regulation. The EPA has

suggested that 100 nCi/g is an appropriately conservative limit. We recommend

that the EPA's suggestion be adopted unless a better limit Is derived.

Manifest Tracking.

We recommend -that a reasonable procedure be developed to integrate enforcement agencies into the control or supervision of the manifest tracking

systems.

Conclusion.

In general, we recommend that 10 CFR 61 should not duplicate existing regulations but should reference them and be compatible with them.

Our final conclusions is that 10 CFR 61 will provide a reasonable and

necessary regulatory frame-work for low-level radioactive waste disposal. We submit these comments in the hope that they shall improve both safety and cost effectiveness.

A-101
:, " " .

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON LAND

DISPOSAL OF LOWV-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE: PREPARED

BY THE NELRAD 10 CFR 61 SUBCOMMITTEE

1. Page 38084, Col. 2.

This section specifies that waste stability should be sufficient to ensure that the residual radioactivity is "no longer of concern from

the migration standpoint" We recommend that the quoted phrase be

replaced by appropriate dose limits.

2. Page 38084, Col. 3.

a. The 10 nCi/g limit for transuranic waste is too conservative.

The EPA suggests that 100 nCl/g is a conservative limit. Overly conservative limits may dissuade waste generators from practicing volume reduction of waste potentially contaminated with TRU.

b. Although industry has been able to comply with the 10 nCi/g limit for TRU waste we do not agree that this limit is ALARA.

On page 7-13 of the DEIS and in several other instances the

ALARA concept is misapplied to justify excessive restrictions.

Operations should only be said to be ALARA when the cost to

reduce impacts from these operations is justified by the benefits

accrued and when further costs to. reduce impacts are not justified. Compliance with an excessive restriction or achieving a lower

level of- impact are not necessarily ALARA. Reduction of environmental

impacts 2-3 orders of magnitude below comparable impacts from

other conventional industries is not reasonable and therefore not

ALARA.

3. Page 38085, Col. 2.

The establishment of de minimis levels for other waste streams

and radionuclides should be encouraged since this should lead to

improved utilization of disposal sites.

4. Page 38087, Col. 2.

Disposal sites should be provided full term license with appropriate

review. The financial planning necessary for long term site monitoring assumes a reasonable operating life. Hence the license should not be

subject to the public hearing process every five years with the possibility that renewal may not occur.

S. Page 38087, Col. 2.

"Keep people off the site" should be replaced by "control access to the site" to allow maintenance, surveillance and other appropriate

activities.

6. In the following sections the words "assurance' and "assure"

should be replaced by "ensurance" and "ensure" respectively. This

is to indicate that positive action should be taken to achieve an objective rather than merely persuading that an objective can be

achieved.

Page 38089, Col. 3, line 5, 61.2.

Page 38090, Col. 1, line 51, .61.2.

Page 38091, Col. 1, line 14, 61.7 (b), (3).

Page 38093, Col. 3, 61.23 (b), (c), (d).

Page 33094, Col. 1, 61.23 (e), (g). Page 38095, Col. 1, 61.28 (b).

Page 38095, Col. 2, 61.30 (a), (2), (5).

Page 3809;, Col. 3, 61.50 (a), (1).

Page 38096, Col. 2, 61.51 (a), (2).

Page 38097, Col. 2, 61.55 (b), (c), (1).

Page 38097, Col. 3, 61.56 (b).

7. Page 38090, Col. 2 line 1t.

Page 38091, Col. 1, line 3, 61.7 (a), (1)

Instead of i15-20" meters a single value should be used. '15-20"

may be confused as meaning burial below 15 meters and above 20

meters from the ground surface.

8. Page 38090, 61.7 (a), (1).

a. We agree that both performance objectives and prescriptive requirements are necessary. Performance objectives should be

limited to occupational and environmental impact concentrations

and should be specified in the regulations.

b. Generic prescriptive requirements are appropriate to limit LLW

concentrations and to protect inadvertent intruders. These and

prescriptive requirements which provide financial surety should

also be incorporated in the regulations. In the cases where

prescriptive requirements are adopted from other existing or proposed regulations these should be referenced or Incorporated in 10 CFR 61.

c. Other prescriptive requirements which limit site Inventory or which protect against excessive migration of radlonuclides are site specific and should be incorporated In site licenses. 10 CFR 61

should specify that site licenses will incorporate these site specific prescriptive requirements.

9. Page 38091, Col. 1, 61.7 (b), (1).

a. We recommend that the primary objectives for disposal of LLW are: To isolate LLW from the biosphere in a manner that maintains:

I. personnel dose equivalent commitments ALARA;

il. environmental impact and personnel dose equivalent commitments

below specified limits.

A-102
, .. , . .

b. "Prevention of migration of radionuctides" Is an important strategy

for achieving those primary safety objectives. "Prevention of

exposure to Inadvertent Intruders" Is a special case of (a) (ii)

and should be called a secondary objective.

10. Page 38091, Col. 1, 61.7 (b), (2).

a. Omit "eliminated or" since It is not possible to reduce water access to zero.

b. This paragraph should be written more clearly. In particular it

should be clear when "stability" refers to trench structure or the waste itself.

11. The generic term 'radionuclide" should replace "isotope" and

"radiolstope" In the following sections:

Page 38091, Col. 2, line 1, 61.7 (b), (2).

Page 38097, Table 1

Page 38097, Col. 2, 61.55 (a), (1).

12. Page 38091, Col. 2, 61.7 (b), (3).

Replace "would" by "could" since intruder risk has a statistical

basis.

13. Page 38091, Col. 2, 61.7 (b), (4).

a. The first sentence Is ambiguous. It may be rewritten thus:

"Institutional control of access to the site is required for at least

100 years after closure of the burial site:

b. Page 4-49 of the DEIS indicates that consensus of opinion expects

that the institutional control period may reasonably range from

100 to 300 years. Since this parameter Is somewhat arbitrary It

should be the last -parameter selected in the equation for determining prescriptive requirements.

14. Page 38091, Col. 3, 61.7 (c), (1).

"Established administrative procedures" should be cross referenced

to enable recognition of specific procedures.

15. Page 38093 Col. 1, 61.13 (b).

"Demonstration" should be replaced by "reasonable Indication"

since It is not possible to demonstrate the achievement of performance

objectives until long after a site has been closed.

16. Page 38094, Col. 1, 61.23 (e).

Replace "should" by "to".

17. Page 38095, Col. 2, 61.40.

Eliminate "reasonable assurance exists that".

18. Page 38095, 61.41 and 61.42.

a. Specify whether "annual" and "year" refer to a calender or a sliding year.

b. 1. "Dose" should be defined to mean "dose equivalent".

ii. It is not stated whether "dose" refers to internal, external or a summation- of these commitments.

iii. We advise that the ratio of dose equivalent limits to various

organs should follow ICRP recommendations.

19. Page 38095, 61.42.

a. Since the inadvertent intruder is identified as the critically

exposed individual for most radionuclides, more effort should be

directed into determining the probability of Intruder scenarios

occuring. Waste concentration limits could then be relaxed if

these Interaction probabilities are factored Into the impact

calculations.

b. We agree with the proposed dose limit provided that waste

concentration limits are calculated to ensure, with reasonable

probability, that the inadvertent Intruder does not receive more than 500 mrem/yr.

c. Dose equivalent limits following iCRP guidelines should also be

specified for the inadvertent intruders' thyroid, skin, bone and

other organs.

20. Page 38095, 61.50 (a), (1).

The second sentence should be clarified. The "long-term performance objectives of Subpart C" should be specified or cross referenced Individually.

21. Page 38096, 61.50 (a), (3), (4), (11).

If industrial or other activities which may adversely disturb the

ground water should not be located near the site, consider the need to

establish zoning restrictions to exclude these activities.

22. Page 38096, 61.50 (a), (5).

"Coastal high-hazard area or wet land" should be defined or a definition else-where in the regulations referenced.

23. Page 38096, 61.50 (a), (6).

Clarify whether "upstream drainage area" refers to onsite or other locations.

.W

-. V

A-103
z. 1. ..

24. Page 35096, 61.50 (a), (7).

It is not appropriate to specify that ground water intrusion

cannot contact waste. This section should be rewritten to specify the

maximum permissable probability for ground water intrusion as is

similarly accomplished when defining 100 year flood plains etc.

25. Page 38096, 61.51 (a), (4).

Replace "prevent" by "minimize".

26. Page 38096, 61.51 (a), (6).

Replace "eliminate" by "minimize".

27. Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (1).

This sentence requires clarification. "no interaction" should be

defined since migration of released radionuclides could be considered a form of interaction.

28. Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (3).

It is not clear whether 5 meters refers to the distance from the

top or bottom surface of the cover. Does cover include an impervious

cap?

29. Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (4).

Remove "orderly". If it is intended that the waste should be

emplaced in a specified manner the intent should be described more explicitly.

30. Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (6).

a. Replace "radiation. ... levels" by "exposure rates" or "dose

rates". Include exposure to X-rays and bremstrahlung. Consider

contributions from neutrons.

b. 'A few percent above... background" is too vague. Specify a limit and require adherance to the ALARA principle.

31. Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (8).

If concentration limits are relaxed, more emphasis should be

placed on isolating critical radionuclides from ground water and preventing access to potentially contaminated ground water. The latter might be

accomplished by extending the buffer zone in the direction of ground

water migration.

32. Page 38096, 61.53 (a).

We recommend that the potential impact of technologically enhanced

natural radiation due to excavation operations or changes in pH

should be considered in the DEIS. Radon and 4

0K levels in ground

water may be increased due to site operations. The DEIS should

show that such an impact would not be likely to violate EPA drinking water quality regulations. Then T.E.N.R. can be explicitly excluded

from 10 CFR 61.

33. Page 38097, 61.53 (d).

Place this section before (b) to indicate that it refers to all

phases under the licensee's control.

34. Page 38097, Table 1.

a. Use scientifically accepted notation or provide a definition of the

convention employed (eg. tritium Is properly indicated by the

symbol 3H).

b. Table 1 is unclear and could be improved by:

i. lining up decimal points in a column.

ii. using larger type iii. indicating, units by subheading instead of by note.

c. Table 1 should reference a list of de minimis levels for particular

waste streams and other disposal methods for waste exceeding

table 1 categories.

d. The limit on concentration for diluting agents should be specified as 0.1% of the container volume.

e. For a 55 gallon drum the concentration limits specified In pCi/cm3

should be multiplied by 200,000 ml to determine the maximum

permissable total activity expressed in pCI.

f. The use of scaling prefixes for units should be minimized. In

particular multiple prefixes should be eliminated and In fractions a single prefix should be placed in the numerator. (eg. instead

of pCi/mI write Ci/m3: instead of p Ci/ml write mCi/M3

g. As suggested on page 5-76 of the DEIS, site utilization maybe improved if site licenses specified the option to dilute 1291 by

inoculating potentially contaminated- waste with 1271 sufficient to

reduce potential thyroid uptake and exposure by 2 to 3 orders

of magnitude.

j@

A-104
z z -z z w

w @ e . @ w

'U

35. Page 38097, 61.55

a. In the DEIS the product of a large number of conservative

estimates will be unreasonably conservative even If individual

estimates are only mildly conservative. A better method for

combining parameters is to use the best estimates of each parameter

and propagate uncertainty errors to generate upper and lower

confidence boundaries. A simplified version of this approach

using a range of values for each parameter (eg. as used in the

BEIR III report) Is preferable to compounding conservative

estimates. Credit should be given for improving critical waste

forms to reduce plant uptake in the intruder-agriculture scenario.

Studies are quoted In the DEIS which Indicate that the average

radioactivity concentration in waste can be expected to be from

1% to 10% of the maximum concentration. Hence concentration

limits should be relaxed by at least one order of magnitude and

will still provide adequate intruder protection.

b. If concentration limits are to be included In the regulations we encourage the development of concentration limits for other

radionuclides and compounds. However a 'generic nonsite-specific

waste classification system" will be too conservative. Waste

generators should normally only need to consider one site to

dispose waste. They should normally only need to be conversant

with the classification system specific to that site. A site specific

waste classification system should allow optimum site utilization.

c. Industry will have difficulty In economically assaying waste to ensure that it complies to the conditions of a particular category.

i. This may lead to generators assigning conservative estimates

to waste concentrations and consequential under utilization

of a waste site.

ii. The inability of regulatory 'authorities to assay containers

of waste renders control by assay unentorcable.

ill. The scaling factors recommended to simplify waste analysis are not applicable to industries making a wide range of

custom products.

36. Page 38097, 61.56, (a).

Clarify whose health and safety Is being referred to.

37. Page 38097, 61.56 (a), (1), (7).

Individual container limits appear excessively conservative and

should be justified in the DEIS.

i. For waste disposed as received the DOT limits should apply

since airborne release and non-occupational exposure Is the

controlling factor.

II. For waste processed on site the limits for Individual containers

should be 10 times the DOT, limit since It Is occupational

exposure which provides the-limiting scenario.

11

38. Page 38097, 61.56 (a), (S).

Add "normally" to read "waste must not contain or be normally

capable of generating.. ." This is to ensure that plastics with high ignition points but which are capable of emiting toxic burn products are not unnecessively excluded from the waste.

39. Page 38097, 61.56 (a), (7).

a. Add "significantly" to read: "... at a pressure that does not

significantly exceed one atmosphere at 200C." If this sentence

is not modified, waste generators may be constrained to packaging

gases under reduced pressure or elevated temperatures.

b. It is not clear whether the 100 Ci limit applies only to gases.

This should be clarified. 100 Ci limit per package is too restrictive

for certain radioactive gases. eg. "CO 2 and 3H.

c. Although there Is provision for exceptions to the proposed limits on a case by case basis, calculations should be included to show

the impact expected from radioactive gas. Also the wide range

In toxicity of labeled compounds should be addressed in the

DEIS.

40. Page 38098, 61.56 (b), (1).

The Intent of "within 5%" should be clarified.

41. Page 38098, 61.56 (b), (2).

"Non corrosive liquid" should be defined as it Is In the DEIS,

Ic., "pH between 4 and 10 and incapable of significant galvanize and

chemical reaction".

42. Page 38098, 61.58

a. Provision should be made to allow waste generators to categorize waste by an inventory process. The quantities of waste generated

In a year or present in an individual shipment could be determined

with greater accuracy than by making separate determinations

for Individual containers. This comment is particularly relevant

to very low contamination levels and radionuclides which are restricted by the ground water migration scenario.

b. Scenarios assume that all waste is placed just before the site was closed. However in practice waste will accululate over a 20 to 60

year period and a considerable fraction shall have decayed before site closure. Hence a relaxation in concentration limits can be applied to short lived radionuclides received during the

initial period of burial activities.

0

A-105
. -:; 4 :

12

43. Page 38100, 61.82.

a. We recommend that a full-time NRC inspector or agreement state

agency Inspector be assigned to a LLW site during the operational

phase.

b. The State authorities should be encouraged to monitor the disposal

site and review site records.

44. Page 38102, 20.311

From the language in the proposed rule, it is not clear how

enforcement agencies would be involved. One possible procedure

would require the site operator to return a receipted copy of the

manifest system to the generator vice merely notifying him of receipt.

If the generator were then required to maintain a-file of all shipment

manifests and backrouted receipts, the enforcement agency could

check for compliance at each generator's place of business. Such a

system closes the loop on the process and allows one to readily check

for compliance during a regular facility inspection. It has the further

advantage of not burdening the enforcement agency with volumes of

manifests. Additionally, generators could reserve making payment to

shippers until the backroute is received. This would provide a

strong economic incentive to comply with the manifest tracking system.

In any event, some reasonable procedure should be developed to

Integrate enforcement agencies into the control or supervision of the

manifest tracking system.

Docketed Comment Number: 38

Commenter: New England Nuclear

Response(s): Item 1 - The staff has reviewed the basis for the concentration

limits and has modified certain aspects of the analysis. These changes are

reflected in Chapter 5.0 of the FEIS.

Item 2 - This comment is essentially the same as Item 5 of this

letter. The staff response is contained under Item 5 below.

Item 3 - The staff does not believe it has necessarily used

ALARA incorrectly. In response to the comment, however, NRC has deleted

references to ALARA in the instances cited. This change has been incorporated

into Appendix E, Errata.

Item 4 - NRC analyzed a range of institutional control periods

from 50 to 300 years. dased on the analysis, NRC found no compelling reason

to select one particular institutional control periodrover another. Use of a

longer institutional control period would theoretically allow higher concentrations of some radionuclides to be disposed of as Class A waste. The limit of

100 years proposed in Part 61 was selected because:

(1) It agreed well with previous estimates on the the effective length of

institutional controls made by EPA;

(2) It was consistent with the consensus arrived at from the regional

workshops on Part 61;

(3) Public comments on the preliminary draft of Part 61 were that 100 years

was about the right time period.

Based on public comments received on the proposed Part 61 rule. NRC has not

changed the 100 year institutional control period. NRC does not believe

raising the institutional control period to 300 years is acceptable since it

raises long-term care costs, it may place an undue burden on future generations,

A-106
and it creates greater uncertainty in analyzing LLW disposal. (It is more

difficult to postulate what may happen over such a long time period.) In

addition, several commenters stated they believed 100 years was too long.

Raising the institutional control period to 150-200 years would have the

effect of raising the radionuclide concentrations for Class A wastes based on

intruder protection considerations. Since the stability requirement for

Class 8 waste is of more importance for other reasons besides intruder protection (i.e.. migration, operational safety and long-term stability), NRC does

not believe changing the 100 year time frame for active institutional control

is warranted.

Item 5 - Technologically enhanced natural radiation (TENR) has

been defined as those natural sources of radiation that would not normally

occur without the presence of some technological activity not expressly

designed to produce radiation. Examples might include the release of concentrations of natural radioactivity to the environment from the combustion of

coal and natural gas in the generation of electric power or from the mining

industry. The staff is not sure of the appropriateness of application of such

a concept to the construction activities which might take place at a nearsurface LLW disposal facility. The staff believes that impacts from TENR at

a near-surface disposal facility would be similar to those resulting from any

large construction project. In addition, such impacts would be very sitespecific with respect to the concentration of natural radioactivity that would

be present in the specific site soils and ground water. As such, NRC has not

addressed them in this FEIS.

Item 6 - The potential for reduction of thyroid dose due to

dilution of radioactive iodine(1291) with stable iodine (12?7) was briefly

considered in the draft EIS. Work performed by Leddicotte, et. al.. was

cited, for example. (Reference 16.) At the time, NRC staff believed that

while information gaps and time limitations precluded taking credit for

dilution by stable iodine in the draft EIS, it was a matter that obviously

needed to be further examined. This potential for dilution by stable iodine

has in fact been examined in more detail in the final EIS.

As it turns out, whether or not dilution by stable iodine is considered makes

essentially no difference fn determining whether a waste generator meets waste

classification limits obtained from consideration of exposures to an intruder.

Iodine-129 typically exists in only trace quantities in low-level waste well

below (typically one or more orders of magnitude) the maximum concentration

limits. However, dilution ,with stable iodine may make a large difference in

long-term groundwater impacts and consequently any site-specific inventory

lists.

Item 7 - The staff believes the current approach is the most

reasonable considering the level of information and the generic nature of the

analysis. The staff included provisions in proposed Part 61 for improved

waste form to be considered on a case-by-case basis. At the present time

there is insufficient data (for most waste streams) on the relationship of

improved waste forms to reduced plant uptake to allow a credit to be factored

into the intruder-agriculture scenario for such improvements.

Several commenters have remarked about the concentration limits in Table 1.

As noted earlier, the staff has conducted more realistic analyses and as a

result, the concentration limits in Table 1 have been revised.

Item 8 - The 100 Ci limit is based on the license conditions for

the disposal of gaseous wastes now in effect at the Hanford and Barnwell

disposal sites. These limits have not resulted in unsafe environmental conditions at the disposal sites nor have they resulted in overly restrictive

situations for waste generators. The 100 Ci limit is consistent with an

accident evaluation assuming a dropped package producing occupational exposures

to site workers. The DOT limits, however, are established based on accident

doses to the public. For tritium and Kr-85 in uncompressed gaseous forms, the

DOT limits are 1,000 Ci in a Type A package and 50,000 Ci in a Type B package

(173.389(1) and 173.390(a)). For gaseous waste forms the occupational exposure

case is the limiting condition.

Item 9 - NRC considered the full range of potential pathways of

release of radioactivity to the environment. The pathways considered included

A-107
i a. -e

groundwater migration, plant and animal intrusion, wind and surface water

transport and gaseous releases. (The reader is referred to Appendix M of the

DEIS for details.) Based on a consideration of existing data and measurements,

NRC concluded that gaseous releases were not a significant release pathway and

thus no detailed analyses were performed in the DEIS. NRC did not specifically

analyze the range in chemical toxicity of labeled compounds due to a lack of

information about the specific compounds used and more importantly, due to the

lack of an accepted methodology of assessing biological effects of exposure to

such compounds.

Item 10 - The assumption that the waste is placed just before

the site is closed is a conservative assumption for purposes of setting waste

classification limits. NRC staff believes, however, that the practical effect

of relaxing concentration limits for short-lived isotopes (based upon considering accumulation over a 20-40 year period) would be minimal. Such a consideration would have a practical effect only upon the limits for Class A waste

containing the isotopes Co-60 and tritium. However, there are other concerns

such as site stability, long-term environmental releases, and exposure during

handling which argue against raising the Class A limits for these and other

isotopes.

A-108
File 12860.3.3 - -.

Now York State Department of tnvIronmentil Conservatlon

SO Wott Road, Albany. Now York 12233 -82 J." 27 ? 1 :%

PPR-61 -

el-6 _F r-/77 6

Robert F. Flek.

Commssioner

Comments of the State of New York on the U.S.

NRC Sept., 1981 Draft Environmental

Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61

'Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NUREG 0782)

Mr. R. Dale Smith

Chief, Low Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division Waste Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Smith:

January 19, 1982 --

177SODRLE PR "I/ 1~~~~ . F9

Attached are conmments of the State of New York on U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Coffnission's September 1981 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part. 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste' (NUREG.0782).

In'gineral,w ffnd that this draft EIS was well-prepared and required the expenditure of significant effort. The forthcoming Final Environmental

Impact.Statement should serve as~auseful reference document on land disposal of low level radioactive waste if the New York State comments are adequately ons i dered. .

Thank you for providing NeW York-State the opportunity to comment on

your- document.

r ely yours,

Paul ~Iferges Assistant Director

DIvision of Regula A k

1. General Comment

The DEIS adequately supports the need for 10 CFR 61 and identifies impacts. However, there is a tendency in the DEIS to compare proposed requirements with

practices in use in the late sixties or early seventies. Many of the requirements in Part 61 have been implemented by individual states with regulatory control of

low level radioactive waste burial sites. There is some scattered acknowledgement of these actions in the text (see page 35) but the broad recognition of this fact

should be emphasized in the DEIS.

The DEIS should also acknowledge that several states, such as New York.

have had continuing development of requirements for hazardous waste disposal sites.

Many of the requirements in Part 61 are required in State regulation of hazardous

waste. For example, the manifest system to be established by Part 20 is also

required for hazardous wastes by both EPA and New York State. Vol. 1, p. 53

only refers to EPA's requirements.

2. General Comment

The advantages of below grade stability for polyethylene drums should be

weighed against the hazards encountered in transit and storage.

3. General Comment

Important radionuclides-radium-226, thorium and other naturally occurring radioactive elements are not listed. Their disposal should be covered.

4. General Comment

It could be argued that the disposal of large quantities (tons) of source material is not in our best national interest and such material should be stored

for later retrieval. The DEIS should address this point.

5. General Comment

Both the proposed rule and the draft EIS should adequately address the

possibility of food chain contamination via wildlife.

6. General Comment

- The EIS should describe the potential health and environmental effects of

the various rem doses. It Is otherwise impossible to compare advantages or disadvantages of the alternatives.

cn: 3. Corr

N.Y. State Agencies

att.

8201290394 820119

POR PR 81 46FR51776 PDR

*C>5/ 0

S ,

I ti 1/// -Ago

%D. S,: 4

Ackna-,-?,,4,vd..; ::,,/9>h

A-109
- -3-

-3-

7. General Comment

One Important parameter, which should be covered Is the heat build up in

Class C intruder waste.

8. Vol. 1, Page 15 Imoact Measures

The last paragraph refers to a long term radiological exposure through potential leaching and transport of the wastes through the groundwater. Another

pathway that should be noted is trench overflow and/or pumping of water from

the trenches. The pumping of water is referred to on page 30.

9. Vol. 1. Page 16. Table 5-4

This table should include the overflow or pumping to surface waters and

release of tritiated methane.

10. Vol. 1. page 20. (second and last oaragraphs)

Jo

I®

15. Vol. 1, Paoe 55, Impacts on the Public

An additional beneficial impact is the reduction of potential financial

risks for taxpayers in states that oun burial sites.

16. Vol. I Page S6. Impacts on the Public

The adverse impact of allocation of federal and state resources should

be offset by establishing fees to cover these costs.

17. Vol. 2. Section 103.1 Hypothetical Regional Sites

It would be valuable to include, under Geolcgy. the seismic characteristics

of the four regions discussed. This is particularly important when considering the location of the disposal sites and the engineering of the sites.

The phrase (State or Federal

Government) should be added in parenthesis after the phrase 'site owner.'

II. Vol. 1. Page 23. Controlling the Disposal of Specific Waste Streams

The first paragraph notes most of the longer-term hazard is caused by transuranics isotopes and then states "If these waste streams are eliminated...

long term impacts.. .are only a few mrem/yr. (3 to 5) after 500 years.'

The DEIS should acknowledge that the transuranics are banned at this time

by action of the states.

- However, due to its industrial Importance, options for disposal of

transuranic nuclides above 10 nCi/g should be addressed.

12. Vol. 1. Paoe 30. Section 5.12

The fourth paragraph notes that the "bathtub" problem can lead to costly

long term pumping. It should also note that this pumping leads to releases to

the environment.

13. Vol. 1. Page 53. Section 7.3

Reference is made to the EPA manifest tracking system for hazardous waste.

The OEIS should consider the impact and benefits of a coamon manifest system

for radioactive wastes and hazardous wastes.

14. Vol. 1. Page 55. Imoacts on the States

Some of the Identified actions have been accomplished by New York to some degree by OEC's Part 380 modification that incorporates the requirements of Part

for hazardous wastes into Part 380 by reference.,

0I

3600

A-110
Docketed Comment Number: 39

Comnmenter: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Response(s): Item I - The staff recognizes that significant improvements in

regulatory requirements have been made by the states since the first commercial

radioactive waste disposal site was licensed in 1962. Moreover, the staff

feels that these improvements were sufficiently noticed in the DEIS. The

staff closely interacted with the states to utilize as fully as possible their

operating experience and regulatory insights.

With respect to the commentor's second point regarding the role of states in

toxic or hazardous waste management, the staff is aware that several states

have indeed played prominent roles in this area. This experience may or may

not, however, be applicable to the management of radioactive wastes.

Item 2 - High density, high molecular weight polyethylene (HOPE)

containers are commonly used in the chemical industry for the shipment and

storage of haiardous or corrosive materials. Because of the chemical resistance of HOPE, this material would also provide protection from degradation in

a burial environment which is not an aggressive corrosion environment for

HOPE. HOPE has been sbown to also resist microbial attack. Radiation testing

has shown that the mechanical properties of polyethylene do not exhibit significant changes up to radiation exposures of 108 rads. The lifetime accumulated

dose for all but a few high activity wastes is below 10 rads. These properties

of HOPE could increase delay time and trench stability to allow for additional

radionuclide decay.

One manufacturer of HOPE containers has qualified a 55-gallon size HDPE drumto meet the DOT Specification 7A requirements. The DOT Specification 7A

requirements qualifies a container as a Type A package for the shipment of

radioactive materials. The standard Specification 17C and 17H 55-gallon

carbon steel drums are also capable of meeting Specification 7A. Therefore.

for transportatibn purposes the HOPE containers can be considered to be equivalent to standard carbon steel drums.

For waste storage HOPE drums provide good corrosion protection which could

minimize leakage and waste spills. However, because of the viscoelastic

properties of polymers, adequate creep strength must be designed into the

container to prevent material deformation and possible rupture under the

proposed loads during the storage period. Chemical industry storage

experience indicates that properly designed containers can be provided at

competitive costs for storing materials for extended periods. Storage of

radioactive materials in HOPE containers would require specific consideration

of the proposed storage period, stacking-arrangements, container weight, and

the specific container design to minimize any adverse effects from material

creep.

Item 3- In the initial effort to develop the draft Part 61

rule and draft EIS. NRC staff concentrated on the principal moderate and

long-lived radionuclides and principal types and forms of radioactive waste.

Guidance for disposal of other radionuclides and waste forms such as radium-226

and other naturally occurring elements will be addressed subsequently.

Item 4 - NRC agirees that for the reason stated and also to

reduce the volume of waste required for disposal, consideration should be

given to storage of large quantities of source material for possible later

use. However, the purpose and scope of the EIS for Part 61 is that it serve

as a decision document for the performance objectives and technical and other

requirements of Part 61. It is not a generic EIS and is not intended to judge...

the utility or political considerations involved in deciding whether a particular material should or should not be considered a waste. As such, Part 61

establishes the requirements to ensure safety in disposal of miterial that

could be considered waste.' In addition, based on a review of the various

waste streams in Appendix 0 of the DEIS containing source material, those

indicating large quantities of source material contain depleted uranium not

natural uranium.

Item 5 - Wildlife could conceivably be contaminated by radioactive materials at a low-level waste disposal facility in several ways:

ingestion of contaminated water, consumption of contaminated plants, burrowing

into buried waste and/or direct exposure to exposed waste. The performance

A-111
objectives and technical requirements of proposed 10 CFR Part 61 would minimize

the probability as well as the severity of such an occurrence, Assuming the

objectives and requirements of the rule are met, the staff believes that wildlife contamination on a significant scale is unlikely to occur and that this

event does not pose a threat to public health and safety.

Item 6 - In the DEIS, NRC did not convert or express 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. In the DEIS,

NRC compared calculated doses on a common basis to exising standards which are

expressed in terms of dose equivalent. NRC has, however, attempted to express

the overall impacts of Part 61 in the EIS in a clearer manner such that comparison of alternatives and unmitigated Impacts are easier to discern and understand. In addition, in response to this comment and to place in perspective

the potential risk associated with doses calculated in this FEIS, NRC has

included a section in the summary which provides dose response relationships

as set forth in International Commission on Radiation Protection Publication

26. The reader can use these relationships to estimate the level of risk

associated with doses calculated for various alternatives.

Item 7 - As part of the work performed for the final Part 61 rule,

an analysis was performed on the practicality of some of the limits proposed

in Table 1. This analysis included both surface radiation levels and potential

heat buildup.

Item 8 - NRC staff does not believe that trench overflow treatment and release of pumped leachate represent a long-term radiological exposure hazard. Trench overflow is a short-term potential hazard which would be

avoided by leachate pumping and treatment. The leachate pumping and treatment

operations, however, would involve short-term releases to the environment.

Pumping and treatment operations would also be quite expensive. This does not

mean, however, that NRC believes that such potential short-term releases are

not important. The impacts from trench overflow and leachate treatment have

been calculated for the final EIS and support NRC's position regarding the need

for disposal site stability.

Item 9 - Potential impacts from trench overflow or releases due

to leachate pumping and treatment have been included in the calculations for

the final EIS. From data available to NRC at the time the draft EIS was

written, however, it appeared that potential impacts from tritiated methane

released through disposal trench covers are at negligible levels. NRC staff

is not aware of any new data which would contradict this belief. Thus, potential impacts from tritiated methane were not calculated for the final EIS.

Item 10 - This change has been made, and the reader is referred

to Appendix E, Errata in this volume.

Item 11 - The staff acknowledges that burial of transuranics above

10 nCi/gm is, in fact, banned at this time. In preparing limits for disposal

for the final 10 CFR Part 61, the routine disposal of transuranics between 10

and 100 nCi/gm has been allowed as Class C waste.

Item 12 - Potential releases to the environment from leachate

pumping and treatment have been considered in the final EIS.

Item 13 - The proposed new §20.311 of 10 CFR Part 20 would establish a manifest tracking system for radioactive waste shipments. The provisions

of p20.311 are general in that required information is listed and general

requirements to forward and use manifests are included. The requirements were

developed to provide information needed for disposal and to be compatible with

existing DOT requirempnts for radioactive shipments.

The staff reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations

for hazardous waste manifests. The same general approach for tracking was used.

The staff also looked into the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest proposed by a

joint EPA and DOT rule change published March 4, 1982 (47 FR 9336). The proposed rulemaking would require the use of a specific manifest form for all

hazardous waste shipments. The form was proposed to provide relief to shippers

from the individual state requirements on manifest contents. Individual states

developed their own.form which meet Federal requirements but also required additional state information. Thus shippers crossing states were faced with potentially differing requirements on forms in each State. The proposed form is a

A-l 12
one page document carefully tailored to provide required and needed information

on hazardous wastes. The form may be used as an NRC manifest or DOT shipping

paper for radioactive wastes by using additional lines to provide information

on radioactive materials. A few minor procedural and terminology changes were

made to the final Part 61 rule to conform to the proposed EPA/DOT manifest.

The manifest requirements in 520.311 of the NRC rule change are compatible with

DOT supplementary requirements for radioactive material. Neither DOT or NRC

prescribe specific forms for information on radioactive waste shipments.

Item 14 - The staff recognizes these actions.' However, modification of existing Agreement State programs to assure compatibility with 10 CFR

Part 61 is an action separate from that mentioned by the commenter.

Item 15 - The staff concurs wih the commenter's opinion and will

include this beneficial impact in the final EIS.

Item 16'- Allocation of federal resources will be offset by

licensing and inspection fees as set forth'in 10oCFR 170. With respect to the

allocation of state resources. each Agreement State that would be the location

of a new facility will be able to establish-its own system of fees or other

compensation on a case-by-case basis to allow regulatory costs to be compensated.

These arrangements are within the state's discretion and are not addressed by

10 CFR 61 or the EIS.

Item 17 - The seismic characteristics for each of the four regions

is included in the detailed descriptions of the sites contained in Appendix J

of 'the DEIS. (See, for example, the last paragraph of Section 1.4.1 of Appendix J, "Geology" for the Southwestern Site.) It was not included in the summary

descriptions contained in Chapter 10 of the DEIS.

A-113
..; - s .

d t2 FEB-4 P:_'a

COMMONWEALTH 5f VIRGINIA

Council on thle Environment 903 T".T:(:1

A0C..U0O1 2321a 804.7AS.4600

J I JACKson. f

ADUWISTRIATCRi

January 12, 1982

Mr. R. Dale Smith

Chief, Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch Rumfg- :

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ZJusDO RULE PRŽ l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555 6 FPe517s7&

Dear Mr. Smith:

The Commonwealth of Virginia is in the process of reviewing the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on New Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (10 CFR Part 61). The Council on the

Environment is responsible for coordinating the State's review of federal

environmental impact statements and responding to appropriate federal

officials on behalf of the Commonwealth. The following agencies have responded to our review request at this time:

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Department of Conservation and Economic Development

Department of Health

Office of Emergency and Energy Services

Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.

In addition, we expect comments from at least two other state

agencies in a few days.

The Draft EIS gives rise to only limited concerns on the part of the

responding agencies above. There is presently no site for disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste in Virginia. If any sites are planned for use, the

Virginia Research Center for Archaeology should be contacted before site

disturbances begin.

It is possible that farm operations might one day intrude into a

radioactive waste site; effective site controls could foreclose this

possibility.

The document's discussion of geologic requirements for waste disposal is adequate.

Hr. R. Dale Smith

January 12, 1982

Page 2

We expect to furnish additional comments within two weeks. Thank

you for the opportunity to review this document.

Sincerely,

J!'&ackson, Jr'.

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Maurice B. Rowe, Secretary of Commerce and Resources

Mr. Earl A. Finch, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Mr. Randolph Turner, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology

Mr. Bruce B. Meador, Department of Conservation and Economic Development

JBJ/CHE/all

)

A-114
REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:

A) Please review the document carefully. If the proposal bas been

revieued earliet (e.g., if the current document is a FINAL EIS),

please consider previous comments.

B) Prepare your agency's conents in a form which vould be acceptable

for responding directly to a project sponsoring agency.

C) Use the space below for your corments. If additional space Its

needed, please attach extra sheets.

Return your corments to:

Charles E. Ellis III

Environmental Impact Statenent Coordinator

Council on the Environment

903 Ninth Street Office Building

Richmond, Virginia 23219

\IA, ENVIROME1TAL IMPACT STATElMENT COORDINATOR

COMMENT S

= Co- tO MEN 

Nc~.Q~ &?a

MA~4S IX-

~~iX4-. W T .

8. REVIEX INSTRUCTIONS:

A) Please review the docu=ent carefully. If the proposal has been

reviewed earlier (e.g., if the current document is a rL'ZAL ETS),

please consider previous corments.

B) Prepare your egency's co=ents in a form which would be acceptable

for responding directly to a project sponsoring agency.

C) Use the ipace below for your corments. If additional space is

needed, please attach extra sheets.

Return your coctents to:

Charles H. Ellis III

Environrental Impact Statement Coordinator

Council on the Environnent

903 Ninth Street Office Building

Richmond, Virginia 23219

ELLIS =ll nMIRON. TAL IMPACT STATENT COORDINATOR

C O M M E NT S

We have made a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61

'Licdnsing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

Currently no site for this Class of waste exist in Virginia.

The Draft EIS for licensed sites in the U.S. for the disposal of radioactive low

level waste (LLW) does not present any problems for agriculture as far as we can determine. The exception to this would be a Very low probability of inadvertent

intrusion of agricultural operations, including farm livestock intoa closed

(terminated) disposal facility through the first 100 years and into a 500 year

span. However, since these sites are relatively small, dedicated sites it would seen that the period of institutional control would be "open ended" to extend

throughout a "safe" time frame that would be determined by site monitoring.

(SIGNED)

(TITLE)

(AGENCY)

33 Lrecjoq--, e4. Assr-

- - Dcj5 J

(DA'E) I I (SIGNED)

(TITL-.)

(AGE-3CY)

Earl A. Finch

Resource/Environmental Economist

Deet. of Agriculture and Consumer Serv

(DATE) January 6. 1982

,ices

. -'.in -;;/

_.,. : I . -

C46s za..mA-115
Docketed Comment Number: 40

.` . oA oh

a, B9 EVRO;V0,

ha~It CHOWS,0 d Vtr4,

TO: File

FROM: C. E

SUBJECT: NRC Draft EIS on Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste

Virginia Research Center for Archaeology com- ments, per Randy Turner on January 5, 1932, are as follows:

'If any land disposal sites are planned for

Virginia, the Virginia Research Center for

Archaeology, as the archaeological agency 2

representing the Virginia State Historic

Preservation Officer, should be contacted

pursuant to federal legislation on archaeology

ical resources."

CHE/all

Commenter: Commonweaith of Virginia, Council on the Environment

Response(s): Item 1 - The commenter is correct that disposal of LLW under

Part 61 should not present any problems for agriculture. The coementer Is

also correct that there is a low probability of Inadvertent intrusion into the

site fpr agricultural purposes. NRC staff believe that active Institutional

control of the site following site closure should preclude such Intrusion from

occurring during the 100-year institutional control period. After that time

passive institutional controls such as continued government land ownership and

land records should reduce the potential for such inadvertent intrusions.

Item 2 - In the NEPA-mandated environmental review and licensing

process of a proposed near-surface disposal facility, NRC will operate under

the requirements of Federal laws and regulations for the protection of cultural

resources. Among other things, these requirements include coordination with

the State Historic Preservation Office, conduct of a pre-construction cultural

resources survey and the identification of mitigating measures to protect any

known or encountered resources.

A-I 16
;.; ..j;

United States Department of the Titerior

Secretary of the Commission 2

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2024082 F -2 P 3:18

ER 81/2260 JAN 28 1982 2 _

Secretary of the Cosmmission j OOtrr MRA 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555 VOCKEZ 111UMBER PROM Btu

Dear Sir. - - E. ,J.

We have reviewed the proposed licensing requirements for Land Dlsposa o fedRotivaWaste (10 CFR 61)., '_

General Comments

In general, we are in agreement with the overall technical philosophy and strategy

employed in the rule. It appears to be a major step forward In Improving low-level

radioactive waste management. We concur that many acceptable sites should be possible

In most areas throughout the country and we agree, In general, with the flexibility and

conservatism of the combined prescriptive and performance objective approach. Finally,

we agree that waste classification Is a cornerstone for a good waste management rule

and that the classification scheme proposed is sensible and practical In terms of

radonuclide content.

regulatory policy should also be coordinated with BIA's Office of Trust Responsibilities with

respect to locating, licensing, operating and maintaining commercially operated disposal sites on Indian lands. Because of variations and changes In Indian land ownership, BIA's Involvement

will be essential

Specific comments on the proposed rule and the environmental Impact statement are attached

separately.

We hope these comments will help you In the preparation of a final statement.

Sincerely

Bla~ne~hawrd. Director

Environmental Project Review

Enclosures

Our principal concern with the waste classification system Is that It falls to address

nonradoactive toxicity of the waste. We believe that any waste classification scheme

should be based on total hazard. It would seem inappropriate for a particular waste to be

declared as Class A radiologically when it might contain toxic metals or organic

compounds with potential harmful effects several orders of magnitude greater than those

of the radlonuclides. Perhaps the rule should either prohibit components with greeter

potential to:dcity than the radionuclides or provide for additional classification options

based on other-than-radiological toxieity. This position would be consistent with

recommendations of the Conservation Foundation Dialogue Group on Low-Level

Radioactive Waste and the Department of Energy's Task Force on Radioactive Waste

Management.

We believe that waste volume reduction Is an Important element In reducing overall

magnitude and complexity of the problem. We therefore suggest giving It greater

emphasis and perhaps off ering additional Incentives. We also believe that

Federal/Def ense generated low-level radioactive waste should come under the same earth-science guidelines and criteria.

Particla tion of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indain Tribes

)6a

',1

TheSecretary's trust responsibiUties apply to waste disposal sites that are to oe loeated on

* L. Indian reservations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides the support servides necessary e to carry out the Secretary's trust responsibilities. Therefore, BIA area directors or their

C J at authorized representatives should be Invited to participate In the review of applications for

location of low-level radioactive waste disposal sites on Indian reservations. In addition,

8202090168 S20128

PDR PR

2 46FR3O81 PDR .. I ' 9Gt...Jy/.t2 ar,

A-1 17
i;@ * F .adPROPOSED RULE

The following more specific comments are addressed to the rule Itself but would also apply to

corresponding sections of the Summary and the environmental statement.

Section 61.2. Definitions

Buffer Zone. The.buffer zone definition should include depth as well as lateral boundaries, and

should be described as a three-dimensional zone. The performance standards might then apply

to releases beyond the boundary of the buffer zone. Unrestricted use of land and resources

beyond the buffer zone (laterally or at depth) would then be allowable during and after site

operations.

61.50 Disposal Site Suitability Requirements for Land DlsDosal

(aX2) We sugges rbeing more specific In the "modeling" requirements. Do you mean physical scale model? numerical ground water/solute transport model? conceptual model? (There are

many kinds of possible models)

(aX7) We endorse this option but suggest using "molecular diffusion" h1place of "diffusing"

and/or defining maximum hydraulic conductivity allowable such as 10- cm/sec.

61.51 Disposal Site Design for Land Disposal

(aX4) It is impossible to totalLy "prevent" infiltration; suggest using "minimize" In place of

"prevent."

(aX6) This requirement appears inconsistent with L650(eXT). The option of disposing In the

saturated zone should be mentioned again.

61.52 Land Disposal Paciltv Ooeretion and DlsDosal Site Closure

(aX$) We believe the location of the buffer zone should be determined on the basis of site

performance. The zone Ideally would be enclosed within a three-dimensional surface

surrounding and underlying the burial site. Our concept of the buffer zone Is a zone that

provides a controlled/restricted-access volume of earth material around and under the site,

beyond which unrestricted use of land and resources, surface or subsurface, could be allowed

during and after site operation. The 100 foot lateral extent listed In the rule appears -

somewhat arbitrary.

61.53 Environmental Monitorinz

(a) We believe that "geochemistry" should be listed with the other subjects (ecology,

meteorology, climate, hydrology, etc.). Although geochemistry is often an Implied aspect of

hydrology, we believe It deserves specific mention because It plays such an important part in

radionuclide mobility In ground water.

61.55 Waste Classification

General: We believe waste should be classified according to total toxicity as described above

under "General Comments."

(d) It is not clear what the disposition will be of wastes which exceed Class C concentrations.

What type of disposal is envisioned by the Commission for those wastes?

61.56 Waste Characteristics

Generals The non-radiological toxicity of the waste needs to be considered here, we believe.

It Is apparently ignored.

A-118
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2

General Comments

Evidence of the life expectancy and other advantages of polyethylene drums over steel or I

others should be presented. Will they simply delay the compaction/degradation problem? The 1/ same question also applies to wooden boxes-are they significantly better than cardboard?

During extended dr' peri ods desiccation cracks tend to form in trench caps due to shrinkage

of fine grained mrinerals. These cracks can extend several feet vertically and can provide

avenues for rapid water Infiltration. How can this problem be avoided?

We question the long-term viability of using plastic sheeting as an Infiltration barrier In the I

trench cap. How can Its Integrity be assLred? What Is the evidence that this technique works

consistently?

Also the extent of hazard presented by low level radioactive wastes is not clearly Indicated In

the DEIS. While low level radioactive wastes are Indlcate' for some of the more dangerous i J

Isotopes, a general definition of hazard or risk should be presented In the Introduction to

understand impact analyses.

Cultural Resources Protection

Section 2.3 of Appendix E of the DEIS discussing a reference disposal facility makes only

pcssing reference to historic areas. Section 3 should make specific reference to historc and

archeological resources.

Minor Commments

Volume I

Page 3,1.5 Scoplng for the IS, Une 2- "501.7" should be "501.7." |

Page 55, The role of the U.S. Geological Survey should be defined. I(i)

Volume 31

Page xi, top Une - 'Chapter 10" should read "Chapter 9."

I age 3-23, 3.5.2, line 16 - Identify the levels of "Uttle high energy gamma emitting | C

"adlonuelides."

Line 19 - Identify the level of "large quanuties of high energy gamma emitting radionuclides." | )

Page 3-31, paragraph 2 - Would trench liners be required? l ()

Page 4-8, 4.3.2, line U - 'of" should read "at." By

Page 4-69, Requirement, 2 - Delete "economically." |(1

Page 5-69, table - Units should be presented.

Page 6-11, last paragraph, line 5 - Change ".033" to ".33." | )

Page 7-8, paragraph 4, line 5 - 'C-137" should read "Cs-137."

Page 7-22, Mixtures of Radiolsotopes, next-to-last line - Insert closing parenthesis. le

A-1 19
Docketed Comment Number: 41

Commenter: U.S. Department of the Interior. Office of the Secretary

Response(s): Item 1 - High density, high molecular weight polyethylene (HOPE)

containers are commonly used in the chemical industry for the shipment and

storage of hazardous or corrosive materials. Because of the chemical resistance of HOPE, this material would also provide protection from degradation in

a burial environment which is not an aggressive corrosion environment for

HOPE. HOPE has been shown to also resist microbial attack. Radiation testing

has shown that the mechanical properties of polyethylene do not exhibit significant changes up to radiation exposures of 10' rads. The lifetime accumulated

dose for all but a few high activity wastes is below 10i rads. These properties

of HOPE could increase delay time and trench stability to allow for additional

radionuclide decay.

One manufacturer of HOPE containers has qualified a 55-gallon size HOPE drum

to meet the DOT Specification 7A requirements. The DOT Specification 7A

requirements qualifies a container as a Type A package for the shipment of

radioactive materials.. The standard Specification 17C and 17H 55-gallon

carbon steel drums are also capable of meeting Specification 7A. Therefore,

for transportation purposes the HOPE containers can be considered to be

equivalent to standard carbon steel drums.

For waste storage, HOPE drums provide good corrosion protection which could

minimize leakage and waste spills. However, because of the viscoelastic

properties of polymers, adequate creep strength must be designed into the

container to prevent material deformation and possible rupture under the

proposed loads during the storage period. Chemical industry storage experience indicates that properly designed containers can be provided at competitive costs for storing materials for extended periods. Storage of radioactive

materials in HPDE containers would require specific consideration of the

proposed storage period, stacking arrangements, container weight, and the

specific container design to minimize any adverse effects from material creep.

Wooden boxes provide much more protection to workers during the waste handling

operation at the disposal site than do cardboard boxes. In some cases, contaminated syringes have penetrated cardboard boxes during transit causing

injury to workers. While wood boxes are not expected to provide substantially

greater protection against subsidence than do cardboard boxes, they do provide

greater safety during handling.

Item 2 - There are techniques available, particularly layered

systems which will prevent or significantly restrict development of dessication cracks in trench covers. These are currently being studied under an NRC

contract with the the Illinois State Geological Survey.

Item 3 - The proposed Part 61 does not require the use of moisture

or infiltration barriers. Such barriers were considered as an alternative but

were rejected because of the staff's concern for their long-term viability.

They may be approved, however, for use on a case-by-case basis. If they were

to be used for Class A wastes with relatively short radiological hazard,

plastic membranes may nave sufficient proven design life. Other methods such

as filter fabric may be viable for longer periods in a layered cover due to

the advantages of such a cover, i.e., nearly constant temperature, moisture

content, soil water chemistry, protection against burrowing animals or root

penetration and protection against radiation from above or below.

Item 4 - See staff response to Item 5, Comment 15.

Item 5 - The staff recognizes that construction and operation of

land disposal sites for radioactive waste disposal may result in impacts to

cultural resources. In preparing the draft EIS, the staff felt that these

impacts were site-specific in nature and could not be adequately assessed in

the absence of a specific site proposal. In the hEPA-mandated environmental

review and licensing process of a proposed disposal facility, NRC will operate

under the requirements of Federal laws and regulations for the protection of

cultural resources. Among other things, these requirements include coordination

with the State Historic Preservation Office, conduct of a pre-construction

cultural resources survey and the identification of mitigating measures to

protect any known or encountered resources.

A-120
Item 6 - This change has been made. See Appendix E, Errata in

this volume.

Item 7 - The role of the U.S. Geological Survey has been included

in the FEIS.

Item 8 -- This change has been made. See Appendix E, Errata in

this volume. 

:

Item 9 - Identification of these levels is provided in Chapter 4.0,

Transportation Impacts, Volume 3 of NUREG/CR-1759, Data Base for Radioactive

Waste Management. (Reference 3.)

Item 10 - Identification of these levels is provided in Chapter 4.0,

Transportation Impacts, Volutme' 3 of NUREG/CR-1759, Data Base for Radioactive

Waste Manaqement. (Reference 3.)

Item 11 - The commenter's reference is to a description of a

reference disposal facility. Trench liners would not be required and are not

a requirement of Part 61.

Item 12 - The reader is referred to Appendix E, Errata in this

volume.

Item 13 - The staff has considered this comment and determined

that it would be appropriate to delete the word "economically" both here and

in the proposed 10 CFR Part 61.

Items 14-17 - The reader is referred to Appendix E, Errata in

this volume.

A-121
SAimo.. C.Nk knxg~i

U u ."a -ro

CM014,.1 F9.0~ & LiEUt

The Ocwi.,4" iItli~c

W.mu CeveAM7

C.Y"Obeaterl U.,o C&

Clao....'*..

D.n,,eat light com",Y

MUM4 Fe."t & Light

Ccar~v,q

Q'.wJ Pat., Crtompa

HOW10 61111i.f9a & 7,.,,

la. Vermc Li5C IC

Pp.,, C~Faqp

t" iiad igh,.

111445011 Go1 5crtea.

lftb-ml., rublt Ptit

turthpra Suter to.

Portlarm Gtneral t.1ctr111

ft., 4.awnti of tk sui ofti. let

6"1 Cam my

umAfit.g C'.leapm

1405)U.'a tvanpo

TV0,,s71.4 Eletrc ato

WIOcoasit Litl:,w roca,

rmiy e2021 10: PDR PR

61 .16VRI

R 61

UNWMG ^''~

Utllty Hudear Waste Managemcnt Group

1111 19th Sutet. M.W. * Washington, D.; 2006 P (202) 8287669

February 4, 1982192

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W 1 C

Washington, D.C. 205S5 D outL PR- i/

Attnt Chief, Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch% W F5S77

Division of Waste Managepent

Office of Nuclear mIaterial Safety and,""

Safeguards X

Re: Draft Environmental Impact State a on.

10 CFR Part 61 'Licensing Require. 4ts

for Land Disposal of Ralioactive aste,'.

lVUREG-0782 146 Fed. Rea. 51,776)

Dear Sir:

The enclosed comments are submitted on behalf o

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNhWG) is connection

with the above-referenced matter.

unWMQ

Another matter of almoSt equal importance is discussed

in the enclosed comments under the heading of 'Educational

andPuliCInormation Aspects." One Of the maim functions

of an environmental Impact statement is toprvdth

pubic ithaninformed insight into the nature, Gcope

andlmagwituh of relevant issues. The DEIS, however-*

falls so far short Of this goAl st rne it.iaeut

as an environmental full-disclosure statement

Sca eficieflcy is not merely cosmetic, nor is it

of only legal and academic importance, it can have real*

undesirable eff acts. SY failing to present the matter of

low-level waste disposal in full and appropriate context,

the DEIS is counterproductive to the NBC supported goal

of opening new regional burial Sites. if knowledgeable,

widespread comzmnIty acceptance of burial Sites is to be

achieved, the NR must make the effort necessary to Properly inform the public of how reasonable an undertaking

the establishment of such a site really is. The environw

mental. impact statement On Part 61 provides an excellent

opportunity to do so and should be fully utilized to

help dispel basic misapprehensions concerning the perceived dangers of low-level waste disposal.

In concluding, the UNWMRG acknowledges that the enclosed constants tend to be rather critical. In additiofle

we recognize that they are somewhat belated. It is hoped,

however, that these comments will be received and utilized

by the uRC in the constructive spirit in which they are

offered.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Page 2

February 4, 1982

0

p

On January 14, 1982, the UNWHG submitted its comments

on the NRC's proposed licensing requirements for land

disposal of radioactive waste, 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (46 Fed.

Reg. 38,081). In. preparing those comments, the proposed

rule was used as a point of departure. That Is, the

regulations in the proposed Part 61 were basically taken

as a given. From that perspective, the comments focused

on offering suggestions aimed at making the rule, as proposed, more workable.

Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) on Part 61, however, has raised some fundamental

questions concerning the basic desirability of certain

aspects of the proposed rule. This is addressed in the

enclosed comments under the heading: 'Cost/Benefit Analysis.'

In essence, the UNANIG is concerned that a failure to

analyze and compare the costs and benefits of various alternatives in a systematic and rigorous fashion has resulted

in a proposed rule which, if adopted, would greatiy increase

the cost of disposal with few -- if any -- benefits. Such

an outcome would be wasteful and, thus, inconsistent with

one of the basic concerns underlying NEPAl i.e., the

efficient management and utilization of available resources. 03'

39 S2O2CO4 ADD|,

51776 PDR2

A rrogram AdmInistered by Wlson Jctrikc InsUtute

I

t

L

U

I

ii;

_r.

; E;'

, Un

I ,

I L_r I -1.

iK7.015, ffi- .1.

kids r7V

G;.

t'- -

1.54

I.....

.1.4-

P--l.

17"

A-122

Sincerely.

Program I

RmLS: Ik

Enclosure
Enclosure

- 2 -

Comments of the UNWMG on che 'Draft Environmental Impact

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61

'Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste'"

(NUREG-0782)

The UNWMG has reviewed the Draft Environmental impact

Statement (DEIS) on Part 61 and, as a result, developed

comments in the followin§ areas:

o Basic Presentationy

o Educational and Public Information Aspects

o Coas/Benefit Analysis

Each of these matters is discussed below in ascending order

of importance. -

Basic Presentation.

As organized and written, the DEIS is almost incomprehensible. The multiplicity of cases, alternatives, and activity

spectra, which are neither.carefully defined nor used consistently, has led to a very disjointed treatment.

We would recommend that a much smaller number of cases

spanning the expected range of activity levels -- be selected

for presentation. The presentation should then be developed

to lead to summary tables patterned after those suggested in

Attachment A. The UMNWG further suggests that the more

simplified discussion of a smaller number of cases and spectra

include data on specific isotopic contributions to doses,

since actions appropriate to control one isotope may not be

at all appropriate for another.

Educational and Public Information Aspects

One of the more important functions of an environmental

impact statement is to provide the public with a reasoned

insight into the nature, scope and magnitude of relevant issues.

The DEIS, however, falls so far short of this goal as to

render it inadequate as an environmental full-disclosure

statement.

First, the entire document reads as though a serious

public health and radiological protection problem were being

addressed whereas, in truth, the shallow land burial of lowlevel nuclear waste is essentially a non-problem in these;

respects., Using the population dose estimates presented in

the DEIS, we have calculated the annually expected statistical

deaths from current shallow-land burial practices and, in

Attachment B, compared this risk to other causes of death. As

can be noted, the risk from shallow land burial is four

orders of magnitude less than that associated with activities

as prosaic as the use of skate boards.

Of course, we fully recognize the institutional issues

that, unfortunately, surround and confuse the matter of lowlevel waste disposal. However, an EIS should, at least,

-..

_...

A-123
- 4 - - 3 -

strive to put the area under consideration into a proper and

understandable scientific and technical perspective.

Unfortunately, the existing document not only fails to do

this but, as indicated earlier, exacerbates existing misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding shallow land

disposal.

It is important to recognize that this deficiency is of

more than just legal and academic importance. It can have real

and undesirable effects. By failing to present the matter of

low-level waste disposal in its full and appropriate context,

the DEIS is counterproductive to the NRC supported goal of

opening new-regional burial sites. If knowledgeable, widespread community acceptance of burial sites is to be achieved,

the NRC must properly inform the public of how reasonable an

undertaking the development of such a site really is; not just

with numbers, but on a conceptual, comparative basis as well.

The EIS on Part 61 presents an excellent opportunity to do

so, and should be fully utilized to help dispel basic misconcentioc6s concerning the dangers of low-level waste disposal.

Another misconception, enhanced by and threaded throughout

the DEIS, concerns the oft assumed dominance of the water

pathway. (See, e.g., Vol. 1, p. 175 Vol. Ii, p. 5-1.) Only

a very careful reading reveals the fact that, with the

exception of four isotopes, all isotopes are limited by

intrusional pathways and the possible doses are restricted to a

very few individuals. This distinction is very important to

public understanding, for the perception of widespread water

contamination is quite a different matter than that of a few

individual intruders being exposed. Once again,

a disservice is done to the public by the portrayal of a less

than accurate -- or, at least, easily misunderstood -- picture.

The basic lack of perspective embodied in the DEIS is,

perhaps, best illustrated by the following sentence taken from

page one of the Summary volumes

Space disposal, although feasible, is not developed to the point o routine technical and economic application.

(Emphasis added.) Such a statement adds materially to public

misconceptions. Even the suggestion that space is considered

a possible alternative conveys the impression that we are

dealing with a problem of truly cosmic proportions. Space

disposal of low-level waste will never be 'feasible,' within

the dictionary definition of that word. Space disposal, if

mentioned at all, should be dismissed with a single sentence

acknowledging its inapplicability to the subject at hand.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

An EIS should specify, in a clear, concise and meaningful

way, the costs and benefits associated with the various

alternative actions considered. In this respect, too, the

A-124
" ', .7,;

DEIS is plainly deficient.

We have -- as best we could given the difficulties

arising from the presentational shortcomings of the DEIS,

mentioned earlier -- performed a cost/benefit analysis of 14

of the alternatives to present practice (the 'no-action case").

The results of this analysis are summarized in Attachment C,

Tables 1216/1, 1216/2 and 1216/3.

As the tables show, not a single alternative considered

in the DEIS meets the Appendix I cost/benefit test criteria

($1000/man-rem, escalated to about $1700/man-rem to account

for inflation since 1975), and many of them are highly nonbeneficial. This valuable and important information is nowhere

presented in the DEIS, and can be extracted only with considerable effort.

In addition, it should be noted that the analytical

results presented in the tables do not take into account the

effect on occupational exposure of the various alternatives.

Total occupational exposure, over the operational lifetime

of the burial site analyzed in the DEIS, routinely runs ten

times the non-occupational exposure calculated over 2000 years.

Since most of the alternatives involve increased waste handling,

with concomitant increases in occupational exposure, it is

likely that, when this factor is taken into account, many of

the alternatives will increase total exposure rather than

decrease it. To assure that these impacts are all clearly

-6-

identified and evaluated, the UNWMG believes that the final

EIS must contain a clear, concise and meaningful cost/benefit

analysis, plus a detailed evaluation of alternatives based on

the results of that analysis.

In concluding; we wish to emphasize that -- while the

foregoing comments are wholly critical -- they are offered in a

genuine effort to be constructive. Providing for the safe,

cost-effective disposal of low-level waste in an environmentally

sound manner is a matter of national importance. As such, it

is a matter concerning which the public deserves to be fully

informed, in as clear and complete a manner as possible.

While we are hopeful that the final EiSwill adequately address

the relevant issues, the current draft, as discussed above,

can only be viewed as being far from adequate.

The UNWMG, of course, remains willing to assist in the constructive revision of the DEIS and would be pleased to provide

any further assistance which the Commission deems desirable

and appropriate.

A!

A%

A-125
* z 11Ii

I 11 ,11 ! if I I I I

*0

cJ

Attachment A

S U H H A R Y T A B L E

Maximum Individual Dose Cost Beneficiality

A Doses A Cost* Referred Cost Benefit Ratio

man-rem $ to Case $/man-rem

Alter- mref/ Path- Dominant

native year way Isotopes

S U M M A R Y T A B L E

Alternative

Required

BY

Part 61

Reference

* From previous alternative case.
.7,;. . ;. .

I t 6w°5 k§§a°

2 *fl.4 f l...... e ..

min-RIM. M§ 5~~ 'i J4"es~" 4M - I fl 0.4,'.ffl^0l V40

80 y Ol fl O fl .0y0y 

- .4ee^.4>"

O - --.-. .... P . ...... 0bw.4....

Attaeheent C

Tables 1216/1, 1216/2, 1216/3

I.

e

I

I

I

I

II

a'

,

. -

9 fIl ..

I IC . , .4

ov. H H 2ET iSo oMg i80e

a __~^ gvw wsxu "-n

a 4

8. a

-. I

3

9

2Z

Q

U

S

A

0

a2

B2

U

g!

C,

e

.2

.i 2^;S°V5Zw°~atA-127
we g -.

~.wo uo;

g

'j. i Table 1216/2

Cost Seneficiality of Alternatives Ordered on Cost Benefit to Reference Case

Alter, Description Cost Benefit to

Base, S/rman-rem

Ref Present Practice

1 Sone Segregation to Bottum 4A Segregation 4B Cozpaztion

4C Improved Covers

4D Stacked Disposal 4E Hot 4aste Facility 6 Dacontainerized Disposal 5 Cenent-walled Trenmh

7C Compaction

7D Improved Covers

73 Segregation 7A Improved waste Form

2. S1+03

3 .8E+03

3. 8EtO3 3.BE*03

9.6E+03

1.9E+04

2.lE+04

3.2E+04

1.5+E05

2.lE+os

2.1E+i05

2.2E+05

2.7Es05

4B preferred--slightly

lower dose at same cost

4q ... -- ^ 3.

S uD 'jq W hdjUWW

Fun _

A& e a

s2 *- * Y-op RI

a

6L

i

I

7D Preferred--slightly lower dose at same cost

m mm

is& & t&gst

Ias as

WV 6g

9

i

A-128
Docketed Comment Number: 42 related to LLW disposal, such as promotion of new disposal sites, may not have

been addressed at all or may not have been addressed in detail.

Commenter: Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group

Response(s) Item 1- Contrary to the commenter's allegations, the staff

believes that low-level raaloactive waste, if not managed and disposed of

properly. may indeed jeopardize public health and safety and the environment

in addition to posing long-term economic burdens. In developing the proposed

rule and the DEIS, the staff explicitly sought to explore a'broad range of

alternatives to assure that both the Commission's mandate under the Atomic

Energy Act and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act were

met. The staff feels that it achieved these goals in both cases and notes

that this commenter was alone among nearly SO others in suggesting that the

DEIS was inadequate as an environmental full-disclosure statement. The staff

would like to add that the comments of several state and federal agencies with

extensive experience in the preparation of environmental impact statements did

not indicate that the DETS was inadequate in strategy or content.

Item 2 - NRC staff does not believe the DEIS, as written, is

*almost Incomprehensible.' The number of alternatives considered and analyzed

in the DEIS is large. NRC staff purposely selected a broad range of alternatives for analysis to ensure completeness in consideration of possible

approaches and variations in disposal technologies which could be applied.

NRC staff agrees-, however, that the number of alternatives can be reduced in

number and has presented fewer alternatives in the FEIS. NRC staff also

agrees that the use of-sumuary tables will help in their clear presentation

and has included additional summary tables in the FEIS.

With respect to including data on specific isotopic contributions to dose, NRC

recognizes that actions taken to control one isotope may not be appropriate

for another. The majority of wastes, however, contain a mixture of Isotopes

and not just a single isotope.

Item 3 - The EIS for Part 61 is not a generic EIS for LLW

disposal. Rather it is a decision document for the technical requirements

that should be applied in the disposal of LLW. As such, many issues generally

NRC staff agrees the EIS should provide the public with a reasoned insight

into the nature, scope and magnitude of relevant issues. In this regard, the

staff does not believe the EIS falls so far short of this goal as to render it

inadequate as an environmental full-disclosure statement. Further, NRC staff

does not believe that LW disposal can be dismissed as a "non-problem." The

commenter's attempts to consider it as such and to relegate LLW disposal to a

place among the most innocuous of society's activities are inappropriate.

The EIS should present information and analyses about LLW disposal in an

understandable scientific and technical perspective. NRC has tried to improve

the public information aspects and method of presentation used in the EIS.

The commenter claims that a "misconception' reflected in the EIS--"the oftassumed dominance of the water pathway"--presents a disservice to the public

by the "portrayal of a less than accurate--or, at least, easily misunderstood--

picture." NRC staff does not believe it has portrayed a less than accurate or

easily misunderstood picture and the commenter, by implying that only a few

individual intruders might be exposed is not accurately portraying the full

range of exposure pathways accurately. As stated in Section 3.8.2 of the

DEIS, the various ways that a person can be exposed to radioactive waste may

be divided into three principal categories:

(1) Activities involving the processing and handling of the waste prior to

disposal. This would include activities involved in the handling,

processing, and packaging of the waste at its point of generation;

transport of the waste from the point of generation to disposal; and

activities at the disposal facility involving emplacement of the waste at

the disposal facility (processing of waste at facilities other than the

generating licensee's facility would also be included).

(2) Man contacting the waste after disposal (i.e., intrusion into the disposal

facility leading to exposure to disposed waste). This would include

activities of man that would lead to his intruding into the disposal

facility either purposefully (such as an archeologist in the future

A-129
intentionally digging into the sites attempting to reclaim artifacts from

the disposed waste) or inadvertently (such as an unknowing individual who

might attempt to use the land for reasonable productive purposes in the

future--e.g., farming or housing).

(3) The waste entering one of several natural environmental pathways back to

man. This would include the 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 and surface water and air transport; and release of gaseous decomposition products from the waste containing radioactive species (e.g..

tritiated methane gas).

The first mode involves primarily short-term considerations and the second and

third, long-term considerations.

Later in Chapter 5 of the DEIS, NRC again reviews the various pathways of

release to the environment and notes that of these, 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.

NRC staff continues to believe that the ground-water migration pathway is

probably of most significance in relation to other environmental release

pathways and has the potential of exposing the largest number of individuals.

In addition, contamination of groundwater has been documented in more than one

instance from the disposal of hazardous and solid wastes. As such, it is a

real potential pathway of exposure which should be considered, not a hypothetical

pathway which might occur in the future, such as inadvertent intrusion.

Item 4 - Sumuary tables illustrating the results of the numerical

'cost-benefit' analysis have been included in the final EIS.

A-130
. ,. Vt..

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

C0At00. T0A NNSSEX 3N0C TAo' 4Ohesaert T street Tower II

February 4, 1982 FEE 9 Pt.::)

Secretary of the Ccrmissicn -T

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comdssion ' Z-2. -'

Washington, DC 20555 'J^6ED tUlE /7X

Attenthon: acketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir: ..... SERULEPR 'i

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TIM is pleased to provide =ments on the

prcopsed amernents to 10 CR rarts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 51, 61, 70, 73,

and 170 conernirg licenswLg requirenents for land disposal of radioactive

waste as noticed in the July 24, 1981 Federal Reaister notice (46 FR 38081-

38105) and corents on :MM-0782.

Va a=preciate the opportunity to cam nt and cur specific com ents are enclosed.

Very truly yours, / ;- ,

TDMMSSEE VALLW" r.r'-

. . t -, .',.' ,v'--..' 1i

- t-~~. M. Mills, Manager \ >,

Nuclear Rulation and et- -

B.closure ¶/ cc (Mclosure):

Dcecutive Secretary

Advisory Can -ttees en Peactor Safeguard~s fD-I '' U.S. NLclear Regulatorv Ccamission

Washlngton, DC 20555

- Mr. Tm Tipton

AIF, Inc.

7101 wisrcrmin Averueep e/ t Washington, DC 20555

7101 iaccs~n ven\

, , \

E-'., 1. Pace 39096, last caragrach in colt-n 1-1Ths paragraph would require a licensee (disposal facility operatcr) to provide financial responsibility for a disposal site even after it has been turned over to a Gcver nent

agency for long-term institutional care and monitoring. Since the

institutional care peri6d could last as Iong as 100 years, a licensee's

money could be tied up for 100 years. We believe it would be preferable

to have the licensee turn over the site and anry required money at the time

that the license is transferred to the Goverro.ent.

2. 10 CsR 61.41, first sentexce-A*e believe the term 'general ernvrorrent"

snould be defined and suggest the definition should be similar to the same term in 40 CnP. Part 190.

3. 10 CM 61.51(a) (4)M-e suggest changing 'prevent" to "miLLmize" and, in

10 CFR 61.51(a) (6), changing 'eliminate' to "minimize."

4. 10 CFR 61.51(a) (7)-JAe believe this item should be deleted since many

activities usuallv take place at a disposal facility other than disposal of radioactive waste. Some facilities are used for transportation equipment storage, e-pty container storage, and a center for radwaste

services to nuclear plants. This regulation could have a significant ispact on present disoosal sites and corflicts with 10 CFR 61.11(c) (4).

5. 10 CFR 61.52(a) (4)-(10)-It appear3 that these regulations apply to

Class A, B, and C waste. oweurer, 10 CFR 61.52(a) (2) says that these

regulatiohs apply to Class a waste. we believe this should be clarified.

6. 10 CFR 61.52(a) (8)-*.* believe the designation of a minbnLe distance of

lCO feet fcr ite buffer zone does not appear to be necessary. We support. the need for a buffer zone but thre distance criteria should be determined

by site specific and other factors of the disposal facility to meet the

performance objectives of Subpart C of this part.

7. 10 CM 61.55, Table 1-ITe limits for some of the Isotopes in this table are Lhe same for all three classes of waste. We suggest the regulations should contain statements that a.-v waste containing these isotopes in

concentrations exceeding these limits cannot be disposed of at a near-surface disposal facility.

8. 10 M. 61.55(b) (2) and 61.56(b)- The stab51ity requirement of at least

l y S10 Or Class S stable waste appears inconsistent with the

lnstitational control period of up to 100 years (see paragraph 61.59(b),

page 39097). As discussed in paragraph 61.7(b) (4), page 38091, Class 3

stable waste contains the I. . .types and quantities of radioisotopes that

will decay during the 100-year period to levels that do not pose a danger

to oublic health and safety." Therefore, for waste in this classificacation, there does not seem to be a need for stability requirements beyond 100 years.

8 2 0 2 2 2 0 5 5 9 820204

PDR R0e0o8 PDR

A~~~~~~~ A u e l . .C1I7C3r -. k .

An Eaust 06oot.i-it, Vnoloy

A-131
Also, it is rot obvious why the stabil'ty requiresent for Class C intruder

waste is given as at least 150 years. This waste classification specifies a max±= concentrat'on of rad'cr.clides so -hat it the end of 5C0 years,

the re.alning radioactivity is at a level that does not pose a danger to

public health and safety (see ;aragra2h 61.7(b) (5), page 3a091).

Therefore, for this waste in ''his classification, the stability

requi:zoents sh;iId be fcr 500 years.

9. 10 CFR 20.311(d) (5)-:t appears this regulation requires that a copy of

the sbipping nanifest be sent to tLe intended recipient (possibly by mail)

at the t'-.e of shipment. If shipments are sent by truck it is very likely

that the t.uck will get to the disposal facility before the advance copy

of the manifest. Therefore, this method w.,ld not provide a way of

providing prior notification of the intended shiprent.

We believe the substance of the information recuired by this regulation is

already required by the Depart-ent of Transportation (DW). We suggest

the procedure be revised to require only the submittal of copies of tne

rnate:ial sent to DOT. This requirement should be placed in 10 Part GR 61 or 10 CFR Part 71 and not 10 CFR Part 23.

10. 1ti.=0782, Voltrre 3, Table E.2, Pace E-21--te believe the concentration

snould ze in x/m'n 1tnsutad of zv. Mg/ Also the annual average secondary

standard of 60 jq/h- fcr sulfur dloxide was revoked in 1973. The current

annual average pribary sulfur dioxide st-ndard is 80 yUghr3. Also, this

table includes only four of the seven pollutants for which standards have

been develcped. we suggest inclusion of the rmarining three-carbon

monoxide, ozone, and lead.

Docketed Comment Number: 43

Cowmenter: Tennessee Valiey Authority

Response(s): Item 1 - The staff noted this correction. The reader is referred

to Appendix E, Errata in this volume.

0D

A-132
§ W +

CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS INC.

A lcj P.O. Box 1865 * Beflev Washifgtol9B I

February 9, 1982 4 °

FIB I -t f;S8tWt F 1 8

-4 I r l

(64 FR 5/ 72's)

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low Level Waste Licensing Branch

Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D. C. 20555

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Staterent on IOCFRSI, "Licensing - - Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste", NUREG-0872

Dear Mr. Smith:

Our reno to you on Jinuary 12, 1982 indicated that we would not be submittir.o

coyments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on 1OCFR Part 61.

Subsequent conversations with your staff have indicated that you still have

an interest in hearing from us. We have, therefore, put together the following comrents in an effort to assist you In writing the final EIS.

e The DEIS is very well done and provides an excellent comprehensive

basis for evaluating the requirements of Part 61. From ChemNuclear's point of view, there may be somewhat excessive emphasis

on past problems In managing low-level waste at the closed sites

with a correspondingly conservative set of resulting requirements.

We recognize the need to use very conservative scenarios in such an

analysis, but hope that it is also understood that careful management

and operating practices will avoid the kinds of problems experienced

in the past.

* The Draft Statement does, in its methodology, account for the

natural decay which occurs for all radiosotopes contained within

radioactive waste. Since the final EIS will be a public document,

we feel that the Introduction (Chapter 1) should contain-a rather

elementary review of what radioactive decay is and how It affects

waste packaging, transport and disposal.

e Section 1.2.2 mentions sea disposal in a discussion of historical and

potential alternates for disposal. While we realize that it was done

in the past, we feel that future use of ocean disposal poses serious

problems of monitoring and control. Any reconsideration of its use should

compare it with land disposal in terms of retrievability, environmental

monitoring and public perception.

Mr. R. Dale Smith

February 9. 1382

Page 2

* In Section I.2.4 you -ay went to rention the situations where ione-term

care and -aintenance funds were claced in state cenertl funds ratrer *than

dedicated, interest-bearing trusts. It is irportant that future funds

be -..anased separately to Insure tnelr avalability after site closure.

a In Section 2.4.3.1 we feel that the :lS.should directly address pyrophoric

and cotentially explosive materials which are either contaminated with

radioisotopes cr are themselves radioactive !e.g., uranium and zirconium

chips).

s We feel strcncly that DCE an' other Government disposal facilities

should also be subject to the sari recuirerents for near surfaie disposal as r:Rc licenses, since their activities also affect the environment.

* Section 3.4.2.2 should note that a large'nurber of scintillation vials

are made of Plastic and do not lend themselves to ccmpiction.

* In Section 3.4.3.2 it appears that a straight-line relationship is

drawn between waste volume and electrical generation capacity. This

does not account for the increase in volure wnich occurs as reactcrs

set older.

v All assumptions in the SIS regarding the use of urea forraldehyde for

solidificat:on Should note that this raterial is no longer an acceptable

solidification redium.

* In Section 3.5.1 and elsewhere in the draft, reference is rade to the

transfer of title for waste from the generator to an intermediary or

broker. 1h1le current practice is for the generator to pass resoonsibilitv for the waste to the broker or operator, legal precedent for

ac:uaily uakino title to the waste Is unclear.

* Exposure data for transportation which are discussed in Section 4.3.2

and shown in Table d.3 indicate higher occupational exposures for such

workers than for handling during disposal. Cur exoerience indic3tes

that exposure to transportation workers is only a small fraction of

that received by workers involved in disposal operations.

0. In Section 4.3.4.1 and elsewhere in tie draft, the assumption is made

that records ray not be available In 100 years. Cur society has preserved records, knowlingly or not, for over iOO years. The ICO year

limit see-s overly conservative. -

* In Section 5.i.2.3 the use-of hypalon rembrares is sugcested to Imcrzve

trench caps. Our exoerlence with such me%±rarnes showed :hat when earth

fill was placed on such a covered, mounded surface, it would mpve away

from the peak or centerlIne of the mound, leavn; a bare mrembrane

surface. the raintenarce costs are hich.

JoI 6

1(

10

0

(D

A-133
b 4..

.s ,,.-';.

Mr. R. Dale Smith

Fefruary 9, !982

Face;

tMr. R. Dale Smith

February 9, 1982

Page 4

I .n Section 5.2.1 the irplication is made that t;e ;otential fcr airborne

releases will be reduced if tne nu".er of peri-reer air samoles Is

increased. it will in fact only increase the probability of detecting

sucI releases.

'n Section 7.4, Table 7.3 specifies a stable waste form will maintain

i1s pnysical dimensions within i. and Its fo.m. under . . . .comprtssive

lced of 50 ;si . . . .chances. We feel that 50 psi may be overly

restrictive in some cases.and that the actual pressure should be selected

en the basis of the geology and operating parameters for a specific site.

Tne statement is also made that "waste which exceeds this concentration

(Table 7.2) . . . . is not generally acceptable. . . .this part." The

term'generally ac:eptable' is not clear. Perhaps some worcs could be

added to reflect the possibility that a particularly suitable proposed

site r-av be able to accept those wastes, even though rost facilities

proba3Wy would not.

* Even though Table E.4 in Appendix E reflects 1980 annual salaries, for

certa.4

n of the staff re. ers they seem tc be low by about 20- even without

considering inflaticn.

* in Section 5.2.3 of A~pendix E no credit is given for a combination of

random and selective placement of wastes in the trench at the reference

site. This combination is used at existing facilities resulting in a

treno. volume use efficiency of from 35 to S0:.

Fertaining to the same section, vehicle survey result; before and after

decontamination are documented, although not usually on the RSR.

* In Section 5.2.5.1 of Appendix E the subject of contamination in wounds

is discussed. Standard health physics practice requires that potentially

contaminated wounds be surveyed for beta and ;amrra contamination and then

receive a separate alpha survey if alpha emitting isotopes are suspected.

* Section .3.1 of Acoendix c discusses the decontamination and dismantlinc

of site Builclngs. If a site is oerated In ccmpliance with ?arts 20 and

61 of. lCCFR and the facility license conditions, and if it utilizes

acce.ted health physics practices, the efforts and Materials required for

decontaminaticn should be -inrma;. !n addition, site buildincs could be

used .er custodial purposes or leased fcr business purpcses. These uses

would reduce the projected costs.

I in Sectien 2.3.3.3 of Acpencix F -econtainerized disposal is discussed

as an op:icn. Such disoosal at exis:inc facilities has been himited to

bulk Iastes with very.lv activity. ne ciszcsal of ;arge volumes of

s- c- wes:es may be rore i;orc:ria~ely conducted it a facility other thar

sha:low eand burial if tnetr *c:.~vty !e/els are .ow r

a

c)

10

Jo

1O

9

I

The NRC estimates 1-2 years for site screen nc and 1-Z years for their

review of the license application package. It is critical to-the avaiTability of low-level waste disposal capacity in tnis country that the reviewperiod be expedited as much as possible. Considering the 1985 date

for excluding out-of-recicn waste from regional facilities (Low-Level.

Waste Policy Act, 1980) the 4-S year site development process faces

extreme scheduling problems. We urge the Comuission to consider ways'in

which the review process could be expedited and licenses Issued as quickly

as possible. As an example, the proposed procedure for tendering a notice

of intent to apply for a license should specify a ccmoitsent to respond

(e.g., 60 days after subnittal) to avcid unnecessary delays.

Although the discussion of fundin; for instituticnal control (Appendix Q)

does present a low cost scenario, it is still probably considerably higher

than would be the case i1fimproved operating and closure procedures were r

employed during the life of the site. The discussion d-es mention that

the costs for t*he low cost scenario ray be cofiservatiyely high. We

would recoomend increased emphasis on this qualifying statement.

Staff operating costs in Appendix Q are based on 70 employees. We understand that the reference facility represents a site that can reet rainimum

regulatory requirerents, but feel that an estimate of 100 people would

more accurately represent operating needs for a site receiving 1.7 million

cubic feet of waste per year. Environmental m.nitoring costs also appear

to be low. Site monitoring, the offsite environmental program, and

personnel monitoring would total about S30;0CCO per year if sent out for

third party contractual analysis.

Appendix Q readily admits than an invest-.ent in a disposal site is a

risky proposition for an investor. In order to CompenSate the investor

for this high risk, a high return on the financial Investment is required. This return should not be based on a "cost plus' philosophy

as in the NRC study. Instead, it should be based on the time value of

money (TV.4). The T741 concept irplies that a dollar invested in the first

year of a 20-year period is not equal in value to.a dollar or profit

returned in year 20. The investor rust derand substantially more than

a dollar in return because of the economic, business, and financial risks

that are incurred each year.

The disposal price for receiving wastes at a new facility rust be set

at a rate which cc;ensates the investor for the risks involved, This

price should be such that the net present value of the cash flow equals

zero at the risk-adjusted rate of return.

Section 3.4.3.2 discusses the projected growth in ncn-fuel cycle waste

based on existing data. The increasing costs of dispcsal and transpcrtation

to distant sites have proviced the incentives to find ways to generate less

waste, to reduce the volumes that are generated, and to wake maximum use

of NRC's new rule on scintillation fluids and animal carcasses. It is not

clear wnether this trend has been factored into the waste projections.

a

A-134
.., If

 I : 

Mr. R. Dale Smith

February 9, 1982

Page 5 Docketed Comment Number: 44

* In Section 3.6.5 the reference facility costs include 200 acres of land

which is calculated to be adequate for the stte lifetime. This assumaes

that essentially all of the site can be used for disposal, a situation

which we expect is rare in much of the country. Chem-nuclear would

suggest the purchase of 400-500 acres of land to provtde for unusable

areis (e.., due to topography) to allow wider buffer zones, and to give

flexibility in the event the waste projections are underestimated. This

section also assumes S1200/acre, a price which is.probably low for -any

Sections of the country.

* Section 4:3.5.2 examines the alternative of thicker disposal cell covers

by adding 3 reters of over burden. Ccnsideration should be given to the

effect of this on the water table. Experience at Oak Ridge Ntational

Laboratory found that raising the surface elevation caused the water

table to also rise to follow the topography. This practice could cause

the groundwater pathway to become a greater concern.

e In Section 5.2.4.8 what is the difference between the assumptions for

Case ICA and Case 103? -They appear to have the sare waste spectra and

designs.

We believe that these to".ents will assist you inthe Preparation of the final EIS.

Please contact me if you have questions, or would like additional clarification.

- -*- Sincerely,

ChEii-NJCLEAR SYSTEMSI'

LEsoie Y. PoPe - Corporate H~ealth Physicist

Commenter: Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.

Response(s): Item 1 - The staff believes that the emphasis placed on past

problems at closed waste disposal sites in the DEIS is both appropriate and

necessary to establish a historical framework of the need for the proposed

action and to identify the types of problems which have occurred and could

occur again without proper safeguards. The staff does not believe the emphasis

to be undue, nor does the staff believe it has resulted in overly conservative

requirements. The performance objectives and technical requirements were

developed through independent analyses which considered both benefits and

costs in arriving at a reasonable regulation.

Item 2 - The staff has assumed a basic level of knowledge with

respect to the structure of matter, radioactive decay and other related subjects on the reader's behalf in preparing this document. In Chapter 2.0 of

the FEIS the lay reader is referred to appropriate works which provide a

discussion of these subjects adequate for the purposes of understanding the

FEIS.

Item 3 - Section 1.2.2 discusses ocean disposal in its historical

context, but does not evaluate Its acceptability as an alternative disposal

method. In Section 2.3, ocean disposal is briefly discussed as an alternative

to land disposal and it is noted that jurisdiction over ocean disposal rests

not with NRC, but rather with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The

benefits and liabilities of this disposal method are, therefore, not appropriate

subjects for further discussion in this FEIS.

-'4

*1~

Xi

I !

LKP:slJ

- , Item 4 - The staff agrees with the commenter's observation and

has incorporated this suggestion in the FEIS.

Item 5 - These aspects were generally addressed in the DEIS

regarding handling and worker safety. NRC staff believes that wastes containIng such materials should be excluded from disposal facilities due to concern

for general handling safety.

A-135
. .. X .

Item 6 - Presently, DOE disposal facilities for the disposal of

LLW are exempt from NRC and Agreement State regulatory jurisdiction. NRC

recognizes the comment and notes that legislation would be required.

Item 7 - The staff recognizes the difficulty which the commenter

is alluding to. This comment, however, does not affect the analysis of the

EIS.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

North Anna-4 (901 Nw(e) PWR): cancelled

Allens Creek (1150 Itw(q) BWR): delayed

WNP-4 (1218 Mw(e) PWR): cancelled

WNP-5 (1242 Mw(e) PWR): cancelled

Hartsville-B1 (1233 14w(e) BWR): construction deferred

Hartsville-82 (1233 4w(e) BWR): construction deferred

Yellow Creek-2 (1285 Mw(e) PWR): construction deferred

Bailley-(644 Hw(e) BWR): cancelled

Callaway-2 (1120 Mw(e) PWR): cancelled

Sharon Harris-3 (900 Mw(e) PWR): cancelled

Sharon Harris-4 (900 Mw(e) PWR): cancelled

Hope Creek-2 (1067 Mw(e) BWR): cancelled

Pilgrim-2 (1150 Mw(e) PWR): originally listed as 'deferred," now cancelled.

Item 8 - As the commenter states, a linear relationship has been

assumed between the electrical generation capacity of nuclear power plants and

the volume of waste generated by the plants. However, NRC staff does not

believe that this assumption leads to nonconservative results. For one thing,

data which was principally used to estimate volumes of waste generated by

nuclear power facilities was based upon a survey of a number ot different

power plants of varying ages (Reference 18). Thus, the effects of the

tendency for older plants to generate larger volumes of waste was already

considered to a certain extent.

More importantly, perhaps, the electrical generating capacity projected in the

draft EIS to the year 2000 was estimated in a very conservative manner. In

NRC's estimates of the projected capacity by the year 2000, two scenarios were

considered: a "low" scenario and a "high" scenario (Reference 3). The "low"

scenario assures that construction continues on power reactors which are

already under construction but that any additional construction of power

reactors essentially ceases until at least the late 1980's. The "high"

scenario assumes that all facilities either planned or deferred indefinitely

as of December 31, 1979 are constructed. These two scenarios resulted in a

projected capacity by the year 2000 of 146.000 Mw(e) and 169,000 Mw(e),

respectively. The high scenario was assumed for the draft EIS, although it

was recognized at the time that it was very likely an overestimate of actual

capacity by the year 2000.

This viewpoint has been confirmed by a number of more recent events. Since

the development of the high scenario, a number of nuclear power plants which

were either planned or under construction have been cancelled, deferred, or

delayed. A partial list includes, for example:

In addition, the schedules for completing many of the other power plants under

construction has slipped.

Thus, NRC expects that the use of the high scenario will give a very conservative

estimate of the electrical generating capacity, and thus give a very conservative

estimate of the volume of waste likely to be generated by nuclear power stations.

Item 9 - Urea-formaldehyde (UF) has been used as a solidification

agent for liquid radioactive wastes. In 1979 the State of Nevada prohibited

the acceptance of urea-formaldehyde at the Beatty facility. In 1981 both the

States of South Carolina and Washington also prohibited its acceptance.

Urea-formaldehyde was prohibited at the three commercial disposals due to its

inability to consistently produce a solidified product which would meet the

disposal site free-standing liquid requirements.

A statement regarding the prohibition of UF has been added to the FEIS to

address this item.

Item 10 - The transfer of title is a legal issue that is

independent of responsibilities assigned in the proposed rule. The staff was

not trying to set legal precedent. Other forums exist for addressing title

A-136
J** : .: .

such as contracts or leases between disposal facility operators and the

landowner.

Item 11 -'As stated' by the commenter, exposures to transportation

workers are typically a' small fraction of those received by workers involved

in disposal operations. One of the main reasons for this is that transportation

workers generally do not perform unloading and disposal activities at disposal

sites. However, the transportation impacts calculated for the draft EIS

include the following components: loading operations at the waste generator's

facility, transport to the disposal site. and time spent at the disposal site

during unloading. Of these three, loading operations at the waste generator's

facility contribute the largest 'exposures.

Item 12' - NRC did not intend to imply that records would only

last for 100 years; NRC has assumed that active Institutional controls can

only be relied on forQ100 years. They may last much longer. NRC has also

assumed that other passive institutional controls such as government land

ownership, *ecords and deed restrictions would last for a much longer period

of time than 100 years. NRC believei'this is adequately addressed in

Section-4.3.6 of the DEIS." -'

Item 13 - The question raised with respect to movement away from

the mounded crest is dependent largely on the degree of slope and soil erosion.

The observation is valid but would have to be considered on a site-specific

basis. Part 61 does not require the use of moisture or infiltration barriers.

Such barriers were considered as an alternative but were rejected because of

concern for their long-term viability.

Item 14 - The commenter's observation is accurate and has been

reflected in Appendix E, Errata; of this volume.

Item 15 - The requirement that a stable waste form maintain its

physical dimensions within five percent under a 50 psi compressive load was

intended to ensure that degradation of waste containers and waste forms would

not lead to severe trench subsidence. The five percent value was selected as

a conservative deformation level.which would be expected to produce only minor

subsidence effects. These minor subsidence effects could be easily resolved

by an inexpensive post-closure maintenance program at the burial site.

The NRC staff believes that trench subsidence needs to be carefully controlled

in order to minimize water infiltration and major remedial care operations.

In order to achieve this objective in a pragmatic way, the NRC staff has

chosen to delete from the rule the prescriptive requirement for a five percent

dimensional limit. The requirement that wastes remain structurally stable,

however, remains in place. In order to provide guidance to waste generators

on acceptable waste forms the NRC staff is preparing a Branch Technical Position (BTP) which defines acceptable test methods and criteria oriented to

ensuring structural stability. The 50 psi limit for solidified waste forms

will remain in the BTP as a value that would assure compliance but not a

requirement.

In addition to the BTP, 10 CFR 61 Section 61.52(a)(4) and 61.52(a)(5) requires

that wastes be emplaced to maintain package integrity and that void spaces be

filled to reduce subsidence. The filling of void spaces will minimize the

creep effects in asphalt or polymeric solidified products since lateral

stability will be provided by the fill material. If there are no voids, there

will be no space for viscoeleastic wastes to flowilnto. '

:' . -

Item 16 - In the final EIS, NRC has emphasized the concept set

out in 161.58 that wastes exceeding the Class C limits may be acceptable given

special treatment or disposal at greater depths or with special facility

designs.

Item 17 - Based upon input from the commenter, the staff members

for which unusually low salaries were originally estimated were identified.

Appropriately higher salaries were assigned to these staff members as listed

below:

A-137
Occupation Salary originally assumed Modified salary

QA technician $14,000 $25,000

Radiation safety $15,000 $25,000

technician

Security personnel $12,000 $18,000

Waste shipment $16,000 $20,000

scheduler

QA and safety $26,000 $30,000

supervisor

Site manager $40,000 $45,000

These revised salaries were used in the calculations performed for the final

EIS. Use of the modified salaries has not altered the overall conclusions

reached in the draft EIS but have been included in the interest of completeness

and accuracy.

Item 18 - As the commenter states, at existing disposal facilities

a combination of stacked and random disposal is generally used. Typically,

waste packages having rectangular dimensions are stacked in place (e.g., wooden

boxes, steel bins) to conserve trench space, while low activity drummed waste

is generally disposed in a random manner to reduce radiation exposures to site

personnel. Higher activity waste in drums and large cylindrical waste containers

such as resin liners are generally stacked or at least emplaced carefully to

reduce the potential hazard to site personnel. This results in a trench use

efficiency which varies depending upon the particular mix of waste received

during the filling of a particular trench. A good rule of thumb with this

waste emplacement technique is a volume use efficiency of about 50%.

NRC did not consider relatively small variations in trench use efficiency in

the draft EIS. This was believed to be in keeping with the scope of the EIS

which is to help determine overall requirements for waste disposal in the

Part 61 regulation. For the purposes of the EIS, then, two general alternatives

for waste emplacement were considered. One,- termed 'random' disposal, assumed

the existing practice by which some waste is stacked and some is disposed

randomly. A volume use efficiency of 50% was assumed for this alternative,

consistent with current experience. The second alternative, termed "stacked"

disposal, assumed neat stacking of all waste containers. A volume use

efficiency of 75% was assumed for this alternative, coupled with a higher

level of personnel exposures at the site.

The commenter's point regarding a factual description of waste disposal

operations at a typical facility may be addressed in Appendix E by deleting

the first two sentences in the first paragraph of Section 5.2.3 (p. E-47) and

replacing these two sentences with a new paragraph consisting of the following:

Waste is emplaced in the trench. and backfilled with dirt removed

during trench excavation. Typically, waste packages are emplaced with the aid of construction equipment such as cranes and forklifts,

using a combination of stacked and random disposal. Waste packages such as wooden boxes or steel bins having rectangular dimensions are generally stacked in place while-low activity drummed waste is

generally emplaced in a more random manner. Special care is taken

during emplacement of higher activity waste such as high activity ion exchange liners to ensure operational safety. This combination

of random and stacked disposal is termed "random disposal' in this

EIS (to distinguish it from a placement alternative of fully stacked

disposal: see Appendix F):and results in a trench volume efficiency

of about 50%.

Item 19 - Disposal sites may have different recording

practices. Some record the vehicle survey results on the shipment manifest

(e.g., the radioactive shipment record, or RSR) and some record the survey

results on a separate form. This point may be generalized in Appendix E of

the DEIS by modifying the last sentence in Section 5.2.3 (p. E-98) so that

it reads as follows: The results of the survey are recorded.

Item 20 - This point may be clarified in Appendix E of the DEIS

by modifying the next to last sentence in the next to last paragraph (p. E-50)

of Section 5.2.5.1. as follows: 'If through a site accident, a worker may.

receive an open wound and the wound is suspected of having become contaminated,

a radiation survey is also performed. The survey is performed for beta and

gamma contamination, and also for alpha contamination if alpha emitting

isotopes are suspected."

A-138
: I .. . e -

Item 21 - The consideration of cost of building demolition was

estimated for the draft EIS based upon the cost for building demolition estimated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. as part of their preliminary site closure

and stabilization plan for the Barnwell disposal site (Reference 13). In this

closure and stabilization plan, an estimate of $525,000 was made for decontamination and demolition of most of the onsite buildings (some would be left

standing for use by the site owner following license termination), conservatively assuming that a private contractor was hired to perform these services.

Recognizing that CNSI carries out a number of additional activities at the

Barnwell facility besides waste disposal (e.g., truck, transporter and cask

refurbishment, mobile solidification units, development of solidification

agents), a building demolition cost of $300,000 was estimated for the

reference-disposal facility.

It should be recognized that actual closure costs such as building decontamination and demolition costs would be specific for a particular site and should be

evaluated specifically for that site. Whether or not the assumed decontamination and demolition costs for the reference disposal facility are overconservative does not change the essential conclusions reached in the draft EIS regarding the need to consider and plan for facility closure prior to site licensing

and the need to assure that funds will be available to carry out closure

activities.. In the interest of completeness, however, these costs have been

reduced to $200,000 for the final EIS. This change does not alter the conclusions reached in the EIS but is reflected in the cost/benefit analyses and

estimates of unmitigated impacts.

I

Item 22 - NRC staff agrees with this comment and believes the

disposal of such wastes can be individually evaluated for disposal on site at

the point of generation or at a central facility such as a sanitary landfill.

Item 23 - The staff is in fact considering methods of expediting

the review process and certain changes to the-licensing procedures of the rule

have been made to achieve this end. While no new LLW disposal facility has

been recently licensed, NRC staff believe that if an applicant takes action in

the pre-application phase to involve the local community, the public and the

state (and/or compact), prepares a detailed and complete application, and

promptly responds to additional information needs, it may be possible to

license such a facility in a time frame of about 15 months.

Item 24 - In Appendix Q and for purposes of the EIS analysis.

NRC staff assumed three cost scenarios corresponding to three levels of

long-term care: a low cost levelza moderate cost level. and a high cost

level. These levels were used to help assess the potential long term costs of

various waste management alternatives. As the commentor states, NRC staff

believes that the estimated costs corresponding to the low level of long-term

care may be conservatively high. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that

most of the experience with waste disposal has been with high levels of longterm costs resulting from site stability and subsidence problems. Less

experience has been gained with potential long-term costs associated with

stable site conditions.

Item 25 - The reference site staffing (70 employees) was not

intended in all cases to represent a disposal facility which can meet minimum

regulatory requirements. One of the purposes of the draft EIS was to examine

the long-term consequences of unstable waste and disposal unit conditions as

well as analyze the effects of many of-the Improvements-that have been implemented at disposal sites over the past several years. As the commenter has

stated earlier in this comments, the analysis in Chapter 5 of the DEIS examines

some past practices and the reference case in Chapter 5 corresponds more to

operating practices of several years ago then to currently operating practices.

As discussed above, this was deliberate.

In any case. the assumed personnel level of 70 employees at the reference disposal facility is meant to represent the minimum staff needed to comply with

the existing safety requirements of 10 CFR Part 20. The minimum personnel

level projected to meet the disposal facility stability and long-term environmental irpact requirements proposed in 10 CFR Part 61, however, would be

larger.- NRC's analysis considers the additional personnel requirements associated with typical site operations which would be required to improve site

stability and reduce groundwater releases. Many of these typical site operations are being carried out today.

I _,

.,

A-139
Another point Is that the coamenter's site operations include several activities

which are not directly related to waste disposal. They include, for example,

delivery vehicle refurbishment and routing, mobile solidification operations,

and development of new solidification agents. NRC staff is not sure if this

has been fully recognized by the cormenter.

In any case, the basis for the comment was requested by NRC staff and was

provided by the conmentor. Based upon discussions with the consenter, the

base number of site employees has been raised to 80. The job functions,

salaries, and impact on total operating costs are addressed in Appendix D of

this volume.

Environmental monitoring costs have been reevaluated and a revised level

included in the analysis.

Item 26 - The cost analysis has been modified to consider the

time value of money concept. This has been done for the sake of completeness

and accuracy. The overall conclusions reached for the Part 61 rule, however.

have not been altered.

Item 27 - In the analysis, NRC first considered a 'base case'

projection of wastes generated from both fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle sources.

In this base case, termed "waste spectrum 1," waste volumes generated by fuel

cycle sources were linked to electrical generating capacity, while waste

volumes generated by non-fuel cycle sources were generally based upon a linear

projection from a number of existing data sources. Subsequent waste spectra

considered the effects on waste volumes, radlonuclide concentrations, waste

stability, etc. from various waste processing alternatives. These alternatives

included use of different waste solidification media, use of improved liquid

waste evaporation techniques, compaction of compressible waste, incineration

of compressible waste and ion exchange media, and use of high integrity containers. Thus, the effects of volume reduction were considered in the analysis.

NRC also briefly examined the possible effects of the recent modifications to

10 CFR Part 20 to allow disposal by less restrictive means of less than

.05 ijCi/gm of tritium and carbon-14 contained in liquid scintillation fluids

and animal carcasses. The modification was determined to not alter NRC's

conclusions regarding the draft Part 61 rule.

It is true that increased disposal costs have encouraged many waste generators

to reduce waste volumes through waste minimization techniques as well as

volume reduction techniques such as compaction. One way to account for this

would be to assume a curved rather than a linear waste volume generation rate.

That is, as time passes, the rate of volume increase would lessen. NRC did

not take this approach, however, as the increased complexity did not sees to

be warranted by any potential improvements in the analytical results. Unlike

fuel cycle wastes, non-fuel cycle wastes are not linked to electrical generating capacity. Compared to fuel cycle sources, non-fuel cycle sources are much

more numerous and the levels of use of volume minimization and reduction

techniques much more difficult to assess. In addition, much of the waste is

generated by small entities such as hospitals, universities, research facilities, and.radloisotope manufacturers. Uses of radioisotopes may change, new

manufacturing facilities may be built, etc.

For purposes of determining requirements for waste disposal in the Part 61

rule, then, it was believed to be sufficient to assume a linear growth relationship for fuel cycle waste. This approach is believed to be reasonable

considering the level of data and at the same time conservative with respect

to impacts from waste disposal.

Item 28 - Althojgh the reference facility costs did include

purchase of 200 acres of land, only about 140 acres was actually assumed to be

used for the disposal. Thus, some consideration was given in the draft EIS to

the possibility of unstable areas and to flexibility. Also, the precise

amount of land purchased and the price paid for the acreage are not significant

as far as the final conclusions reached.

For completeness, however, the assumed acreage purchased for the reference

facility has been raised to 400 acres and at an assumed price of $1400/acre.

As the commenter states, the larger acreage provides for wider buffer zones

than assumed for the reference facility and gives some additional flexibility

in operations.

A-140
Item 29 - The comment is well-taken. Areas where significant

thicknesses of fill will be placed will be evaluated on a site-specific basis

for water table rises. Native cohesionless soils will not typically experience

the response observed at Oak Ridge. In addition, a capillary barrier can be

installed under the thick fill to prevent a rise in the water table.

Item 30 - The commenter's observation Is accurate. The text in

Section 5.2.4.8 contained a typographical error which indicated that Waste

Spectrum 2 should be assumed for Case 1OA: The text should have stated that

Case 10A assumed Waste Spectrum 1. This has been noted in Appendix E, Errata,

in this volume.

A-141
Docketed Comment Number: 45

Commenter: Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited.

Response(s): This comment was inadvertently docketed for both the rule and

the EIS, although the comment addressed only the rule. The comnenter's

concerns were reviewed and responded to in the development of the final rule.

A-142
SERUC KING

KAT-ma R. MAm

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

STATg PLANNING DIVISION

505 DON G"Aq AVNU"A SAnA FL NEW MD= 670

150118272073

100M 827-5191 11OM)927.21W0

PA._61

AMTAHISEN~nG

" F.:' 19 n9¢

§VAmur H SENvia

JoE GUmEN

St1:7 Tox ?7 13 

N IC w nc

'ILANNING DIVISION

(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE) I REVIEW CERTIFICATION FORM- MISO

STATE PLANNING DIVISION

DEPT. OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION.

505 DON GASPAR

- SANTA FE. NEW MEXICO 87503

I X . . - 6(505 827.2073 . , - I

TO: - ' Nuclear Regulatory comission,

SUBJECT: O PRELUINARY REVIEW

: - - 0 FINAL REVIEW

DATE: - -xv

- A January 20. 1982

0 STATE/AREA PLAN

Draft (R ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. I. . December 22, 1981

U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Division of Technical Information and

-Docmnt ControlWashington, D.C. 20555

PROJECT TITLE: DETS Licensin-p Reauirenents for Land Disposal of Radioactiva Waste

.. 1 - r ,, . .. .. I

Dear Sirst

hi itS to inform you that neither our office nor the Environmental

Zvroveuent Divis ion have, any comeents, on the draft. environmental

imact statement on 10 CFR, Part 61 Licensinq Requirements for Land

Dispoxal oI Radioactive Waste.'

-- : , -, Sincerely,

-BR jeh

Betsy Reed

RECErVD anning & Bureau

MAAR I 4 192'-

U W"-t =gmtM T J ,

'1.

* ~~~- ............ --. . . ..

I - . Iif{ I- 0

SAI NUMBER NHa2 11 17-0t1 . FEDERALCATALOG NUMBEP. 77.000

FEDERALAGENCY: Nuclear Pleulatory COlmission

PROPOSED FUNDING (PER 424 FORM) AMOUNT

FEDERAL 2-

APPLICANT

STATE -

LOCAL .

OTHER

TOTAL -

FOR FINAL APPLICATION ONLY:

REVIEW RESULTS:

AX. Tbe app1eation is supported. ,

The application Is not in eonftlit with State. Areawide or Local plns'.

_ ofments are attached for pbmissio with this appucation.

AGENCY REVIEW OORDINATOR AGENCY

TO THE APPLICANT

You =ir now submit your application package, this form and all review comments to tha Federal or State Agvncy(sI

from whom action Is being rquested.

Pleese notify the Planning Division (Clearinghousel of Any changes in this project Refer to the SAI number on ALL

Correspondence pertaining stotiproject.

STATE CLSARINGHOU - STATE}PL7NING DIVISIO DECTOR - //o~tOSTAT ./i;/ N> NG DIVISION .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r-m for FedwW A gseno

DATE DDATE. canar. SPD Cop".

Approved July. 1979 - -. d Ag.y.

SecretaryDFA -tig. od o evl ed 

8203250159 821222 6DR PR 61 46$R51776 PDR

A-143
ousA.mmetu-aa15

DATE: 11-23-81

TO: Iartin Castillo

Environontal Zprovement Division

FROMi Betsy Read, Planning Bureau

RE NM 82 11 17-015 Draft Environmental Inmact

SAI NUMBER PROJECTTITLE for Land t

PLANNING DIVISION

jSTATE CLEARINGHOUSE)

MIS4

Review and Comment

t - Ticensina Reaulrementn

I FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2,. LIN1 6=la, X 82 11 17-O015

I -O T.L1 I w M' how Dv i; Aftlevud to 81 Ul 17

(Mm& Met (Opt) 7 [311Dferort Of Federal Action r =

: staxens

- ---- DLsposal of Radioactive Waste

Plannwint Div44nn

LEAD AGENCY

Pleas. review and comment on tbe above application and retrn to the sender by 12-31-a1

1. Does thisplandupLteanyprograms whib avesimilr goals andobjectves to the pmpoed arplirnto?

-Yes (If yes, please Identify the. progra

-- No.-

2. Does the proposed application conform with a comprehensive plan developed for the ae in which it is lorated?

-- Not applicable

-Yes

-- No IIf no. pleas explain in what way it. not compatible.)

3. Doe the propo *dapplicatiok conflict with any applicable statute order. rule. or regulatio (federal, state or lccal

_Yes (I yes, plas cite the conflicting statute. order. rilb or regulation)

.meNo

4. Descdbe an suggestins0. mean of improvin or aeltgteing the proposed application.

4. Loeld AppA=Weofi..lpi4 L F~U Safvwwmvehefm i dmte.

aL AftvkntNiY 9US Nuclear Regulatory ComIission

C. &meurP.O.o 11" I a a.. -. * ~171AII01Jd

CL 41FWashington Ceountyas.d6Ti

ScooanctIpMe tD. C ~ i O5SS Comiusion.

1 7. 711. and doaarip11q if aepi1.atoo P910.4 L Typ eappA4A-W ab1il

DEIS Linansing laquirementa for Land Disposal

ot Radioactive Wastae7 ~ o

Action being considered in Whs E1S Le the. issura eea I f a nme regulatinn. part 61, to the Us-=R ruler

TtUtla 10 ccde. of CFR. Part 61 Vii provide licensll

* in procedures, performance objectives of "low- 8- nd-04 Q, 11 ef4 (

a. .. an 0 -02 j 1 0

Statoffls vida DI J kefJ LL

a3. Odo P., IL M aton h eW-.h da" Le 5.p4e.foldeu ldFW e anreac

20. .a~a. Fdaralapaypw ronam Naa11- mew, sipmini ow. 

b. rewnnr omino 02o~ C0u002

d. L6. . .. 54C oktOadaad VI Mm adkOMS mew" A4. .a.aan~d eApsj

* . ba...tha * Is~e. La~d a to e aff r.~.I n~aoa. wnsn aW IL "ss Iw~~amad . ~ g 1.The t .rla. -Ala. we. == I. Ia.. n -81u12 d 1

faAedoif I In..w rwona" " do,-a..ctra.n I ,A odla ll oo Ool Nucleard b It. ulam t~ or, Cocisso h I . I - 3 N

~ ht W Tod V WA at ya kw.iAd ca" e'0flrA6 V-41 Li o"b 1 01 e A44 b".If tiles the~a aooar.Ma0 i ISO 0n saoh

a. ypd ... anMd bil r.Snawe_____the__

24."Ie" IIIa . 7w vElh

25 Oma05U. 2. .3wC] lpiS 3e

2$. IAdddd-M30.t theEel p

2 D. Amao none5 d . F .0 L. rawiawMonthi

2L 0' Paou-1a Un an 270 SiAd . avlotaf da 15~u

216Add-* ~ x 7* adiaru

O.. OA.rnd a.F O So.00 A0 do isd 1

C~a.flptad ta A. Toa l nfron 1L DY.'OA". r O *e

2513. a.-- e I.laor 4..0.SP 3~abi a-l wd #A . - .h aw'. Apaw 4 olfca

.. d.a t d. LOW adae.I ~ac a...d. n.. ~ im aei.pe PAnaftobd, A- 041en1.15 "ud A-Mhot .. or m a' aie

MW4.101 "tie poreS 42 fpI I*

.1NoAtp"lrnpcommnt Y on. this project.

_...Pmopoul is supported _Proposalis supported with rewcmmendations.

m...PropoulLs not supported.

_..urtherinformation needed, review supanded and applicat notified of requ

. Comments attache.

On ths ajiommy rii av, n ted my re andlor reco dtions *bve.

m ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR

gS i of Rerviewr

DECEMBER 4. 19lA

Data

ApprovedJuly. 1979

Secrtary. DFA

FplvyrtInNK'JTfI ym~pn~yrmrm? ntTuTcrirm

Agency

I .yralow .SWuCt:'

. ft

*234019

(ALSO PLEAS C=ILE REVERS SIDE). . h wihd6~ bp G34. Ft5ed MA orgaws O'Fa,.0 14 42

A-144
Docketed Comment Number: 46

Commenter: State of New Mexico, Department of Finance and Administration,

State Planning Division

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

A-145
.. 

 I.-1

vit - (4 I

IV 6 M S7776

TEXAS ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COUNCILr"47

20oEAST I8THSTREET.AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701

Eebruary 12, 1982

Docketed Comment Number: 47

Comnenter: Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

Hr Dale Smith S7Er NVU35;

Division of Waste management i _l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -

Washington, D. C. 20555 ( Fi 5/-??

Dear Mr. Smith:

The Texas Energy and Natural Resources staff has reviewed the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" and has no comment to make.

This agency, however, appreciates the opportunity to review and

coment on this report. It is obvious that a great deal of time and

effort were necessary to produce it.

If I can assist you in any other way, please feel free to call.

Sincerely, -

Edward Selig i

Executive Assistant

Enclosure

EStimi

co-CN,%:

01. ctW4.. J'.

GM*r

W.Ili P. HobbW

Lteam Gowwnor

Vk.*.wma

SiU COnon

50.k. of tN Heo,. Mit" L. HofI"e

A-146
ppf-6j

qR-6 r-tVJ 7

TEX.AS WATER DEVELOPMIEN1

Louis A. ctchel.Jr-.. C! ''

John H. Gar:et:. Vice C(Arv

GteIt xV,.MCleskey

Glen E. Ronev

W. 0. B4snhon

Lonnie A. -to" Pilgrim

TEXAS D)LIPARTMENT or WATER RESOURCES

1-00N .C~nrao Aw~nu,

A atdn., Tics

matt

Hjffes Duds

February 23, 1982

JEX.1G 9 iA4TU~ 0ls5\11S$10X

Doey B. HauAe,,s.

Lee B. M.

(@

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief = PR I

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch ID IUI£-

Division of Waste Management '

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 5 7r

and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Smith:

Be: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ... Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) on Proposed 10 CFR Part 61 Relative to Federal

Licensing Requirements for the Land Disposal by Shallow Land Burial

and Alternative Disposal Methods of Low-Level Radioactive Waste.

(NUREG-0782, Volumes 1-4), September 1981.

Pursuant to instructions received by this Department on January 18, 1982,

-from the Governor's Budget and-Planning Office, we have reviewed the referenced

document from the standpoint of our statutory statewide responsibilities

relative to water resources planning, development, conservation, and management,

under the Texas Water Code and the Texas Administrative Code.,- We hereby

submit directly our review comments, as requested. -Therefore, we have

directed our staff review to the following portions of the proposed regulations,

10 CFR Part 61 (46 FR July 24, 1981, pp. 38081-38105), insofar as they

relate to water resource matters:

7%RnentaruInfoRtion Section V.C. (Summary of Rule-Minimum

Disposal Site Suitability Requirements.

Disposal Site Design.-

Land Disposal Facility Operation.

Disposal Site Closure Requirements.

7i6)

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Page 2

February 23, 1982

Subpart D (Technical Requirements for Disposal Facilities):

Section 61.13 (Technical Analyses).

Section 61.50 (Disposal Site Suitability Requirements for Land

Disposal).

Section 61.51 (Disposal Site Design for Land Disposal).

Section 61.52 (Land Disposal Facility Operation and Disposal

Site Closure).

We offer the following staff review comments:

1. The above-listed portions of the proposed regulations provide

adequate criteria, guidelines, and policies for achieving a

comprehensive evaluation of the potential impacts of proposed

low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities on local water

sources, to ensure the selection of sites that will afford the

effective exclusion, isolation, and containment of the waste

from aqueous pathways to the biosphere.

2. We feel that insofar as water quality protection considerations are concerned, the proposed regulations will, together with present

and anticipated new implementing State regulations to be promulgated

by the Texas Department of Health, and/or by the Texas-Low-Level

Radiation Waste Disposal Authority (creation authorized in S.B. 1177

of the 67th Legislature of the State of Texas, effective June 1,

1981), will provide the required consistent Federal and State

criteria, guidance, and standards for the timely, comprehensive

consideration of State water resource protection. We understand

that the above-mentioned two State agencies have the primary

responsibility for implementing the proposed 10 CFR Part 61,

for the State of Texas, as an "Agreement State" under the provisions

of 10 CFR Part 150. Also, we understand that this Department

will be required to participate in the governmental interagency

review of disposal facility site selection determinations, and

facility project plans and specifications, to the extent of certifying

the potential water quality impacts thereof. We offer the following

suggested additions to the technical water-related guidelines

in the regulations:

a. Guidance on the interim or temporary emergency storage

of the wastes, as distinct from the permanent disposal

of waste, in the event of a temporary, unavoidable denial

of the permanent disposal facility due to equipment

malfunctions or other unforeseen events.

'. . ., .. " .. . : 2 " : S; ..: : 0 . - -t. -:: 9 ..

A-147
Docketed Comment Number: 48 Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Page 3

February 23, 1982 Commenter: Texas Department of Water Resources

b. Policy guidance on deteruinations which must be made

regarding the best allocation of activities which can be sanctioned in the vicinity of any selected temporary

storage or final waste disposal facility site, from

the standpoint or public health, safety, and welfare.

c Guidance regarding the Identification and plotted map

locations or springs, sinkholes, swamps, mines pits,

quarries, deep waste-injection wells water wells, test

borings, excavations, monitoring wells, pipelines, and

other underground facilities.

3. We feel that the referenced DEIS adequately fulfills the administrative,

analytical, and coordinative requirements of Section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy Act or 1969, and th. implementing regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.

We appreciated the opportunity to review end comment on the referenced

document and the related proposed 10 CFR Part 61. Please advise if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

~ AL.t,

Harvey Davis

Executive Director

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. No items

were found in the comment which require a response.

A-148
ViROamiA ELECTRIC AND Powna COMPANY

RxcnMO0D. V1RoIN9A 20281

'."; 1'. 1:' :!!: --

R. n. L.assuao

fts. O-.,0.s

March 9, 1982

Docketed Comment Number: 49

Commenter Virginia Electric and Power Company

Response(s): This comment was docketed and reviewed by the staff. Tne

submittals which the commenter references--those of the Atomic Industrial

Forum and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group--have been responded to

by the staff. No additional items were found in this comment which require a

response.

Secretary of the Commission ( Serial No. 138

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOIERS.Jr. :acm Washington, D. C. 20555 M (D 1)

Dear Sir: C F i 507 4)

We have reviewed the comments provided to you by the Atomic Industrial Forum.

Inc. and by the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group. These comments were for proposed rulemaking (46FR51776) dealing with IOCFR61 and NUREG-0782. We are in agreement with those comments.

*. , ; . . . - I

Ve 6 4Iursa

R. B. Leasburg

, . ... . .. , . . , , -

., j , ,, . . . : . -.

, . , . , .,, , X

; .

:

. . .

. wdv ,-e

A-149
p. t . . :

lS D"nmd ErQ I .?

ARCONNE NATION4LAORATORY

9m)OssmA6O49 Uklm 2/972 6677

March 4, 1982 f4 M vw08

Y4 PA S-1776j3

Mr. G. W. Roles 1t C 1160MILE P

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coummission

Mail Stop SS-197

Washington, D. C. 20555 Ct 6

Dear Mr. Roles:

Subject: Comments by Argonne National Laboratory on Environmental Monitoring

Costs in Draft EIS on 10 CFR Part 61

Reference: Ltr. J. H. Kittel to R. Dale Smith, "Comments by Argonne National

Laboratory on NRC Proposed Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste (10 CFR 611, and supporting Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG 0782)" December 14, 1981.

In response to your recent telephone inquiry, attached are the

environmental monitoring cost estimates developed by Argonne National Laboratory

*for a reference LLW disposal site. These estimates formed the basis for our conments in the reference letter that the direct operation cost for environmental monitoring shown in Table 3.5 of NUREG 0782 is believed to be Inadequate.

Please let me know if further informtion is needed.

Very truly yours,

J. Howard Kittel, Manager Office of Waste Management Programs

DRAFT EIS OH 10 CFR PART 61

COfHEN'TS ON LNVRGi0TAL WHITORING COSTS

The environmental nonitoring costs given for the Reference Site in Table 3.6

(page 3-39) are $543,000 over 20 years, or $26,700 per year. The environmental monitoring program for the Reference Facility is discussed in Appendix

E. Section 5.2.6 (pages E-55 and E-58). A preliminary estimate of the costs

can be obtained from the sampling and analysis schedule in Table E-10 (page

E-57) and is given in the following table. For this cost estimate. we have

assumed that 1) the particulate air sample to be analyzed daily for gross betagama activity is counted on-site as part of routine operations, 2) the other

samples are sent to an outside comeercial firm for analysis, and 3) the cost

per analysis are average charges by firms performing this work, expressed in

1981 dollars.

Annual Environmental Monitoring Costs

No. of Frequancy No. of Cost per Total

Sample Locations of Analysis Analysis Analysis Cost

External 50 Quarterly 200 $25 $ 5,000

Camma-TLD

Atmosphere - 1 Weekly 52 80 (7-spec) 4,160

Particulate

Atmosphere - 1 Weekly 52 20 (1315) 1,040

Charcoal

Soil and 10 Quarterly 40 20 (8-7) 800

Vegetation 20 (a) 800

40 (tritium) 1,600

Off-Site 5 Semi-annually 10 80 (T-spec) 800

Wells 20 (i) 200

40 (tritium) 400

Site Boundary 10 Semi-annually 20 80 (7-spec) 1,600

Wells 20 (a) 400

40 (tritium) 800

Disposal Area 15 Quarterly 60 80 (T-spec) 4,800

Wells 20 (a) 1,200

40 (tritium) 2,400

Trench Sumps 58 Monthly 70 80 (7-spec) 5,600

20 (a) 1,400

40 (tritium) 2,800

$35,800

Paragraph 5.2.6.4 (page E-58) states 12 locations are to be analyzed

monthly, for a total of 296 analyses. The number in this table was

taken from Table E-10

Assuming water was present 10% of the time.

JhK:pf

cc: S. A. Mann, DOE-CH

Tk UV15ty Of GkACp

A-150
2 Docketed Comment Number: 50

In addition to the purely analytical costs, expenses of sample collection,

sample preparation, quality control, maintenance of saspling equipment,

record keeping, supplies, and other expenses may increase the analytical costs

by a factor of up to two. If the analyses were performed in-house by personnel

who also perform other work. such as the sample collection and preparation,

some cost saving would result. We believe a more realistic estimate Is $60,000

per year for the total program.

Commenter: Argonne National Laboratory

Response(s): The environmental monitoring costs submitted by ANL were

requested by NRC to establish a more accurate basis for cost projections in

the FE1S. The ANL esiimates were considered along with other estimates in

developing the revised monitoring costs contained in the FEIS.

A-151
4,o t-4

.4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 .., ... 4."

,!:II(i)D MAR 18 L98Z '82 2., 19 Fi2:16

.A:)p ) .'.:: ' CVtlCt or

4" .0-I157*^TOU

Mr. Samuel Chilk _ =

Secretary of the Commission __ -\

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555 PRORD RU Ra-e

Dear Mr. Chilk:

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the U.S. Environnental Protection Agency (EPA) has

reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste (46 FR 38061) and the accompanying Environmental

Impact Statement (NUREG-0782).

EPA believes it is appropriate for NRC to use both performance

objectives and prescriptive requirements.in its proposed

regulations. These proposed regulations and the supporting

analyses are an important step in solving the nation's lowlevel radioactive waste (LLW) problems. The information

presented by nRC will be of considerable assistance to EPA in its low-level radioactive waste standards program.

EPA is concerned that the handling of low-level waste licensing

in Agreement States may become inconsistent, so EPA recommends

that NRC help the Agreement States adopt consistent state

regulations and procedures.

NRC solicited comments on possible duplicative requirements

for effluent releases and broker activities under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of

1960 (CERCLA). This "Superfund" law exempts from notification

any release of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material ... in compliance with a legally enforceable license, permit,

regulation, or order issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954" (CERCLA Section ll0l0)(K)). Radioactive

releases from nuclear waste disposal facilities which are not in compliance with an NRC license, permit, regulation, or order fall within the reporting requirements of CERCLA.

Furthermore, as.part of the notification regulations under

CERCLA, EPA is planning tor develop a notification scheme for

releases of radioactive materials not licensed under the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Uranium Mill Tailings

Radiation Control Act of 1978. EPA wishes to minimize

duplicative reporting requirements for releases reported to

other agencies. EPA intends to work with NRC to minimize

duplicative renorting requirements to the extent possible.

EPA has regulatory responsibility for the disposal of hazardous

wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as

amended (RCRA). RCRA, Section 1004(27), specifically exempts

"source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined

in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended." Additionally,

Section 1006(a) of RCRA states that "Nothing in this Act

shall be construed to apply to ... any activity or substance

which is subject to the ... Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

U.S.C. 2011 and following) except to the extent that such

application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the

requirements of such Acts." RCRA does not address the issue

of hazardous chemicals mixed with radioactive materials.

We believe the most positive way for NRC and EPA to establish

jurisdication over these wastes is in a memorandum of

understanding. Such a memorandum would enable both agencies

to avoid excessive costs and duplicative licensing of wastes.

Furthermore, close coordination of EPA's RCRA and NRC's

nuclear waste requirements is necessary in areas such as manifest tracking systems, groundwater protection, technical

requirements, and financial assurances, since some NRC

licensed wastes may be disposed of in EPA permitted facilities.

A memorandum of understanding could serve as a vehicle for

accomplishing this.

Hazardous and toxic chemicals are frequently present in

these nuclear wastes. EPA is particularly concerned that

these hazardous and toxic non-radioactive chemicals and

their health impact are not considered in this proposed rule

and EIS. We consider the rule and EIS deficient in this

regard.' Accordingly, EPA has rated this draft EIS ER-2

(environmental reservations and additional information

requested).

EPA has divided its enclosed comments into major and minor

comments on both the proposed regulations (10 CPR 61) and

the supporting draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Should you have any questions on our comments, please call

Dr. W. Alexander Williams (755-0790) of my staff.

Q 7 5 relNl7 qeyyours,

Paul C. Cahill

Director

Office of Federal Activities

Az'qVw.,

A-152
* , -

.4-.. b I

Major Comments on 10 CFR 61

Detailed Comments

of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

on the

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission's

proposed licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal

of

Radioactive Waste (10 CFR 61)

and draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(NUREG-0782)

1. The 500 millirem per year performance objective for an inadvertent

intruder limit is not appropriate as a regulatory limit. It is not a

regulatory limit which will be monitored against for compliance. Nor

is it a triggering level for an action such'as an accident-related

Protective Action Guide. The 500 millirem per year as applied in Part

61, is the design basis for the waste classification system. Webelieve that if As LowvAs Reasonably Achievable' (ALARA) princfples

were applied, the exposure to the inadvertant intruder would be lower

than 500 millirem per year. This is evident from YRC's own analyses in

the regional case studies, which use realistic assumptions and the

proposed prescriptive requirements.

2. Setting an individual exposure limit at the site boundary is

appropriate. The 25 nillirem per year is in the correct range of

values if, as the NRC indicates, that range includes 1 to 25 rillirem

per year. We are assured by the NRC analyses and their own statements

in the DEIS that they should be able to establish a regulatory limit

compatible with any future EPA standard established using AtARA

principles.

3. It is not appropriate to adopt the contaminant level of 4 rillirem

per year from the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations

as a performance objective for contamination of public drinking water

supplies from LLW disposal. The National Interim Primary Drinking

Water Regulations were established in the context of levels of

contamination, which if-exceeded, would require mitigating action by

the water supply authority. It is arso not appropriate to allowvone

group of radioactive materials users to contaminate a water supply to a

limit which would preclude other releases from nuclear power plants,

hospitals, and other users.- It does not appear from-the NRC analysis

that the LLU disposil requirements are so sensitive to thislim t that

a lower value would be difficult to meet. It should also be noted that

the 10 picocurie per liter value for uranium and thorium is not part of

the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA would not

object to the use of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for protection of groundwater. In forthcoming RCRK land

disposal regulations we expect to use the drinking water regulations as

one aspect of groundwater protection.

4. The NRC's intentions in applying 10 CFR 20 to the operational phase

of LLW disposal is unclear. This arises out of the lack of specificity

in Section 61.43 in view of the requirement of Section 61.41. This

ambiguity is enhanced in the DEIS: see Vol. l,.Section 5.1.3 (page 35);

Section 5.2 (bottom of page 38): Vol. 2, Section 6.3 and Section 6.4

(page 6-13); and Section 6.6 (page 6-18).

A-153
2

It is out understanding, aftqr talking to NRC staff, that the

ottsite exposures during operation of the disposal site (approximately

20 years) should be held to the same limits as the long-term offsite

exposures. To make this clear, it should be stated that Section 61.43

(use of 10 CER 20 limits) applies to occupational exposures only.

Section 61.41 should be broadened to include direct radiation exposure.

5. Section 61.59.b makes it clear that active institutional controls

may not be relied on for more than 100 years following transfer of

control of the disposal site to the owner. This is appropriate for

risk assessment and as a basis for design criteria. However, the

regulations should contain a positive requirement that active

institutional controls should be established for this period, since

this is the design basis of the facility. It is also clear from the

DEIS (Vol. U1, page 4-692 that institutional maintenance of records of

the nature of the hazard is desirable over a longer period of time.

This should also be made a positive requirement of the license transfer

to the site owner, although it is realized that it cannot be depended

upon.

6. Class A segregated wastes will be put in separate trenches from the

stable Class B wastes and will have potentially permeable trench

covers. The active maintenance of such trenches can be expected to be

extensive for many years. NRC should indicate how they plan to develop

long-term stablility of the Class A trenches. Although Class A wastes.

may not present a serious radiological public health hazard, they may,

in the eastern United States, under certain hydrogeological conditions,

cause site instability problems, pose a 'public nuisance', and, more

important, the non-radioactive chemical portion of Class A wastes may

cause significant ground and surface water pollution just as sanitary

landfills may.

7. We urge the NRC to give a high priority to fulfilling its pledge to

conduct performance, safety, and cost/benefit analyses.for other

readily available disposal methods such as hydrofracture, deep well

injection and disposal in a mined cavity. These alternatives could

show lower intruder impacts. Promulgation of 10 CFR 61 should not be

delayed to permit consideration of these alternatives, however.

8. Because it is based solely on the intruder scenario, Table 1

presents some practical incongruities. For example, tritium and some

of the short halflife isotopes would have heat rates that clearly would

be impractical I i.e., self boiling of tritiated water and,

decompostion of the solidifying medium). Also, it does not appear that

some of theso high specific activities exist in any actual waste stream.

3

9. Part 61 shows no consideration of hazards from other chemicals and

toxic substances that may be associated with the waste. This is a

particularly significant omission because some of these materials may

nave essentially infinite lives compared to many of the radioactive

constituents. As a minimum, Part 61 regulations should indicate that

these materials must be handled in a manner compatible with RCRA

requirements.

10. The NRC proposes to develop a manifest tracking system which is,

'somewhat similar- to the EPA'S hazardous waste manifest system. NRC

and EPA should seriously consider coordination and possible integration

of the two systems. At the least, the two systems should be compatible

because of the possible future need to transfer wastes from NRC

regulatory authority to EPA authority, or vice versa (i.e., slightly

rasoaoctive LIM whose primary hazard is from non-radioactive

substances) andofor future interaction between NRC and EPA on the ocean

disposal of LLW.

minor Comments on 10 CFR 61

1. (Sect. 61.52.a;6)L& It states that, 'Waste must be placed and

covered in a manner that limits the gamma radiation at the surface of

the cover to levels that are a few percent above the background levels

of the site.- This-would be difficult-to enforce;in its present form

Gue to the ambiguity of la few percent' and the variability of

background levels.

2. (Sect. 61.55, Table 1): The table should have a title and

appropriate labels for the columns.

3. Hethane, carbon dioxide, and other waste decomposition gases

generated within a shallow disposal trench can build up sufficient

pressures to directly affect the stablility of any engineered trench

covers, particularly if the trench covers are impervious and not

properly vented. Gases can also be generated from the decomposition of

wastes in arid disposal sites, even in the- absence of significant

precipitation.

Gases from sanitary landfills have travelled underground for

hundreds of feet. Gases from Class A trenches, therefore, have the

possibility of affecting the stability of the Class B trenches if

proper precautions are not taken. Gas generation is a long continuing

process wnicn commonly extends for 50 years or more, requiring active

repair and maintenance work on the trenches. Part 61 does not indicate

any consloeratlon of this phenomena.

A-154
- A0 ..

4

4. We recommend that the following, additional or similar requirement

be added to Subpart D, 'a disposal medium with a permeablility

sufficiently low to cause the accumulation of water in the trench

should not be used, especially for Class 3 wastes, unless compensating

measures are taken to prevent or reduce the leaching of radioactive

materials from the waste such as (1) Installini an Impermeable trench

cover to keep water out of the trench or (2) preparing wastes In a

low-leachable form.'

5. Part 61 or its explanatory preamble should contain a clear

statement'tbat,-'The intent of site selection is to insure that

off-site migration or releases-of radioactivity from waste disposed in

a facility shall not exceed specified health and safety limits.

Although-It Is reasonable to expect success of a properly sited

facillty in providing the necessary confinement, this cannot absolutely

be guaranteed in advance of actual use.'

Halor Cotments on DEIS for 10 CTR 61

1. The need for cooperation-between EPA and NRC in the development of

a final 10 CFR 61-is indicated by the Intention of SRC to include

'Specific concentration limits for the disposal of Important naturally

occuring and accelerator produied nuclides' in a planned regulatory

guide on the classification of waste. (See page 42 of MtIS Vol. 1 and

page 7-22 of Vol., 2). Natural radionuclides, particularly radium, are

expected to be included In EPA regulations under the Resource ,

Conservation and Recovery Act. Positive steps should be taken to

ensure compatibility under these two jurisdictions .

2. In the preamble of the regulation (p. 38091, column 2) and In the

DEIS, it Is Indicated that engineered barriers such as concrete covers

are assumed to have an effective life of 500 years. Outside of

comments received at public hearings, there Is no indication of any

basis for such an assumed lifetime. NRC should discuss data which

confirsothe lifetime of engineered barriers and criteria for approving

barrier designs. -

3. Monitoring at LLW disposal facilities will-be sn inportant activity

and will require a regulatory guide from NRC. This shquld be added to

NRC's commitment to prepare regulatory guides in the future. (Vol. 2,

Section 2.2 p. 2-4).- This guide should establish 'action levels'. for

elevated levels of: radioactive materials in the environment to indicate

when increased monitoring and corrective actions should begin.

4. The NRC calls for Class B wastes to be stable for 150 years. Ve

believe that crigeria should be given that will reasonably assure a 150

year waste stability. I

5

5. Actual experience at existing sites has shown that under certain

hydrogeological conditions, such as outlined in Base Case 3, the direct

overflow of contaminated water to land surface has been a very

Important, if not the dominant, pathway. The 'direct to land surface

overflow' pathway also has a very short travel path and does not give

the benefits of delay for decay afforded by the longer travel paths and

slower travel times of the ground-water pathway. The short- and

long-term impacts of the 'overflow to land surface' pathway should be.

evaluated and compared with the ground-vater pathway for Base Case 3

and for all similar test cases. --

6. (Vol..4; Append. MSect. 3) The DEIS should make estimates of

maximum individual and population health risks, projected over time,

for each of the pathways evaluated. As a part of this evaluation, the

integrated activity moving through each pathway and its resultant

population dose should'be presented.

7..(Vol. 2, Sect. 3.8. p. 3-48, and Append. C. p. C-98) ): The doses

for transportation are based on a 1972 USAEC report on the

transportation of LLW from nuclear power plants. We believe that the

quantities of wastes and level of radioactivity in them are considerably higher in actual experience per shipment than was

predicted in the 1972 estimates. 'Therefore, estimated dose levels

should be adjusted accordingly. Also, Table 5.5 and the discussion on p. 5-15 should be adjusted accordingly.

8. The DEIS considers the time value of money in the estimation of the

postoperational (closure and Institutional control) costs but does not

consider the time value for the design and-operational costs. 'The

operational coats which occur in the years 1 through 20 should also be

discounted. Otherwise, combining the operational and postoperational

costs to represent the total disposal costs for each alternative may

result in an incorrect cost ranking of alternatives.

9. The cost estimates for institutional control need to be

reexamined. After the several manipulations involving constant

dollars, inflation and a nominal interest rate are made. It is unclear on what basis the final institutional control costs are stated.

10. The DEIS is deficient throughout in its failure to account for and assess- the-potential environmental impact and health risk from the

non-radioactive chemical, hazardous, and toxic materials-In the LLV.

The contamination of ground and surface waters and risk to Inadvertent

intruders could be significant from non-radioactive materials.

Minor Comments on DEIS for 10 CFR 61

1. 'The short-term impacts of LtU disposal have been underestimated. In the- Summary, in Chapters 3 and 4-of;Volume 2, and in Appendices D and G,- the radionuclides considered are only those-with long half-lives

le

A-155
. : n .: { C

6

or. those occurring in 'significant' quantities in LLW. For short-term

impacts, such as radiation doses delivered during the operational phase

of a waste disposal facility (including occupational, population and

accident doses), the source term should include the presence of

shorter-lived, gaama-emitting radionuclidest

2. The ground-water pathway is not significant for many arid zone

sites. In aid regions, attention should be given to the upward

translocation of radionuclides by plants and animals and by the upward

'wicking' effects of the strong evaporation potential on capillary

vater in the soil. Transport, and possibly erosion, by wind should

also be considered.

3. The EIS does not give any specific distances for separating the

Class A and Class a trencbes. This distance could be significant in

assuring overallesite stability.

4. It is difficult to follow the projections of waste volumes as given

in Tables D.25-D.26, which are based on Tables D.9 and D.11-14. For

example D.9 gives untreated waste volumes by 'region' while Tables

D.25-26 list wastes by 'spectrum'.

5. Carbon-14 from Light Water Reactors (LWR) would more appropriately

be scaled to Co-60. In the LWPR, C-14 is produced both in the fuel and

coolant. Except in cases of gross fuel failure, C-14 in the fuel stays

there. Consequently, C-14 that ends up in LLW originates from

activation in the reactor coolant. Therefore, it would seen more

approporiate to scale C-14 to an activation product such as Co-60.

6. (Vol. 2 p 6-7, last sentence); An explanation or reference

should be given for the assumed release fraction 0.1 of the

radioactivity within the waste packages involved in a fire.

7. (Vol. 2, Chap. 6, Sect. 6.2): Accident probability numbers would

.b epful in placing the accidents and potential consequences in

perspective. Data is available to at least make reasonable probability

estimates.

9. (Append. E, Sect 2.2): Consideration No. 1 should be expanded to

include and other discontinuities in the geologic media which increase

the permeability significantly.' For example, sand lenses or layers

and desiccation cracks, as well as other unexpected features may be

encountered, in addition to those listed.

9..- (Append. E. -Sect. 3.2.2): Texture and mineral composition are

critical parameters for radionuclide retention by a geologic medium.

It would be helpful to plot the composition of the Schwinn Formation on

a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Textural

Classification Chart in addition to the descriptive terminology. of

sandy loam and loamy sand. The advantage of using the USDA chart is

7

that it shows the percent clay, silt and sand fractions of the medium

which are textural parameters correlative with permeability and the

sorption potential of a disposal medium.

10. (Appendix J): Insufficient dita are presented to make reasonable

predictions about the sorption capabilities of the geologic media. For

example, only the percentage of the silt-size fraction was given when

the clay-size fraction of the medium is more important in assessing its

capabilities to retain radionuclides. The Eh and pH are not presented

either.

11. (AppendixJ, Sect 1.1.1): In the first sentence, change underl in to overlain.

10

12. (Append. J, Sect. 1.1.3): The factors that contribute to

Increased permeability should be briefly described in this section.

For example, in glacial tills, this includes sand lenses and

desiccation cracks.

13. (Append. J., Sect. 1.1.9, 1.2.9 and 1.3.9): In a detailed site

evaluation, the following additional information is needed: texture of

the medium described in percentage of sand, silt, and clay-size

fractions; mineral composition and organics described quantatively for

each size fraction and a weighted average for total sample; cation

exchange capacity correlated to clay mineral and organics content; Eh

and pH of medium; chemistry of the groundwater; and naturally

occurring radionuclides in the medium.

14. Executive Order 12291 requires government agencies to use a

10 percent real discount rate in developing their regulatory impact

analyses. The DEIS uses an 'implied' real discount rate of

approximately 1 percent in the cost analyses. We believe the use of 1

percent in the DEIS should be reconciled with the requirements of the

executive order. in doing so, the DEIS should present a sensitivity

analysis of alternative discount rates, possibly using 1, 5 and 10

percent.

15. (Appendix Q): The methodology for calculation of capital,

operational, closure-and institutional costs appears reasonable. What

appears to be lacking is a consistent treatment of the date attached to

each cost. For example, captial costs are presented in 1980 dollars,

operational costs are provided as sums of money appropriate to the 20

year operating life'of-the site but no particular date is attached to

this amount, and closure costs are presented as .1980 costs inflated to

the end of site closure. In order to evaluate disposal costs

appropriately, a consistent tine treatment of money'is needed.

16. The last term in the long equation for postoperational costs on

p. Q-44 should be corrected.

0i

A-156
we i* 

8

17. In the discussion of financial arrangements, the license applicant

is to prepare an estimate of the amount of money reqeired for closure

and long-term care. We urge the use of a very carefzl review process on these cost estimates because past experience has shown that the

licensee, with one exception where the regulator tO:c. an active part,

has traditionally underestimated closure and long-term costs.

18. (Appendix C. pp. C-l2/13): The dilution facto: Q was taken to be

equal to its pumping rate in the intruder well pathway. This dilution

factor should be taken-as the total groundwater flow within the plume

of contamination rather than the well pumping rate.

19. The methodology used to develop trench infiftra:ion should be

presented somewhere In the text or appendices. :he :eference cited In Appendix'G on p. 68, paragraph 2, is insufficien:. -here is no indication that the 'externally produced"-value is ever allowed to vary

within the analysis.

20. A clearer explanation of the basis for the indices used in

calculating the interaction factors in Appendix G is needed.

21. (Append . p. 0-68): The rate' of Infiltratiot was calculated by multiplying by the number of days for which the prec:pitation exceeds

0.01 in/day. This method is very simple but, in our opinion, does not

meet the state of the art for estimating Infiltrattei rates. Our

technical staff is available to discuss other possible methods for

calculating Infiltration.

22. (Vol. 2. p. 5-22): The dose rates through the population well and

surface water pathways for Case 1A (Table 5-6) is calculated to be

approximately 10 times lower than for Case 1 (Table 3-3) simply due to

replacing the backfill material on moderately permeable soil used in

Case I with more permeable soil. This fact does no: agree with current

knowledge of the leaching process; This phenomena wts explained by the

waste-water contact time being longer in Case 1 that in Case IA and a resultant higher rate of leaching. in reality, the pellicular water in

the waste, which contains dissolved radionuclides, will be maintained

in between the intersticei of the waste all of the :ime. Therefore,

any added percolation of gravity water will be =±xed with the

pellicular water during the course of percolation and will be

independent of the true velocity of the water novecent. Therefore, the

rate of radionculide release should change very lit:!e because of

changes in the permeablility of the backfill material.

23. (Vol. 1 p. 19, Table 5.5): The values listed under Body & Zone

need toe explained in a footnote as 'the number of years at which

this Impact level exists.'

9

24. At several points in the DEIS (e.g. Vol. 1, p. 23), the comment is

made that 'the potential hazard quickly drops to about 1000 rillirem

per year to bone at about 500 years following facility closure. The

term 'quickly' does not seem compatible with a 500 year time period.

25. (Vol. 1, p. 20): The statement, 'Maximum annual thyroid doses are in the range of 850 mrem at the intruder and population wells, 270 ncrem at the population well, and 12 arem at the surface water body' is

ambiguous. This leaves in doubt what the dose is at the population

well.

26. (Vol. 1, p. 26. Table S.7 & Vol. 2. p. 4-41. Table 4.19):. Several

of these coats (those with double asterisk) are not comparable with the

others because they are based only on the 10% volume of waste employing

that technique. To make the costs comparable, costs for the other 90%

of the wastes should be figured and a weighted average presented.

27. (Appendix N): EPA's authority under the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for ocean disposal of radioactive

waste should be listed.

28. (Appendix N): EPA's proposed guidance for Occupational Exposures

should be discussed. (Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 15, Friday,

January 23, 1981, page 7836).

29. (Appendix N. p. N-5): EPA's schedule for its Low-Level Waste

Standard is currently under review and may be revised. We will notify

NRC of any such revision.

30. (Appendix N. p. N-19): National Primary Drinking Water .-

Regulations Is incorrect, it should be Interim National Prinary

Drinking Water Regulations.

31. (Appendix C): Tables C-3 through 0-10 are poorly titled and

measurement units are not well identified.

I 0

A-157
;::

Docketed Comment Number: 51

Commenter: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Response(s): Item 1 - As noted in the response to Item 3, Comment 11, the staff

considered toxic and hazardous chemicals to the extent practicable in developing

the requirements of 10.CFR 61. However, the primary focus of the rule is the

safe land disposal of radioactive wastes.

The staff recognizes that toxic and hazardous chemicals may be present in radioactive wastes and has incorporated provisions in the rule which reflect this

fact. (These provisions are cited in Item 3, Comment 11 and are not repeated

here.) We believe that the rule in Its current form provides an adequate level

of protection with respect to those substances which may be associated with

LLW and should not cause EPA to have any further reservations about the rule

or its supportive EIS in this regard. The Commission intends to continue

working closely with EPA on this matter.

Item 2 - The staff has modified the language of 561.41 and 61.43 to

clarify the purpose of applying 10 CFR 20 to the operational phase of LLW

disposal and to remove any ambiguity between these two sections of the rule.

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 5 61.41. The specific sections mentioned in EPA's comments have been changed

to reflect this.

Item 3 - NRC does not intend to specify concentration limits for

naturally occurring and accelerator-produced nuclides in Part 61. As EPA notes,

NRC does not have statutory authority over such materials. In response to

comments, however, and to provide for safe disposal of certain long-lived

naturally occurring and accelerator-produced materials by the Agreement State

(which do regulate such materials), NRC plans, as a minimum, to develop guidelines for disposal of Ra-226, This information will be made available to EPA

to help ensure compatibility.

Item 4 - Based on the analyses carried out in the DEIS, exposures to

a potential inadvertent intruder from almost all waste streams are in the range

of a few millirem after a few hundred years. NRC thus selected 500 years as a

general upper bound upon which reliance on any particular intruder barrier would

be allowed. As such, 500 years serves as a design objective. NRC staff has

no specific engineering data on the expected maximum lifetimes of various

intruder barriers which might be used but believes that depth of cover and concrete engineered structures should be capable of providing protection for that

length of time. Specif'c guidance which should be considered by an applicant

relating to intruder barriers will be set out in a technical position paper

prepared by the staff on facility design and operation.

Item 5 - NRC's future regulatory guides will include a guide on

environmental monitoring of LLW disposal facilities. With respect to the

establishment of "action levels" for elevated concentrations of radioactive

material in the environment, the staff feels that this is a site-specific subject and will require applicants to specify such levels as a part of the license

application. These levels will be reviewed and acted upon by the staff for

each proposed LLW disposal facility.

Item 6 - NRC agrees and recognizes the need for additional guidance

regarding waste form stability. In this respect, NRC is preparing a technical

position on waste form which will provide guidance, criteria and acceptable

tests to demonstrate waste stability.

Item 7 - An estimate of the potential impacts from leachate overflow

to the land surface from disposal cells has been included in the FEIS.

Item 8 - In the draft EIS, NRC expressed radiological impacts associated with operation of a near-surface disposal facility in terms of responses

to individuals and populations. NRC did not covert or express these exposures

in terism of risk because of the difficulty of accurately assessing risks of

exposures to future populations and the small numbers of individuals who could

receive a potential exposure. The staff reconsidered its decision on this issue,

but has not changed its position. Expressing exposures in terms of risk would

A-158
.: .:". 1.

involve new work and time which is not warranted given the urgent need for

Part 61 and the limited additional information which would be provided. In

the EIS, NRC compared calculated doses on a common basis to existing standards

which are expressed in terms of dose equivalent. NRC has, however, attempted

to express the overall impacts of Part 61 in the FEIS in a clearer manner such

that comparison of alternatives and unmitigated impacts ire easier to discern

and understand.

In addition, in response to this comment and to place in perspective the potential risk associated with the doses calculated in this FEIS, NRC has included

a section in the summary which provides dose response relationships as set forth

in International Commission on Radiation Protection Publication 26. The reader

can use these to estimate the level of risk associated with doses calculated

for the various alternatives.

Item 9 - NRC staff believes that the assumptions used in approximating transportation exposures are adequate for the purposes of the EIS. The

EIS is not a generic environmental impact assessment of low-level waste transportation and disposal.: Rather' it is a decision document with which to consider alternatives for establishment of performance objectives and technical

criteria in the Part 61 rule. As part of considering alternatives, a number

of costs, radiological impacts, and other impact measures associated with vartous disposal technology cases were calculated. Transportation impacts were

not the principal impact measures used to arrive at decisions but were included

for completeness. Issues related to transportation safety are beyond the scope

of the EIS.

The document referenced by the commenter (Reference 19) was used to estimate

an average exposure per shipment mile. This was multiplied by the number of

shipments (which is a function of waste volume and activity) and by the average

distance to the reference disposal facility. This was used to obtain exposure

estimates which could be compared from one disposal technology alternative to

the next. Thus- the absolute values of the transportation exposures calculated

are not as important as the comparison between alternatives. This Is believed

to be in keeping with the scope of the Part 61 rule and EIS. NRC staff members

are aware of more sophisticated calculational methodologies to calculate exposures due to waste transportation (References 20 and 21), but believe that such

methodologies are more appropriate for rulemaking actions on transportation

safety than for rulemaking actions on low level waste disposal. In any case,

no matter what the levels of radioactivity in different forms of waste, the

established DOT radiation limits at vehicle surfaces would still apply. Wastes

having higher surface radiation levels require more shielding.

In addition, a more recent environmental statement (Reference 20) was examined.

This statement, which calculated transportation impacts in a much more sophisticated manner than Reference 19, estimated a total dose (except doses from stopovers, which as in the Part 61 EIS are considered separately) to the public of

520 person-rems from shipment of radioactive material in 1975. Out of a total

of 2.19 million packages shipped, only about 7% contained radioactive waste.

Assuming 40 waste packages per shipment and an average shipment distance of

400 miles, one can estimate an average exposure of .0008 person-millirem/shipment

mile, which is a factor of about 10 less than that assumed for the DEIS. Thus,

NRC staff believe that the calculated transportation exposures have been handled

In an acceptable manner.

Item 10 - For the FEIS, disposal costs have been recalculated using

a time value of money, approach on capital and operational costs.

Item 11 - In the DEIS, three levels of site maintenance during the

institutional control period (and corresponding costs) were examined: high,

medium and low. The institutional control costs were presented as the amount

of money that would have to be collected as a surcharge on received waste over

the operating life of the site to pay for a given level of maintenance. Money

collected from the surcharge is assumed to be placed into an interest-bearing

sinking fund. The average interest rate and inflation rate assumed over the

operating life of the site and Institutional control period were 10% and 9X%

respectively.

Based upon revised estimates of monitoring, personnel and other costs as discussed in Appendix C of this volume, revised institutional control costs have

been calculated for theFEIS.

A-159
Item 12 - The staff has responded to this comment previously. The

reader is referred to Item 1 above and Item 3, Comment 11.

Item 13 - NRC staff recognizes that the short-term impacts may have

been underestimated since only a few short half-lived nuclides were considered.

NRC staff does not believe this is significant, however, since short term actions

taken to protect against exposure to the longer half-lived nuclides considered

in the analyses should also be adequate to protect against exposure to the

shorter half-lived nuclides that would also be present in the waste.

Item 14 - As stated in the Branch Technical Position on Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization (Reference 22), the staff considers

the contact of soil moisture with the waste containers and waste to be the major

mechanism for potential release of radionuclides. With respect to arid sites,

the staff considers the movement of soil moisture and vapor upward by evaporation

potential or by plant uptake to be the most significant pathway for migration

of radionuclides into the general environment.

Item 15 - The staff agrees that the distance between Class A and

Class B trenches could be significant in assuring overall site stability. However, the staff feels that site-specific characteristics must govern the determination of an appropriate distance between these types of waste trenches.

For this reason, the EIS does not contain a specific figure for separation.

Item 16 - The projections of waste volumes are not based on

Tables 0.11-14. It is possible, however, that NRC was insufficiently clear in

Appendix 0 of the DEIS regarding waste volume projections.

Table D-9 presents volumes projected to the year 2000 of 36 waste streams in

each of the 4 regions considered in the EIS. The volumes are shown "untreated,"

which means as-generated volumes prior to further treatment or packaging for

shipment. For example, volumes for PWR and BWR concentrated liquids are given

as-generated prior to solidification. The volumes which will be shipped, however, are a function of the waste spectrum considered. A "waste spectrum' is

a term used to indicate the total volume and properties of the 36 waste streams

after they have been processed by a set of selected waste treatment options.

Each spectrum corresponds to a general level of waste performance in terms of

waste stability, resistance to wind mobilization, resistance to leaching, and

physical, chemical, and.radiological properties. The spectra differ significantly in waste volumes, radioactive concentrations, and performance.

To obtain the volumes shipped in a given region, one would multiply the volume

of each waste stream by factors which correspond to any changes in volume of

the stream associated with processing according to a given spectra. These

factors, termed volume increase factors (VIF) and volume reduction factors (VIR),

are given for each of the four spectra in Table D.21. For example, the volume

of PWR concentrated liquids projected to be generated in region 1 according to

the level of processing associated with waste spectrum 2 is as follows:

Volume = 4.87 E+4 * VIF/VIR

= 4.87 E+4 * 1.82/6.0 = 1.48 E+4m3

Table D.25 presents the volumes by waste spectra (that is, as multiplied and

divided by the appropriate VIF and VIR, respectively) summed over all four

regions. That is, this table presents the projected total to the year 2000 of

the country's waste as a function of waste spectra.

Table D.26 then presents the above volumes normalized to one million M3 of waste

for waste spectrum 1. The volumes in Table D.26 represent a "reference" waste

distribution and were used for the generic calculations performed in Chapters 4-6

of Volume 2 of the DEIS. The regional calculations performed in Chapter 10 of

Volume 2 of the DEIS were performed using the volumes presented in Table D.9

as modified by the appropriate VIF and VIR presented in Table D.21.

Item 17 - NRC staff believe that C-14 can be scaled to either an

activation product or to a fission product is somewhat arbitrary. Like any

other fission product, C-14 can escape fuel rods and enter the reactor coolant

through imperfections in the fuel rods. Such imperfections can range from tiny

pinholes to gross fuel failure. Thus, NRC staff believe that the current

scaling is sufficient for the FEIS. Ongoing studies by NRC in which samples

of reactor process wastes are being analyzed for a number of trace radionuclides

A-160
(including C-14, I-129. and Tc-99) should help provide a more accurate estimate

of C-14 levels. Additional consideration will be given at that time to the

use of scaling factors and to selection of appropriate scaling isotopes.

Item 18 - The basis for the assumed release fractions is presented

in Appendix G of the DEIS and Reference 23.

Item 19 - EPA staff were contacted regarding the intent of this comment, particularly as regards their comment on the availability of data. Their

intent was that NRC staff should review several years of accident reports at

nuclear power stations and other licensees and, based upon any available information on accidents involving waste management activities, to arrive at accident

probabilities which could be applied to low-level waste disposal facilities.

It is possible that an assessment of accident probabilities, assuming that such

Information is available. could have some use as supplemental information.

However, NRC staff question whether such data can be applied in a straightforward manner to low-level waste disposal facilities. NRC staff does not

believe, however, that it would be appropriate or desirable to delay preparation of the final EIS and rule until such data could be assembled and manipulated. NRC staff believe that even assuming that accident probabilities could

be acquired, the overall conclusions of Chapter 6 of the DEIS are not likely

to change. These conclusions were basically that actions taken to reduce potential inadvertent intruder exposures, reduce long-term environmental releases,

and Improve long-term site stability and reduce institutional control costs

would also tend to improve safety during site operations.

Item 20 - The consideration referred to by the commenter is one of

general applicability,-but only one of many which the staff has recommended

for siting of new disposal facilities. The technical requirements for site

suitability in Part 61 have been elaborated upon in a Branch Technical Position

on Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization (Reference 22). The staff's

guidance within this paper includes the following:

... the hydrogeologic 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."

Item 21 - The descriptive information provided in Appendix E of the

DEIS is for a reference near-surface disposal facility located on a hypothetical site. This information is intended to provide a general picture of- various

site environmental conditions in sufficient detail to approximate base case

costs and impacts at the reference facility. The description of site soils

from the Schwinn formation' is considered to be sufficiently detailed'for a lay

person to comprehend site'conditions, and the staff feels that addition of the

USDA chart would add little in the way of new information to Appendix E of the

DEIS.

Item 22 - For each of the hypothetical sites described in Appendix J

of the DEIS, average cation exchange capacity at the subsurface media have been

provided as one estimate 'of the sorption capabilities of the geologic medium.

Assuming that these were measured volumes, the cation exchange capability values

are more useful than percentage of silt or clay in estimating sorption capabilities. Further, the reported values for silt content represent the entire fraction passing the 200 sieve (i.e., silt and clay sizes).

Item 23 - This change has been made and is included in Appendix E

Errata, in this volume.'

Item 24 - As noted earlier in a comment on Appendix E of the DEIS,

the descriptions in Appendix J of the DEIS are not intended to be all-inclusive.

Consequently, although the commenter has identified some information that Is

not included in Section 1.1.3 of Appendix J, the staff does not feel that this

level of detail is necessary or appropriate to the appendix material.

Item 25 - As noted above, the descriptions in Appendix J of the DEIS

are not intended to be all-inclusive. The Branch Technical Position on Site

Suitability. Selection and Characterization (Reference 22) discusses the itnormational needs projected by the staff for preparing a detailed site evaluation.

These needs may be more sharply focused when a specific site proposal is submitted. However, no EIS text changes are considered by the staff to be necessary

with respect to this comment.

A-161
4 I. ; ,

Item 26 - The commenter is not quite correct in his comment. In order

to assess the long term costs for institutional control, NRC assumed that funds

would be collected as a surcharge on waste received at a disposal facility and

placed into an interest-bearing sinking fund. In the calculations, a 10% interest

rate was assumed. (States are often restricted by law regarding the types of

securities which may be invested in; securities offering very high interest

rates may not be allowed.) Using this interest rate, and an assumed average

inflation rate of 9%, a real interest rate of about 1X is obtained. This real

interest rate is not the same thing as the discount rate.

Regarding Executive Order No. 12291 (Reference 24), it is not clear that the

proposed Part 61 constitutes a major rule as defined in the order and, therefore, it is not clear that Part 61 falls under the scope of the order. In

addition, the Commission is currently considering steps to be followed to

generally implement the order. Until a decision is reached, the Cominission

has adopted an interim procedure of following criteria developed from Executive

Order No. 12044 (Reference 25). As part of the analysis conducted for the FEIS,

however, the staff has reviewed Executive Order No. 12291, as well as the draft

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Interim Regulatory Impact Analysis Guidance

on implementing Executive Order No. 12291 (Reference 26).

The OMB guidance states that an annual discount rate of 10% should be used.

The guidance also states that where it appears desirable, other discount rates

also may be used to test the sensitivity of the results.

The NRC staff believe that a 10 percent discount rate is unrealistically low

when applied to siting and operating a low-level waste disposal facility.

Support for this belief is provided by comments on the draft EIS from the

operator of an existing disposal facility. (See commenter 44.) This comnenter's

position is that operation of a disposal facility is a high risk venture and

that the discount rate should reflect this risk. Subsequent input from this

comenter indicates their position that a 10% discount rate is unrealistically

low. A considerably higher rate would be used by the coanenter for siting and

operating an actual low-level waste disposal facility (Reference 27).

A comparison between disposal costs associated with a number of different discount rates is, however, included in Appendix C to the final EIS.

Item 27 - See the response to item 10 above.

Item 28 - As the commenter has noted, the equation on page Q-44,

Appendix Q of the DEIS contains two typographical errors. The last term in

the equation should be the same as the equation for LTC on p. Q-42. That is:

iTToPV8 0 (1+j)

Vw[(l-i)I~o-I](l1+o TC

Item 29 - The staff agrees. The Commission will review carefully

all aspects of a license application for waste disposal under 10 CFR 61,

including the estimates of closure and long-term care funds.

Item 30 - There is no discussion of a dilution factor or a pumping

rate on the indicated pages. For the intruder well, the dilution volume is a

function of site specific conditions and is given as the total volume of water

percolating through the disposal units under natural conditions. The well

pumping rate (7700 m3

/yr) was taken as a lower bound as it is about the minimum

required for a well to be considered useful. This approach gives reasonable

yet conservative results.

Item 31 - The discussion on p. 68 of Appendix G of the DEIS and in

the reference cited is believed to be sufficient. The variation of the percolation rate in the analyses is summarized on the p. 69 of the appendix.

Item 32 - Additional information is presented in Reference 23.

Item 33 - NRC staff believe that more sophisticated methods of calculating infiltration rates are more appropriate for an analysis of a specific

site where actual site data may be acquired and used. Given the generic, non

site-specific nature of the EIS analysis, the approach taken by NRC is believed

A-162
to be sufficient for the purpose of rulemaking. A complex model cannot cormpensate for a lack of site specific data and is furthermore of less practicality

when considering a large number of alternatives.

Item 34 - The Case 1A reduction in concentration of approximately 10

times that calculated for Case 1 results from the use of a clean, permeable

sand backfill. This sand backfill reduces concentrations by three mechanisms

First, the trench cap is more stable due to less consolidation and settlement

in the filled trenches. Second, the greater porosity of the sand backfill as

compared with the surrounding site soil will result in some reduction of water

entering the backfill due to the wick effect. And third, the greater posority

will result in less pellicular water (i.e., less film in contact with and

leaching the wastes) than a-finer textured backfill as used in Case 1. This

then leads to less pellicular water being flushed off by infiltrating water.

Item 35 - The requested footnote is already contained in Table S.5,

Appendix S of the DEIS.

Item 36 - The cotmenter's point is well taken and it is noted in

Appendix E. Errata, in this volume..:

Item 37 - The sentence contains a typographical error. It should

read, "Maximum thyroid doses are in the range of 850 mrem at the intruder and

boundary wells..." This change has been made in Appendix E, Errata, in this

volume.

Item 38 - This comment has been noted by the staff.

Item 39 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority

under the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532)

for regulation and permitting of ocean disposal activities. EPA is developing

a regulatory program and permitting jystem for resumption of ocean disposal of -

radioactive wastes. NRC did not include a specific reference to this authority

in Appendix N of the DEIS since the scope of the EIS was limited to land disposal. The staff has made no change to the HEIS as a result of this comment.

Item 40 - Appendix N of the DEIS reviews a number of proposed and

promulgated regulations and guidance applicable to LLW disposal. Since EPA's

Proposed Guidance for Occupational Exposures was of more general applicability.

NRC staff did not specifically indicate it in Appendix N.

Item 41 - NRC will maintain close coordination with EPA on the

development of these standards.

Item 42 - This comment has been noted and included in Appendix E,

Errata, in this volume.

Item 43 - This comment has been noted by the staff.

A-163
References:

1. General Research Corporation, "Study of Chemical Toxicity of Low-Level

Wastes," NUREG/CR-1793, November 1980.

2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "Proceedings of the Third Annual Information Meeting, DOE Low-Level Waste Management Program, November 4-6, 1981,

New Orleans, LA," ORNL/NFW-81/34, December 1981.

3. Wild, R., "Data Base for Radioactive Waste Management, 3 volumes,

NUREG/CR-1759, Dames and Moore, Inc. for U.S. NRC, November 1981.

4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation

of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for

the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,"

Revision 1, October 1977.

5. Hoenes, G. R., J. K. Soldat, "Age-Specific Radiation Dose Commitment

Factors for a One-Year Chronic Intake," NUREG-0172, Battelle Pacific

Northwest Labratories for U.S. NRC, November 1977.

6. Healy, J. W., and J. C. Rodgers, "Limits for the Department of Energy

Transuranic Wastes," Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, LA-UR-79-100,

January 1979.

7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development.

Draft Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating

Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I." March 1976.

8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development,

"Calculational Models for Estimating Radiation Doses to Man from Airborne

Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations,"

Task RH 802-4, For Comment, May 1979.

A-164
9. Moore, R. E., et. al. "AIRDOS-EPA: A Computerized Methodology for

Estimating Environmental Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne

Releases of Radionuclides," EPA 520/1-79-009, December 1979.,-

10. Greenhouse, N. A., and-E. T. Lessard, "A Dosimetric Analysis of Pathways

to Man From the Environmental Release of Low Level Radioactive Wastes,"

Prepared for Dames and Moore by Occupational and Environmental Health

Analysts, Inc., 1980.

; 11. Ng, Y. C., et. al., "Transfer Coefficients for the Prediction of the Dose

to Man via the Forage-Cow-Milk Pathway from Radionuclides Released to the

Biosphere." University of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

Report No.-UCRL-51939.

12. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "Modeling and Low-Level Waste Management:

An Interagency Workshop," Oak Ridge-National Laboratory, June 1981.

13. Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., "Preliminary Site Stabilization and Closure

Plan for the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility,"

,.Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., May 1980.

14. Adam, J., V. Rogers, "A Classification System for Radioactive Waste

Disposal--What Waste Goes Where?," NUREG-0456, Ford, Bacon and Davis,

Utah for USNRC, June 1978.

15. ,Rogers, V., "A Radioactive Waste Disposal Classification System,"

NUREG/CR-1005, Ford, Bacon and Davis, Utah for USNRC, September 1979.

16. Leddicotte, G. W., et. al., "Suggested Quantity and Concentration Limits

to be Applied to Key Isotopes in Shallow Land Burial," Management of

Low-Level Radioactive-Waste, Volume 2, Pergamon Press, New York, 1979.

17. U.S. Department of Energy, "Technology for Commercial Radioactive Waste

Management," DOE/ET-D028, May 1979.

-A-165
18. Phillips, J., et. al., "A Waste: Inventory Report for Reactor and FuelFabrication Facility Wastes," ONWI-20, NUS corporation for US DOE,

March 1979.

19. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238,

December 1972.

20. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Statement on the

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170,

December 1977.

21. Finely, N. C., et al., Transportation of Radionuclides in Urban Environs:

Draft Environmental Assessment, NUREG/CR-0743, July 1980.

22. Siefken, D., et al., Site Suitability, Selection, & Characterization,

Branch Technical Position--Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, NUREG-0902,

April 1982.

23. Oztunali, 0. I., et al., Data Base for Radioactive Waste Management:

Vol. 3, Impact Analyses Methodology Report, NUREG/CR-1759, November 1981.

24. Executive Order 12291, Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 33, February 19,

1981.

25. Executive Order 12044, Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 53, March 24, 1978.

26. Office of Management and Budget, Draft Interim Regulatory Impact Analysis Guidance for Implementing Executive Order 12291, June 5, 1981.

27. May 7, 1982 telephone conversation between Leslie Poppe, Corporate Health

Physicist, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., and G. W. Roles, U.S. NRC.

A-166
APPENDIX B

STAFF ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 10 CFR PART 61

RULEMAKING
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED

10 CFR PART 61

On July 24, 1981 proposed 10 CFR Part 61 was published in the Federal Register

(46 FR 38081). Proposed Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste," contains requirements for'disposal of'low-level wastes.

'The original comment period expired October 22, 1981'but was extended to

tJanuary 14, 1982 (46 FR 51776) to coincide with the comment period'for the

supporting draft environmental impact statement (NUREG-0782); 'The following

.commenters-responded and copies of the original comment letters are included

in-this appendix following-the staff's analysis of the issues raised therein:

Docket No. Commenter ' Page

1. Homestake Mining Company . .................................... B-185

2. Robert Reynek (?) ............................................ B-185

13. '3~~~~.'MavnLws................................................18 Marvin Lewis.B-186

'4. New Mexico-Secretary for Health & Environment ................ B-186

'5. Advance Medical &'Research Center,.Inc. ................... . . B-187

6.' The Procter & Gamble Company ................. B-188

'7. Bethlehem Steel Corporation ............................ 8-.' B189

8. University of California, LA.- ............................. B-190

9. Environmental Law Project ......................... ..... :. B-191

10. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ...................... .B-193

11. Environmental Protection Agency ........................ B-195

12. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Boulder.--195

-13. Catherine Quigg ................ - B-196

14.' Nevada, Department of Human Resources ............................. B-200

15.; Exxon Nuclear Co. Inc. ......................................... B-201

16. PA, Department of Environmental Resources .................... -B-202

17. Dow Chemical ............... B-204

18;. Isham, Lincoln & Beale for Commonwealth Edison.' B-210

19.' Department of the Environment, London ................ 8......... B-211

_20. The Surety Association of America.-.. B-220

21.: Joseph H. White III .................... ';.'.'.- B-221

22. Kerr-McGee Corp. ................. '8' B-222

'23. D. M. Mathews .................... B-222

24. Sargent & Lundy .............................. B-223

'25.- United Technologies/Packard ..................... B- -224

26. NASA- JFK Space Center ....................... I........ B-226

27. Northern Illinois University ................... -226

28. Department of Energy ........... .............................. B-227

'29.- Nuclear Diagnostic Laboratories ................................. B-228

30. University of -NC .. '........... B-229

31.` Florida Power & Light Company .................. .8............... B-229

32. Wisconsin Electric Power Company. B-231

33.' Alabama Power ............... ... B-232

Law EngineeringTesting'Company '34. .............. ....... : B-233

35. Commonwealth Edison '....... B-234

36. Union of Concerned Scientists ............... B-236

37. Sierra Club, Radioactive Waste Campaign ...................... B-238

B-i
38. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ........................ B-242

39. Union Carbide Corp/Medical Products Division ................ B-243

40. Pathfinder Mines Corp. ......... 8.............B-245

41. Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. ........ 8.............B-246

42. Themis Klotz . ............................................... B-247

43. Los Alamos National Laboratory/Safeguards Systems Group ..... B-249

44. Bechtel National, Inc. ......... 8.............B-250

45. New Mexico-Secretary for Health & Environment (See 4 also).. B-253

46. Joel Jaffer ................................................. B-254

47. Arizona State Clearinghouse (multiple state agencies) ....... B-254

48. Duke Power Company .......................................... B-257

49. Howard University ............................................ B-259

50. Alfonso Scarpa ............................................... I B-259

51. OntarioHydro ............................................... B-260

52. Arkansas Power & Light ....................................... B-261

53. American College of Nuclear Physicians ...................... B-262

54. The National Association of Insurance Brokers, Inc. .... .... B-263

55. Kentucky Special Advisory Committee on Nuclear Issues ...... B-264

56. Breeder Reactor Corporation .................................. B-265

57. R/A Services, Inc. ............ 8.............

B-265

58. Mr. & Mrs. D. W. Willoughby (misdocketed and cancelled) ..... B-266

59. Mr. & Mrs. M. E. Vega (misdocketed and cancelled) ........... B-266

60. Mr. & Mrs. J. Johnson (misdocketed and cancelled) ......... 8.:. B-266

61. Joette Lorion (misdocketed and cancelled) ................... B-266

62. Harry Lawroski .............................................. B-266

63. Department of the Army ...................................... B-267

64. Zelia M. Jensen ........................... ............. ," 8; B-267

65. Department of Planning and Economic Development, Hawaii ..... B-268

66. Union Oil Company of California ............................. B-268

67. Stock Equipment Company ........... .......................... B-272

68. Argonne National Laboratory ................................. B-274

69. SD State Planning Bureau .................................... B-278

70. Georgia Institute of Technology ............................. B-279

71. Louise Gorenflo ............................................... B-281

72. Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Norsworthy (misdocketed and

cancelled) ................................................. B-283

73. Oswald U. Anders ............................................ B-283

74. Yakima Indian Nation ........................................ B-285

75. University of Texas Medical Branch .......................... B-286

76. Paul F. Hadala & Don C. Banks ............................... B-287

77. Georgia Yuan ................................................ B-288

78. University of Arizona .......................... 8; B-298

79. SC Dept of Health and Environmental Control ................. B-298

80. Birmingham Audubon Society ........................... ... B-300

81. Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group ...................... B-302

82. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp. ........ 8.............B-311

83. Dow Chemical (see 17 also) ................................. B-313

84. Middle South Services, Inc. ........ 8.............B-317

85. Northeast Utilities ......................................... B-319

86. Nuclear Monitoring Systems & Management Corporation ......... .8-323

87. American Nuclear Society ..................................... B-323

88. Valore, et al. for Township of Lower Alloways Creek ......... B-330

89. General Electric ............................................ B-333

90. Amy S. Hubbard .............................................. B-337

91. Florida Power Corp. ........... 8.............B-338

B-ii
92. Power Authority of the State of New York .................... B-339

93. State of California ......................................... B-340

94. Arkansas Power and Light Company (see 52 also) .............. B-349

95. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. .......................... B-350

96. Health Physics Society ......... ............................. B-351

97. Don't Waste:Washington Legal Defense Foundation ..... ....... B-354

98. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (see 32 also) ..... ........ B-356

99. P. Skinner for Attorney General of N.Y .. .................... B-357

100. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.B-364

101. U.S. Ecology ........... .. 8..............

B-368

102. Nuclear Engineering Division/American Institute of Chemical

Engineers ........................................... ' B-371

103. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. ' B-374

104. P. Ziemer for EG&G Idaho,'Inc. Program Review Committee ...... B-377

105. U. of Texas System Cancer Center .............................. B-378

106. Carolina Power & Light Company ................................. B-380

107. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. B-382

108. Nuclear Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc. (see 29 also) .......... B-388

109. North Carolina Radiation Protection CommissionB.-390

110. New England Nuclear ......................................... B-392

111. Colorado Department of Health .............................. '8. B-400

112. State of Washington. ..................... B-400

113. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (see 107 also). B-402

114. U.S. Department of the Interior ............................. ., 8r B-404

115. Kerr McGee Corporation (see 22 also) ......................... B-~406

116.' Tennessee Valley-Authority ................................... B-421

117. Texas Department of Health: ..................................... B-423

118. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ......... B-424

119. U.S. Department of Energy (see 28 also) ' . ..... B-425

120. Argonne National Laboratory (see 68 also) ............. B-435

121. Argonne NationalLaboratory (see 68 and 120 also) ........... B-436

122. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (see 11 also) .......... B-438

123. General Research Corporation .................................B-444 8. 

124. Werner and Pfleiderer Corporation (see 82 also) ......... B-446

125. Valore, et al. for Township of Lower Alloways Creek

(see 88a a o ) .............................................. B-447

B-iii
Statistical Analysis of Commenters on

Part 61 .

Type of Commenter/Commenters/Docket Number

1. States

New Mexico (4) & (45)

Nevada (14)

PA (16)

Ohio EPA.(38)

Arizona (47)

KY Legislative Research

Comm (55)

Hawaii (65)

SD (69)

2. Utilities

Florida Power & Light (31)

Wisc Electric (32) & (98)

Alabama Power (33)

Commonwealth Edison (35)

Duke Power (48)

Ontario Hydro (51)

SC (79).

California (93)

Power Authority of NY (92)

Attorney General of NY (99)

Conf of Radiation Control

Program Directors (103)

NC (109)

Colorado (111)

Washington (112)

Texas (117)

Arkansas Power & Light (52) & (94)

Utility NWMG (81)

Middle South Services (84)

NE Utilities (85)

Florida Power (91)

Carolina Power & Light (106)

Tennesse Valley Authority (116)

3. Industry

Homestake Mining (1)

Proctor & Gamble (6)

Bethlehem Steel (7)

Exxon (15)

Dow (17) & (83)

Kerr-McGee (22) & (115)

Packard (25)

Union Carbide (39)

Pathfinder Mines (40)

Breeder Reactor Corp. (56)

R/A Services Inc. (57)

Union Oil of California (66)

Stock Equipment (67)

Werner & Pfleiderer (82), (124)

Nuclear Monitoring System (86)

General Electric (89)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

NEN (110)

General Research Corporation (123)

B-iv
4. Individuals

Reynek (2)

Lewis (3)

Quigg (13)

White (21)

Mathews (23)

Klotz (42)

Jaffer (46)

Scarpa (50)

Lowroski (62)

'Jensen (64)

Gore'nflo (71)'

Anders '(73) ',

Hadala & Banks (76)

Yuan (77)

Hubbard (90)

5. Federal Agencies/Labs

EPA (11), (122)

NOAA Boulder (12)

NASA (26)

DOE (28), (119)

Los Alamos (43)

Dept. of Army (63)

Argonne (68), (120),

iEG & G CommitteeJ(104)

'U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

(121)

6. Medical

Advanced Medical & Research Center (5)

American College of Nuclear Physicians (53)

U of Texas Medical Branch (75)

U of Texas Cancer Center (105)

7. University

U of California (8)

Northern Ill (27)

U of NC (30)

Howard (49)

GA Tech (70)

U of Ariz (78)

8. Brokers/Disposal firms

Nuclear Dignostic Labs (29) & (108)

Chem-Nuclear (41)

US Ecology (101)

9. Legal groups

Environmental Law Project (9)

Commonwealth Edison legal group (18)

10. Surety

Surety Assn of America (20)

Nat'l Assn of Insurance Brokers,

11. Engineering firms

Sargent & Lundy (24)

Law Engineering (34)

Bechtel (44)

Stone & Webster (95)

12. Public interest groups

Concerned Scientists (36)

Sierra Club (37)

Birmingham Audubon (80)

Don't Waste Washington (97)

Inc. (54)

B-v
13. Professional organizations

American Nuclear Society (87)

Health Physics Society (96)

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (102)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107) & (113)

14. Others

ACRS (10)

Dept of the Environment, London (19)

Yakima Indians (74)

Township of Lower Alloways Creek (88), (125)

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (118)

B-vi
INDEX OF ISSUES

.'The analysis of the individual issues'raised by the commenters is structured,

'to the extent practical, according'to'the part of the rule being addressed by

the'commenter. The issue numbers are assigned based on the part of the rule

''being addressed, e.g., issues addressin'g Subpart A, General Provisions, are

numbered A-1, A-2, etc. The issue numbers are indicated on the annotated

set of comments following the discussion of issues.

Issue Number Issue Page

Subpart A

A-1 Scope and applicability of the rule B-1

A-2 Agreement State compatibility B-5

A-3 Commencement of construction - B-6

A-4 Commission authority to regulate -B-7

A-5 Pre-emption of State laws B-8

A-6 Official interpretations of Part 61 B-8

A-7 Exemptions to'the rule B-9

A-8 Other than near-surface disposal methods B-9

Subpart B

B-1 Contents of application; meaning of "demonstrate"

compliance B-12

B-2 Groundwater as major pathway 'B-15

B-3 Time limits on licensing process B-16

B-4 License conditions and safety-related changes B-17

B-5 License renewals B-19

B-6 Closure procedure or burden B-21

B-7 Length of post closure observation and maintenance:

period B-22

B-8 License transfer B 8-23

B-9 Hearings B-26

B-10 Post-operational monitoring B-27

B-il License each disposal unit B-28

B-12 Signing application under oath B-29

B-13 Number of copies'bf application and EIS - B-30

Subpart C

C-1 Systems analysis/performance objectives versus

prescriptive requirements ''B-31

C-2 Need for EPA 'standard B-33

C-3 Performance 'objective for'envirohmental

protection B-34

C-4 Performance objective for intruder protection B-38

: B-vii
C-5 Protection of individuals during operations;

ALARA for the performance objectives B-43

C-6 Stability of the disposal site after closure B-44

C-7 Need for additional performance objectives B-46

Subpart D: §61.50 Disposal Site Suitability for Near-Surface Disposal B-47

0-50-1 Complexity siting requirement B-47

0-50-2 Ground water requirement B-47

D-50-3 Surface water drainage and flooding B-51

0-50-4 Colocation with hazardous waste disposal facilities

or other nuclear facilities B-53

D-50-5 Tectonics B-54

D-50-6 Demographic requirements B-55

D-50-7 Transportation siting requirement B-56

D-50-8 Properties of site soils B-56

D-50-9 Time spans for siting and design requirements B-57

Subpart D: §61.51 Disposal site design for land disposal B-59

D-51-1 Site design B-59

D-51-2 Design life of markers and monument B-60

D-51-3 Alternatives for Class A or Classes A and B B-60

D-51-4 Intruder barrier engineering B-61

Subpart 0: §61.52 Land disposal facility operation and disposal

site closure B-62

D-52-1 Segregation of wastes B-62

0-52-2 Factors in stability of the site B-64

D-52-3 Basis for 100 foot buffer zone,, B-67

0-52-4 Ancillary activities at the site B-68

D-52-5 Operational requirements on direct gamma levels

and miscellaneous comments on operation and

closure B-69

D-52-6 Closure plan B-71

Subpart D: §61.53 Environmental monitoring B-73

D-53-1 Environmental monitoring B-73

Subpart D: §61.55 Waste classification B-77

D-55-1 Waste classification-basis for numbers B-77

D-55-2 De minimis levels for waste B-79

0-55-3 TRU classification (10 nCi/gm limit) B-82

0-55-4 Waste classification - Ra-226 B-89

D-55-5 Case-by-case approval of disposal of waste in

greater than Class C concentrations B-90

D-55-6 Compliance with waste classification requirements B-93

0-55-7 Averaging concentrations over packages B-95

0-55-8 Ensuring waste generator compliance with Part 61

requirements B-96

D-55-9 Waste classification by total hazard B-99

B-viii
D-55-10

D-55-11

. D-55-12

D-55-13

.. D-55-14

- Subpart D:

Nadionuclide inventory vs. concentration limits

Cost and regulatory burden of classification

requirements

Waste classification - definitions, clarifications

and miscellaneous other comments

Stability and disposal requirements for Class A

waste vs. Class B and C wastes

Hold wastes for decay.

§61.56 Waste characteristics

* D-56-1

D-56-2

D-56-3

D-56-4

D-56-5

D-56-6

D-56-7

D-56-8

D-56-9

D-56-10

D-56-11

D-56-12

D-56-13

D-56-14

*0D-56-15

D-56-16

D-56-17

D-56-18

D-56-19

D-56-20

D-56-21

Subpart D:

D-57-1

Use of absorbents

Chelating agents

Definitions of pyrophoric,.hazardous, and

explosive,

Cardboard containers

Wastes-in a gaseous form

.Packaging standards

Hazardous, biological, pathogenic, and infectious

waste treatment . Waste stability requirements

Five percent deformation limit

Void spaces in waste containers

Compressive load requirement

High integrity-.container (HIC)

Free standing liquids

Consistency with other NRC regulations and

guides

Radiolytic decomposition of waste form

Establishment of technical criteria and standards

Enforceability of and.compliance with

restrictions on waste form

Proposed container design

Polymetric solidification agents

Solidification of ion-exchange media and-wet

solids

Characteristics of volume reduced wastes

§61.57 Labeling

Labeling

B-101

B-102

B-105

B-107

B-109

B-110

,B-110

B-110

B-114

B-115

-B-117

B-117

8-118

8-119

B-122

B-123

B-124

B-126

B-127

B-128

B-129

B-130

B-131

B-131

B-132

B-132

B-133

B-135

B-135

Subpart D:

D-59-1

D-59-2

D-59-3

§61.59 Institutional requirements

State responsibility after license transfer

100 year limit on the institutional control

period; permitted activities during the

control period

Landownership - miscellaneous

B-137

B-137

B-138

B-141

Subpart E B-143

E-1

E-2

Financial assurances

Optional financial report

B-143

B-150

B-ix
I

Subpart F B-151

F-1 State and tribal participation B-151

F-2 Local government role and rights B-156

Subpart G B-157

G-1 Records, reports, tests, and inspections B-157

Part 2 B-160

Part 2-1 Part 2 - general B-160

Part 2-2 Issuing licenses B-161

10 CFR Part 20: §20.311 Transfer for disposal and manifests B-163

M-1 General comments on §20.311 B-163

M-2 The quality assurance requirements in §20.311 B-168

M-3 Burden on small entities B-169

M-4 Manifest system a burden B-170

General Comments B-173

GEN-1 Absoluteness of criteria B-173

GEN-2 Additional regulatory guidance needed B-176

GEN-3 Exempt waste in storage B-178

GEN-4 Development of new sites B-179

GEN-5 De facto disposal sites B-iSO

GEN-6 Need for GEIS B-180

GEN-7 Extend the comment period B-181

GEN-8 Data base on wastes B-181

GEN-9 Hearing transcripts to incorporate for the record B-182

Editorial comments B-184

ED-1 Editorial comments B-184

B-x
ISSUE A-1I'

SIc i rule

Issue: Scope and applicability bf rule

'Comimenters: Homestake Mining Company (1) . -

Marvin I. Lewis (3)

New Mexico Secretarylfor Health'and Env'ironment (4)

Advisory Committee onrReactor,Safeguards,(10)

Nevada Department of'Human Resources (14):

Dow Chemical (17)

Union 'of Concerned Scientists (36)

Pathfinder 'Mines Corporation (40)

Bechtel.National,.Inc;.'(44)

Alfonso'Scarpa (50) .'

Union Oil (66)

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control (79)

Birmingham Audubon' Society (80)

American'Nuclear Society (87)

Carolina' Power & Light-Company (106)

American Society of.Mechanical Engineers (107), (113)

Department of Energy,,(119)'

* . Rule Citation':.. §61.1

,'.§61.2

. .. 1 I . :

Purpose and'scope

Definitions' ..'

Summary'of comments: Commenters suggested changes to-the scope of-the rule to

both include and exclude topics and materials. Suggesti6ns for additions to

the scope.included exempted source material and criminal penalties-of up to 25

yearsfor violations. Suggestions for deletion.from the scope includednmill

tailings, fuel'cycle wastes, 'and fissile'materials. AIn addition, one commenter

expressedthe view that the rule should apply only to near-surface disposal

until specific requirements for'other methods'-are formulated. One suggested

that'above'ground engineered,'disposal 'be included in the scope.

Several cbommenteis'addressed the applicability of.the rule to existing ,sites.

One commenter was concerned that the 'abandoned sites being'cleaned up bythe

Department of Energy'(DOE),and existing commercial low-level waste sites were

not 'included.. One emphasized'the difficulty:in developing'case-by-case guidance

'for decommissi'oninbg'the-commnercial sites where operations.have been, terminated.

One commenter cited the financial burden on operators of existing sites if the

five year postclosureobservation andmaintenance requirement Is-imposed. One

commenteragreed'that existing'.sites-should have..little or no difficulty in

complying with'operational and.waste"characteristicsrequire'ments. -'One commenter

was'concerned about migration from the West Valley;site. One commenter expressed

the view'that existing sites,.should'be.exempted orgranted an ,interim status

in the rule to-'avoid instant'noncompliance. -South-,Carolina".noted'the need to

apply Part 61'requirements;on'a,'case ,specific. basis'at the Barnwell site.

I B-1
Commenters also addressed the applicability of the rule to Agreement States

and individual licensees. Three commenters recommended that the regulation

recognize and clarify that Part 61 does not apply to persons licensed by

Agreement States. Three requested changes to §61.1(a) to allow individual

licensees to operate a burial site under a Part 61 license and one felt that

such individual burials should be governed by requirements as stringent.

Analysis of Comments: The two suggested additions to the scope of the rule

were not needed to address the commenters' concerns.' The Union Oil Company

concern about source material was directed toward § 61.10 language and the need

for a de minimis provision. 'The Company objected to the use of "containing"

because the contained'activity could be so very small in view of the concentration limits which define source material in 10 CFR Part 40. In Part 40 source

material generally means containing more than .05 weight percent of uranium or

thorium or a combination of the two. The Company noted that wastes containing

traces of material made up-of just over .05 percent uranium or thorium would

be far less active than most natural ores. Part 61 is intended to permit the -

disposal of all source material, including low'conc entrations or exempted

amounts. The staff agrees that this is an option needed by licensees. The

proposed language in Part,61 would not negate any exemption or relief provided

generating licensees in other parts of the Commission's rules or in a license.

Part 61 applies only to wastes transferred toa land disposal facility. Thus

no change was adopted for exempted source material.''

The suggestion to incluide criminal penalties is'addvessed by the authority

citations following the table of contents. The Commission imposes civil

penalties but refers cases involving potential criminal acts to the Department

of Justice for action. The authority citation provides the legal basis for

Justice cases, and each of the sections listed in the second paragraph may

involve criminal penalties if violated. Specifying specific criminal penalties

is beyond Commission' authority.

Only clarifying changes were needed to address most of the concerns of the

commenters suggesting deletions'from the'scope of the rule. The disposal of

uranium mill tailings and related source material by a licensee operating under

a Part 40 license is currently regulated under the terms of 10 CFR Parts 20

and 40. No change in this situation"was intended. Language to emphasize the

exemption of all but small quantities of'mill tailings was added to the final

rule. Waste disposal by individual licensees is currently licensed under the

terms of Part 20 and Parts 30, 40,-and/or 70 and'no change was intended. Fuel

cycle waste transferred for disposal at a land disposal facility would'have to

meet the requirements in Part 61 as required by the new §20.311 of 10-CFR

Part 20. Fuel cycle waste disposed of by other methods would not be'affected

and no change to the rule is needed.

The BirminghamnAudubon's concerns over criticality from fissile materials are

understandable but from a practical'point of view, criticalitylimitations for

special nuclear'materials have never been a serious'problem at the sites. The

criticality potential is evaluated but has little, if any, impact on waste limits

or emplacement.' The materials in qudstion are primarily enriched uranium and

plutonium. The rule establishes limits in the cla'ssification scheme'on transuranics, hence plutonium, that preclude any criticality concerns. Enriched

uranium is not a factor in the classification scheme in § 61.55 because of its

B-2
.t.,r- 7

relatively low radiological hazard. Thus the staff sees no reason to further

restrict special nuclear materials.

The commenter who expressed the view that the rule should apply'only to near- surface'disposal is correct that Part'61 'applies to other than near-'surface

disposal.' The performance objectives and the procedural (licenses), institutional, financial,, state and tribal'participation, and records, reports test, and inspections subparts apply equally to all land disposal of low level'wastes.

The technical requirements are specified only for near-surface 'disposal, but sections are reserved for other than near-surface methods. Above ground' engineered disposal falls in this other category and the staff continues to believe that engineered disposal above ground is sufficiently unique that' the specific technical requirement'should not be mandatory. The staff considered

whether the regulation should cover only near-surface disposal'when the 'rule

was proposed. ''Based on staff judgement and staff experience providing technical assistance to Kansas on a'mined cavity applcation, the staff believed that

applications' 'for other disposal methods were credible and that the regulation could be framed to provide the needed flexibility. The comments offered no specific problems with the scope as proposed. Staff still believes the flexibility wise. Alternative disposal methods are further discussed under

Issue A-8.

Applicability of the rule to existing sites is a complex issue. The application of the requirements in the rule to existing sites was intended'to be a case-by- caEe determination. The regulation was modified to clarify the applicability

to existing sites and address concerns for instant noncompliance.

Lewis expressed'concern that the abandoned sites being cleaned up by DOE are not covered'by Part 61. Commission authority to regulate Departmient of Energy waste

management activities is limited to the activities'covered by 10 CFR Part 60, "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories". Therefore,

Part 61 cannot be modified in scope to cover DOE cleanup activities.

The staff recognizes that problems exist at existing sites. The experiences at these sites provided part of the basis for the proposed rule -in a lessons

learned sense. The siting, design, operational, financial, and licensing pro- cedures are intended to collectively prevent past problems at future sites.

Part' of the confusion concerning the applicability of the rule to Agreement States resulted'from language in the Supplementary Information portion of the .Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Part 61. Section V.H.' of the Supplementary Information states: "Although nearly all'disposal at existing facilities is carried out under State licenses, 'it would'be the'Commission's intent that in

the future all disposal would be expected to comply with the provisions of

Part 61." Section 61.1(b) as proposed referred to Part 150 in outlining excep- tions. The intent was not to imply that the rule itself applied to persons licensed by Agreement States. The commenters are correct in noting that

Agreement States must promulgate regulations if the requirements are to apply to Agreement State licensees. Agreement 'States must'have programs compatible with the Commission, and'the assumption cn'cerning'future'disposal'was based

on the expectation that the manifest and 'disposal requirements would be

implemented by the States. Section 61.1(b) was modified to clarify the

applicability in Agreement States.

B-3
The requests to extend the scope of Part 61 to include disposal by individual

licensees was apparently based on the belief that severe limits on burial

quantities are imposed on individual licensees by 10 CFR Part 20. The deleted

§20.304 did limit the quantities that could be buried without prior Commission

approval. Disposal' of large quantities was authorized pursuant §20.302.' All

individual licensee burials are currently licensed pursuant to §20.302. Section 20.302 does not impose specific limits on the types or. quantities of waste

which may be authorized for disposal. Limits are established on a case-by-case

basis. The Part 61 and accompanying rule changes leaves the quantity' flexibility

in §20.302. Thus the basis for the request appears to have been a misunderstanding.

Licensee burials of their own wastes are approved on a case-by-case base as

noted in the preceeding paragraph. The performance objectives and other'requirements in Part 61 wil.l certainly be considered in the evaluation of such proposals.

However due to the wide variety of possible proposals, mandatory compliance

was not proposed. In general, the hazard and quantities of wastes will be

significantly less so that. siting and design features needed for multiple user

sites may not be required. The flexibility to make these judgements without

granting exemptions to a regulation was retained.

Rule Changes:

1. Amend 61.1(b) to read:

(b) Except as provided in Part 150 of this chapter, which deals with

an assumption of certain regulatory authority by Agreement States, and

§61.6 "Exemptions," the regulations in this part apply to all persons in

the United States. The regulations in this part do not apply to (1) disposal of high-level waste as provided for in Part 60 of this chapter;

(2) disposal of uranium or thorium tailings or wastes (byproduct material

as defined in § 40.4(a-1)) as provided for in Part 40 of this chapter; or

(3) disposal of licensed material as provided for in Part 20.

2. Amend 61.2:

"Waste", for purposes of this part, means those low-level radioactive

wastes containing source, special nuclear, or byproduct material that are

acceptable for disposal in a land disposal facility. For the purposes of

this definition, low-level waste has the same meaning as in the Low-Level

Waste Policy Act, that is radioactive waste not classified as high-level

radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct

material as defined in section 11 e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (uranium

or thorium tailings and waste).

3. Add to §61.1(a):

Applicability of the requirements of this regulation to, Commission

licenses in effect on the effective date of this part will be determined

on a case-by-case basis and implemented through the terms, and conditions

of the'license or orders issued'by the Commission.

B-4
ISSUE A-2

Issue: Agreement State compatibility

Commenter: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental-Resources (16)

State of North Carolina (109)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: General

Summary of Comments: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

(Department) expressed the view that the NRC formally specify which'portions

of Part 61 must be adopted by Agreement.States for compability. The State of

North Carolina urged maximum flexibility for Agreement States in adopting

Part 61 requirements. EPA urged consistency.

Analysis of Comments: The Department expressed concern that states contemplating changing Agreement State status be able to assess the impact of 'adopt-

.ing all or part.of the rule,and.that the-rule must be compatible with state

and compact activities'under the LLW Policy Act. The Department was silent on

how the NRC should articulate-its compability policy.

The State of North.Carolina agreed that "'most, if not all, of the technical

requirements...should be imposed by such' [Agreement] states."." However-the,

State felt.that th'eadministrative and.procedural aspects would pose anunnecessary burden on the states. The'EPA urged that Agreement States adopt

consistent state regulations and procedures.to assure consistent handling.of

.low-level wastes.

On January 23, 1981 the NRC published modified criteria concerning Agreement

States to provide for States to enter into agreements for low level waste only

(46 FR 7.540). These criteria are silent on the issue of compatibility with

Part 61. '(Part'61 was not published as a.proposed rule until July 24, 1981.)

Draft guidance'has been provided to all states on these-limited agreements.

The'Commiss'ion lacks the authority to impose Part 61 as minimum.national

standards and to. require identical regulations.

The NRC staff would expect that the techbical.requirements of Part 61 would

Vform the basis for state'r''egulations.,'Procedural flexibility;is'a recognized

need for States. How'e'ver,'the I conerns r'eflected'in the procedures established

in Part 61 should be.addressed in the state regulatory-program.

ing A~ it em nt aue.'thorities tc plan~ for The'Commission'.has held.meetings'w hg3e'eme St ut

the orderlyimplementation of .the,'newrequirements in Agreement States. '-Since

the provisions in § 20.311 of 10CFR'Part 20'cobld affect'all waste generators,

both in Agreement States and.states.,regulated by the Commission, the effective

date of this section should be&'delayed to permit thenecessary changes in

Agreement State regulations and license conditions''of the Agreement Stateregulated disposal facilities. _Waste-.form, waste classification, and manifest

requirements'would be affected.. ' ' '

Since all other provisions of the proposed rules would pertain only to applicants or licensees for new Commission-licensed disposal facilities, there are

no reasons to'delay the effective date of'these~requirements. The Commission

B-5
is working with the Agreement States to develop model regulations to be adopted

by the Agreement States in accordance with their agreements to maintain

compatible State regulations.

Proposed Rule Change: None.

ISSUE A-3

Issue: Commencement of Construction

Commenters: Harry Lawroski (62)

Union Oil Company (66)

Birmingham'Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management'Group (81)

Middle South Services (84)

Rule Citation: § 61.3(b), § 70.23(a)(7)

Summary of Comments: Most of the commenters recommended providing more flexibility to commence construction-of the disposal- site at the applicant's risk.

One commenter strongly supported delaying construction.

Analysis of Comments: The language quoted by Lawroski on commencement of construction was taken from 70.23(a)(7) of Part 70. (A proposed change to delete

"commercial waste disposal of land burial "from this paragraph was included in

the notice as an editorial change since licenses for disposal of wastes"-from

others will be issued pursuant to Part 61 when Part 61 becomes effective not

Parts 30, 40, and 70.) The language states that early commencement "shall be

grounds for denial." The applicable language in proposed Part 61 is in § 61.3,

License required, which states:

(b) Each person shall file an application with the Commission and obtain

a license as provided in this part before commencing construction of

a land disposal facility. Failure to comply with this requirement

may be grounds for denial of a license.

The Part 61 language "may be grounds" does not make denial mandatory. Further,

the Commission maygrant exemptions to any requirement in Part 61 under § 61.6,

Exemptions. Thus flexibility exists without modifying the proposed lauguage.

Union Oil argued that if an applicant has all other required permits except an

NRC license, he should be able to construct the facility at his own risk., This

flexibility would allow development of the site at the same time associated

facilities not requiring approval 'are developed.

Birmingham Audubon Society strongly supported therequirement for a license

before commencing construction.

The Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group expressed concern over the~severity

of denial and recommended deleting the second sentence in § 61.3(b). As noted

above denial is not mandatory.

Middle South Services also recommended more flexibility to construct and deletion

of the second sentence of 61.3(b) on denial.

8-6
The Commission is concerned that the actual spending of funds for construction

or-apparent spending or other financial committments not influence the licensing

decision and NEPA evaluations. Also, construction of disposal units'or modification of the intended buffer zone priortto final review and licensing decision

is of particular concern. Further,' neither existing site operators nor persons

claiming to be potential applicants commented on the provision. Thus the

suggested change to rule was not adopted.'

Rule Change: None.

ISSUE A-4 '

Issue: Commission Authority

Commenters: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (16)-

Joel Jaffer (46)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: General and 61.7(c)C4)

Summary of.Comments: One commenter suggested that NRC should request authority

from Congress to regulate commercial low level waste sites if transferred to

DOE. One stated "I don't think the Commission has any authority to-license

the disposal of radioactive wastes which remain toxic for lengths of time, and

for proposed purposes and scope, beyond the NRC's authority." The EPA suggested

close-coordination between agencies for mixtures of wastes containing' both

hazardous and radioactive materials. i

Analysis of Comments: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

correctly observes that NRC does not have the authority to regulate .disposal

sites if the Department of Energy. (DOE) is to provide institutional control

and that such lack accounts for the license termination after closure where

DOE is custodial agency as discussed in § 61.7(c)(4). The commenter suggests

that authority to license DOE during institutional control be requested from

Congress in order to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.

While the suggestion has merit, as a practical matter the Commission is not

aware of plans for DOE custodial care of existing sites or new sites that might

be licensed pursuant to Part 61. The question is an academic one now and can

be addressed at some future time should such transfer become more likely.

Mr. Jaffer challenged the Commis'sion's :authority to license'long-lived materials.

The Commission clearly does have the authority to license use and disposal of

byproduct, source, "end'special n'u'clear materials.'; These materials include long

lived'riadionuclides.' The'NRC and its-predecessor'AEC have always-licensed

'disposal as a necessary adjunct to use of materials. The Commission has'and

does'license commercial 'or other'disposal''sites involving disposal-of wastes

from other persons. Proposed Part 61 only codifies and elaborates on how the

LCommission will continue this'activity. '

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency ntted that.-the EPA has regulatory responsibility for the disposal of hazardous wastes'under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA), that RCRA exempts materials regulated by NRC, and that

RCRA does not address hazardous chemicals mixed with radioactive materials.

B-7
EPA suggested amemorandum of understanding as a vehicle for coordinating the

two agencies' programs. NRC agrees that close coordination is needed and intends

to pursue the matter with EPA.

ISSUE A-5

Issue: Pre-emption of State laws

Commenter: Environmental Law Project (9)

Rule Citation: none

Summary of Comment: The commenter recommended that authority for some form of

final approval of a license by a local or preferably state'government be included

in the regulation.

Analysis of Comment: The commenter is concerned that Commission authority is

pre-emptive over State laws and that the Commission might issue a license in

spite of state wishes and in spite of state plans to meet its responsibilities

under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act.

Under the Policy Act, it is quite clear that the Commission is to license-sites

in non-Agreement States. Under the Commission's licensing authority, no final

decision is vested in local governments and there is no provision for State

veto. Issuing the license is a decision the Commission must make. This responsibility does not mean that State concerns will not be considered. States have

several avenues for expressing concerns and can exercise a de facto veto by

not accepting the role of landlord and long term custodian.

Rule Change: none

ISSUE A-6

Issue: Ofticial interpretations

Commenters: Union Oil Company of California (66)

U.S. Ecology (101)

Rule Citation: § 61.5

Summary of Comments: The commenters were concerned about the restrictions on

interpreting the regulation articulated in § 61.5.,

Analysis of Comments: U.S. Ecology and Union Oil expressed concern that the

requirement in § 61.5 that only written interpretations by the General'Counsel

are binding could unnecessarily delay the regulatory process. U.S. Ecology

suggested a 10 day time limit for obtaining General Counsel responses.

The language in § 61.5 is a statement of legal fact whether restated ihnPart 61

or not. The need for official interpretation is rare and staff routinely explains

or clarifies the intent of rules through regulatory guides, technical positions,

correspondence etc. Section 61.5 does not restrict these activities.

B-8
Because of the rarety of such interpretations, it is impossible to predict the

nature or subject of'them or the time that may be required to develop an official

written response. Thus, the time limit suggested was not-adopted.

Rule Change: none

ISSUE A-7

Issue: Exemptions to the rule

Commenters: Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

State of California (93)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: §§ 61.6, 61.7(b)(5), 61.54, 61.55

Summary of Comments: The Birmingham Audubon Society expressed opposition to

case-by-case exceptions on waste concentrations that exceed Table'1 values and

felt that general exemptions under § 61.6 should involve extensive noticing

and hearings. The State of California'was opposed to the flexibility to

approve alternative requirements on design and operations in § 61.54 and DOE

offered ,explicit support.

Analysis of-Comments:' The Audubon Society was concerned that wastes' remaining

dangerous longer than 500 ,years should not be allowed in near-surface facilities.

The.staff shares the Society's concerns but believes that special,-and-usually

more stringent, requirements on-waste form and'disposal methods can mitigate

the potential danger. This issue is discussed more fully in the waste classification issues. The intent for more restrictive requirements versus generally

acceptable was clarified'in the final rule but the flexibility'to consider

wastes on a cas'e-by csbsswsrtied

The Society recommended that the&Governor and State legislative be notified if

any exemptions are granted under"§-61.6'and that public hearings be-held 'in

the nearest large city.': Staff agrees.that exemptions should be carefully

considered and will do so but does not believe' that procedural changes are

needed tto assure that officials and-the6'public are informed. If the exemption

is requested in the initial application, the required distribution assures

notification. If a major health'and'safety issue-s involved after the license

is is'sued, § 61.25 assures notificati6n.' ' "

The State of California expressed the view that-'approval of alternative design

and'operations pursuant to § 61.'!54;'was arbitrar'y. ''Since'the section includes

.a requirement that the altern'ate'rooo'sals meet the.performance'objectives,

the' same degree of safe'ty'isassured and staff'does~not'agree that flexibility

to provide unique or innovative solutions is'arbitrary.

Rule Changes: none '- '

ISSUE A-8

Issue: Other than near-surface disposal methods '' '

B-9
Commenters: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) (10)

Department of the Environment, London (19)

Northern Illinois University (27)

Zelia M. Jensen (64)

Nuclear Monitoring Systems & Management Corporation (86)

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

Kerr McGee (115)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: General

Summary of Comments: The ACRS, Department of the Environment, Kerr-McGee, DOE,

and EPA supported the development of criteria and flexibility for disposal

methods other than near-surface for more hazardous wastes. Northern Illinois

University and Zelia Jensen were opposed to near-surface disposl methods and

favored alternate methods for all wastes. Nuclear Monitoring suggested use of

the Corporation's specific retrievable'storage system for more hazardous waste.

The U.S. DOI questioned what would be done with wastes exceeding Class C limits.

Analysis of Comments: The ACRS offered general support for the "establishment

of criteria for deeper land burial and disposal in mined cavities." The staff

agrees and notes that while the performance objectives, institutional, financial,

and procedural requirements apply to any form of land disposal,.the specific

technical requirements developed so far cover only near-suface disposal and

that staff plans that future additions to Part 61 will specify technical criteria for other types of land disposal, such as the use of deep mined cavities,

if necessary.

The Department of the Environment supported the flexibility of the systems

approach to allow the combination of factors in disposal to determine the disposal methods based on the nature of the wastes. The'Department also supported

the concept of a range of disposal methods including existing cavities and

intermediate depth disposal. Kerr-McGee also supported the development of

requirements for other the near-surface disposal, particularly for the disposal

of transuranic wastes from decommissioning facilities. Such disposal would be

more economic than in a Part 60 high level waste geologic repository.

The DOE supported the concept of alternatives for more hazardous wastes but

expressed-concern that separate facilities may not be necessary. The DOE noted

that other factors in the method of disposal, such as waste form, may provide

the greater confinement needed. The staff agrees and did not intend to limit

additional assurances to depth of burial only. Such requirements are similar

tothe considerations for protecting near-surface Class C wastes from intruders.

The proposed'rule'provided depth or other means such as engineered barriers

for Class C wastes. 'The case-by-case considerations-provided for when concentrations exceed § 61.55 limits for Class C wastes would also involve a range

of factors in providing additional protection, not just depth. Separate facilities were certainly not intended but no change to the rule is needed to allow

other than near surface disposal at a near-surface facility.

The EPA urged analysis for other disposal methods such as hydrofracture, deep

well injection, and mined cavities but stated that Part 61 should not be delayed

for these analyses. Staff agrees with this EPA view.

B-10
The Northern Illinois University and Jensen were opposed to near-surface disposal for radioactive wastes. The University referenced experience at existing

sites and uncertainties in understanding the mechanisms for migration as the

basis for dismissing near-surface dispbsal in favor of disposal in "deep mined

cavities in areas of low precipitation." Jensen felt geologic repository disposal of all wastes would solve the problem of waste disposal and not leave it

to "future generations to resolve." The staff disagrees with these two cormmenters and believes that wastes can be safely disposedof in near-surface

facilities with reasonable'assurance,6f protection of the public health and

safety and with minimum burden on future.generations.

The Nuclear Monitoring Systems and Managemet Corporation has developed a specific

technology " which is capable of'Storing, Monitoring, and-Recovering [SMR] both

high-level and low level radioactive wastes." A copy of a document prepared

for the State of Texas was submitted for the Commission's information. The

commenter supports a systems solution for'near-surface land burial and use of

their specific'SMR technology for'wastes'not suitable fornear-surface burial.

Staff did not evaluate the specific SMR technology and has no comment on the

merits of the proposal.

The Department of Interior questioned what alternatives exist for waste exceeding Class C limits.. Such wastes can (l) be considered on a case-by-case basis

for'disposal at the near-surface facility~with additional measures for protection, (2) stored by the licensee until alternate disposal methods are developed,

or (3) stored by another licensee or, DOE until alternate methods are available.

Rule Changes: none

.B-1l
ISSUE B-1

Issue: Contents of applications; meaning of "demonstrate" compliance

Commenters: Union Oil'Company of California (66)

Birmingham-Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Health Physics Society (96)

State of New York, Department of Law (99)

Atomic.Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107) & (113)

Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citations: §§ 61.11, 61.12, 61.13, 61.23

Summary of Comments: Three commenters suggested adding more prescriptive

requirements. Two commenters suggested clarification or definition of terms.

Five commenters addressed the intent and meaning of the requirement to

"demonstrate" compliance with objectives and requirements. One suggested

addressing accidents in design plans and one questioned whether the experience

requirement would lead to monopolies by present companies.

Analysis of Comments: The Union Oil Company of California raised three points

about § 61.12. One was the need to define "vicinity" in paragraph (a) to limit

the bounds of surveys for data since adjacent properties may not always be

accessible. The need for data on adjacent properties will be very site specific

and depend on features such as the complexity of the subsurface and ground water

flow paths. The characterization of sites will be addressed in regulatory

guides and other guidance. The general reference is needed to make it clear

that data needs may not be limited just to the disposal areas. A second point

questioned the need for information on auxilliary buildings not an integral

part of the actual disposal process as proposed paragraph (f) would require by

a literal interpretation of "land disposal facility." The intent was not to

require detailed architectural drawings of support facilities or auxilliary

buildings. Staff agrees that the emphasis and key is the relavance to disposal

operations. General descriptions and layouts for auxilliary features would be

sufficient. Clarifying the reference to methods of construction to focus on

disposal units should help (See rule change 1). The third point suggested

limiting the requirements in (h) to "known" natural resources to avoid the

implication that extensive exploration is required. Staff agrees and the

suggestion was adopted.

The Birmingham Audubon Society suggested that additional specificity be provided for 61.11(b)(2) (specific personnel qualifications), 61.12(b) (minimum

standards for design features), 61.12(1) (minimum corrective measures for

migration), and 61.13(b) (minimum standards for adequate intruder barriers).

The commenter's suggestion would make the rule very prescriptive in nature.

B-12
Technical requirements for design features for near surface disposal are

addressed in Subpart D, §'61.51 so further modification of 61.12(b) is not

needed to address the Society's comment. Personnel qualifications needed will

vary depending on the types and quantities of wastes and on the design and

operation of the facility. <Expertise is provided by employees and consultants.

Staff prefers to address this question in regulatory guides where options and

flexibility prevail. Minimum corrective measures warrented will not only be

site specific, they may be different for each incident. A general requirement

in § 61.53(d) on environmental monitoring keys actions' to assuring that

performance objectives 'will be met. Case-by-case flexibility must be preserved.

Applicants can propose a variety of-intruder barriers. Generic standards for

reducing intruder risks or for discouraging intruders involve factors that'are

too subjective and staff prefers to provide general guidance in supporting

guides.

The Utility Waste Management Group comments focused on the use' of the terms

"demonstrate" and "demonstration." The commenter refers to use of the terms

-in § 61.13(b) and 61.23(f), (i) and (j). The commenter suggested clarifying

what is meant by-demonstration'by specifying that analysis resulting in

reasonable assurance is 'intended. Adoption of language similiar to proposed

§ 60.101(a)(2) on findings was suggested. Section 60.101(a)(2) states:

(2) While these performance objectives and criteria are

generally stated in unqualified terms, it is not expected that

complete assurance that they will be met can be presented. A

reasonable assurance, on the basis of the record before the

Commission, that'the objectives and criteria will be met is the

general standard that is required. For § 60.111, and other portions

of this subpart that impose objectives and criteria for'repository'

performance over 'long times into the future, there will inevitably

be greater uncertainties. Proof of the future performance of

engineered systems and geologic' media over time periods of a thousand

or many thousands of years is not to be had in the ordinary sense' of

the word. For such long-term objectives and criteria, what is required

is reasonable assurance, making allowance for the time period and

hazards involved, that the outcome will be in conformance with'-those

objectives and criteria.

The commenter's point is somewhat related to "absoluteness" (see Issue GEN-O)

and to what "demonstrate" means. Staff agrees' that absolute 'guarentees are

not possible and were not intended by the use of demonstrate.

In'§ 61.23 "Standards for issuance' of'a license," the "reasonable assurance"

criterion is included in findings for the four performance objectives ((b)-(e)).

The commenter correctly notes that the same language should be reflected for

all findings. The commenter's suggestion to add the "reasonable assurance"

standard to § 61.13 was adopted. The Atomic Industrial Forum and 'the American

Society of 'Mechanical Engineers 'expressed similiar views. .- , . ...

The Health Physics Society strongly supported the requirements for specifying

a radiation protection program and 'environmental program. The Society also

stressed that the environmental program and occupational exposures' should be

consistent with ALARA. (See changes to Subpart C made because of other

comments on ALARA.)

B-13
The Conference,of Radiation Control ProgramDirectors suggested revision of

§ 61.12(d) concerning design basis natural events, or phenomena to add consideration of the maximum credible accident anticipated'and planned response

to such accidents.' The'response from'a radiation'safety'point of view is

covered by § 61.12(k). Section 61.12(d) requires identification of the natural

phenomena or events used'as a design basis, which includes the maximum credible

event concept. .

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers also addressed two additional

points. One is the need toclarify 61.11(c)(4) to indicate the time periods

to address when describing plans for use of the facility for purposes other

than disposal of radioactive wastes. The intent was to focus primarily during

operations to identify activities that might' impact disposal. However, any

plans that might impact'disposal, monitoring, etc. should be addressed. Plans

prior to operations would be addressed in the environmental report and considered as part of the overall impacts of the proposed action. Plans following

operations would be addressed in the closure plan and in the application for

license transfer to thecustodial agency. No change to the rule was'made since

potentially all' time periods are relevant and none could be'excluded.' The

second point suggestedadding prescriptive requirements for thequality assurance program requirement in 61.12(j). As discussed earlier and in other issues,

the rule focuses on the performance objectives and general requirements and

includes only limited prescriptive details. The flexibility thus provided has

received broad support. Guidance will be provided in regulatory guides and no

rule change was adopted.

The Department of Energy expressed concern that the requirement for being qualified by trainingand experience could lead to monopolies by present companies

and suggested replacing `and" with,"or.," Such was not'the intent. For example,

experience handling comparable quantities of radioactive materials, experience

constructing similiar facilities, experience disposing~ofhazardous wastes could

all be used to demonstrate that the applicant is qualified. The change was

not adopted. The State of New York felt that past experience was not emphasized

enough.

Rule Changes:

1. Change 61.12(f) to add after include: ", but not be limited to," and after

construction: "of disposal units"

2. Amend § 61.23(f)-(j) to read as follows: A

(f) The applicant's demonstration provides reasonable assurance that

the applicable technical requirements of Subpart D of this part will be

met.'

(g) The applicant's proposal for institutional control provides

reasonable assurance that such care will be provided for the length of,

time found necessary to ensure the findings in paragraphs (b)-(e) of this

section and that the institutional control meets the requirements of §61.59.

(h) The information on financial assurances meets the requirements

,of Subpart E of this part.

B-14
(i) The applicant's physical security information provides reasonable assurance that the requirements of Part 73 of this chapter will be

met, insofar as they are applicable to special 'nuclear material to be

possessed before disposal under the license.

(j) The applicant's criticality 'accident information provides

reasonable assurance that the requirements of §70.24 of Part 70 of this

-chapter will be met, insofar as they are applicable under the license.

3. Change 61.13(b) to add a reference to "reasonable assurance.1 1

4. Amend 61.12(h) to add "known."

ISSUE B-2

Issue: Groundwater as Major Pathway

Commenters: Department of the Environment, London (19)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Category:

Rule Citiation: Secton 61.13 Technical Analysis, paragraph (a)

Summary of Comments: The Department of the Environment commented that paragraph 61.13(a) states that ground water is probably the most significant pathway for radioactive transport back to man and requires particular study. They

state that although transport is very significant, recent sensitivity analyses

suggest that other pathways-such as human intrusion, erosion and vegetation

uptake may be more significant. The UNWMG recommended deleting the reference

to the groundwater pathway as unnecessary.

Analysis of Comments: NRC recognizes that other pathways of exposure, particularly intrusion events by nian into the disposal facility, will result in

significantly higher exposures to the individuals involved than the ground water

pathway. Such events may also bring disposed wastes to'the surface where'they

may be transported off-site by surface water or incorporated into crops grown

.atwthe site. Intrusion into a dis'posal facility is relatively non site'specific

and NRC has incorporated specific requirements in Part'61 which' if met by a

licensee, shbuld assure that an inadvertent intruder would 'not receive an

unreasonable exposure'(i.e., greaterthan'500 mrem to the whole body) assuming

reasonable uses of the land. The requirements principally'involve the waste

classification requirements which include'requirements'to bury waste presenting

high potential hazard to an inadvertent intruder at deeper depths or with additional intruder barriers. The type of pathways analyzed in developing the

requirements included construction of house at the site, living in the house

constructed and consumingfood grown at the site.

The release of radioactivity to the environment'through air, soil, ground water,

surface"water,. plant uptake and burrowing animal pathways is relatively site

specific and depends primarily on the natural characteristics of the site and

*its environs. Of these, NRC considers ground water transport to be'of greatest

potential significance in comparison'to the potential'releases to the'environment which may occur through the other pathways. In addition, requirements in

B-15
Part 61 and controls instituted at specifi'c'sites directed at controlling

migration will also reduce the potential-for releases through the other pathways

(e.g., thicker, denser' trench caps). As noted above, intrusion into the site

including the cultivation and consumption of food crops at the'site will generally yield higher exposures and has also been addressed in Part 61.

The Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group noted that the reference to the

ground water pathway was gratutious and recommended deletion. The staff agrees

and has removed the reference.

Rule Change: Delete from 61.13(a): "For near-surface disposal, the ground

water pathway will generally be the most significant in terms of releases of

radioactivity."

ISSUE B-3

Issue: Time limits on licensing process

Commenters: Ohio EPA (38)

Union Carbide (39)

University of Texas Medical Branch (75)

Health Physics Society (96)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

Rule Citation: Section G of Supplementary Information and Subpart B.'

Summary of Comments: Most of the commenters recommended specifying periods of

time in the rule for parts of the licensing process. One commenter suggested

a specific licensing step for unrestricted use following institutional control.

Analysis of Comments: The Ohio EPA noted that the only time period listed for

Commission action is a reference in the Supplementary Information to the statement that completeness review of tendered applications generally will be made

within 30 days. No other time periods are listed in the notice and none in

the rule. Union Carbide expressed concern ab'out-meeting the January 1986 deadline in the LLW Policy Act and the need for specifying definite times to assure

that compacts can meet the deadline. (The January 1986 date is the time compacts can begin excluding non-compact wastes.) The University Texas-Medical

Branch recommended a time limit to approve or deny the application based on

financial considerations and noted that "Applicants who have options on 'land

or own land that could be used for other purposes may incur substantial'financial losses due to unreasonable delays." The Medical Branch also suggested

that applicants be compensated for delays. The Health Physics Society'recommended limits on hearings.

The Commission is sympathetic to the problem of uncertain time frames in the

licensing process, the potential'for delays, and the need for expedicious

action. However, the review and licensing process involves a number of uncertain-or potentially untainain time periods such as the quality of the applica

tion, extent of supplemental tests or data that may be required of applicants,

State or tribal participation schedules, Commission use'of contractors-to'aid
a specific timeframe that might curtail other rights does not seem justified.

The Commission is building in-house expertise and computer.,capabilities to

minimize the use of contractors to minimize delaysand uncertainties in'this

area and will expedite its review to the extent pbssible. Schedules will be

developed for all parties on a case-by-,case basis for each application. Issues

related to compensation must be addressed through-the courts or other means

and ire inappropriate for.a rule such as Part 61

The Atomic Industrial Forum suggested a sixth phase for thejlife cycle.of a

disposalfacility -. release for,unrestricted or uncontrolled useafter institutional control. The commenter noted that such release would result from

radioactive decay to safe levels if sufficient controls on the non-radiological

properties are imposed. The rule as proposed does provide for a discrete period

of institutional control and license termination at the end of the control period.

.The~proposed.rul-e is silent on what the landowner maydo with the land at this

point.' Reliance on passive controls such~as land records.and intruder barriers

continues after'the end of the active institutional control period and, for

purposes of'analysis, are assumed to cease functioning after 500 years for nearsurface disposal. The landowner could allow reuse of the surface after license

termination and even limited use of the surface during institutional control.

The commenter suggested that some of the phases - preoperational, operational,

closure, post closure observation, and institutional.control - may take place

simultaneously. Closure activities will occur during operations and no other

overlaps should occur so no clarification seem warrented.

Rule Change: None.

ISSUE B-4

Issue: License conditions and safety related changes

Commenters: , Bechtel (44)

Duke Power (48).

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Middle South Services (84)

American Nuclear Society (87)

;. General Electric.(89)

Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (95)

Atomic IndustrialForum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

The American Society.of.Mechanical Engineers (107)

Rule Citations: §§ 61.24(g) and (h) and 61.25(a)'

Summary of Comments: Three commenters suggested deleting §.61.24(h) which

allows the Commission to add additional requirements into license conditions.

Nine commenters (all but Stone and.Webster) suggestedmodification of 61.25(a)

to allow nonsafety changes. Stone and Webster su'ggested 'alternate. language

for§ 61.24(g) to-provide' for license certifications instead:of Commission

inspection prior to beginning disposal.

Analysis of Comments: The commenters (Bechtel, American Nuclear. Society, and

American Society of Mechanical Engineers)'who recommended.deletion of 61.24(h)

were concerned that the applicant's, orlicensee's rights under § 2.105 to

B-17
.petition for a'thearing on additional requirements'or conditions was being

bypassed. No'such'bypass was intended and'the provision in 61.24(h) in' no way

restricts the'rights under §2.105.' No change is necessary.

Stone and Webster Engineering:Corporation expressed the view that the Commission

should prepare a value/impact analysis'in support of any'changes to the license

made pursuant to 61.24(h). The staff ag-rees that'the impacts of its actions

must be evaluated but does not believe that a prescriptive requirement to specify

how that evaluation will be documented is appropriate. The nature of the change

could range from correcting drafting or typographical errors to major changes

requiring an EIS or supplement to the EIS.

The nine commenters who expressed the view that § 61.25 was too restrictive

were concerned that minor changes that would not affect the public health and

safety are necessary during'routine operation of the disposal facility. They

were also concerned about changes in administrative or support facilities being

restricted. Several recommended the following' addition to § 61.25(a) that would

allow changes without prior notification:

(4) changes that do' not impact public health and safety can be

made immediately with subsequent notification of the Commission

in a timely manner.

U.S. Ecology, a current site operator, indicated that notification of the

Commission prior to implementation was acceptable.

The commenters' concerns can be addressed through the wording in the specific

license conditions in the license issued for each land disposal facility. The

issue really boils down to whether the Commission should be aware of all minor

changes not requiring Commission approval 60 days before implementing (as proposed), at the time of implementation, or after implementing, or whether a

further hierarchy of conditions or other clarification is warrented. The

commenters are correct that the proposed language requires all changes to the

facility and procedures to be'classified as one of the three categories. The

three categories were established based on the relative importance to public

health 'and safety. Many day to day changes may involve matters of no concern

from a health and safety prespective as the commenters noted. Descriptive

information on the facility or procedures may have'been submitted in the

application for illustrative purposes. An editorial change to require the

important features to be addressed by conditions falling in the categories but

not all will accomplish the same objective as adding a fourth category as

suggested by the commenters.

Stone and Webster suggested an elaborate process of certification, notification, and notices 'on an alternative to § 61.24(g) which states

"No radioactive waste may be disposed of until the Commission has'

inspected'the'land'disposal facility'and has found it to be in conformance 'with the' description, design, and construction described

in the application for a license.

The wording'of the alternative suggests concern about Commission delays. : If

'budget constraints or othe'r'unforeseen'probl'ems arise to prevent timely Commission inspection, 'other arrangements such as State reports or an exemption to

B-18
the provision can be made. The staff views this final inspection to be very

important and the provisions in § 61.24(g) are intended to be administratively

'simple': i.e., no notices or other procedural steps are required. A letter or

inspection report will meet the condition. Thus, the suggestion was not adopted.

Rule Changes:

Amend second sentence of 61.25(a) to read:

"The license will include conditions restricting certain subsequent

changes'tothe facility'and the'procedures authorizedwhich are

important'to public health and 'safety."

ISSUE B-5

Issue: License renewals

Commenters: Pennsylvania Department of.Environmental Resources (16)

.Union Carbide Corporation (39)

- ' Duke Power Company (48)

Oswald U Anders (73)

Utility.'Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Middle South Services Inc. (84)

' Northeast Utilities,(85).

General Electric (89) ,

Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (95)

Don't Waste Washington'Legal Defense Foundation (97)''

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

CarolinaPower and Light Company (106)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission (109)

New England Nuclear (110)'

Department of Energy (119)'

Rule'Citations: Summary Section V.G.'

§ 61.27 Application for renewal or-closure; 61.25(b);_61.7(c)(2)

Sumary of;Commenfts: All of the commenters except Stone and Webster, D6n'.t Waste

Washington, and OE were concerned about the burden, particularly if hearings

are involved,'of the-implied -5year renewal requirement and recommended life

of the facility licenses. Stofe-and Webster''addressed renewal intervals linked

to actual receipt'of waste'and DOE suggested specifying the'renewal interval.

Don't Waste Washington supported the clear statemennt of responsibilityfor

buried wastes 'in § 61.27.

Analysis of Comments: Under section V.G. "Life'Cycle of a Typical Land Disposal

Facility" of the Supplementary Information portion of the regulation, the operational phase is discussed. The discussion indicated that at intervals specified

in the licensee, the license'would-be renewed following § 61.27. A parenthetical

reference'to-5 years as the normal term for materials licensees was made and a

practice of Offering the opportunityffor public hearings was mentioned.' The

offering'of hearings would be required for renewals under the provisions of

proposed'61.25(b). The renewal interval is' not specified in the regulation

B-19
but is implied by the parenthetical reference. Section 61.27 outlines procedures for submitting and acting on applications for renewal.'but does not

require renewals or specify intervals., Section 61.7 "Concepts" under (c)(2)

also discusses periodic renewals.

The commenters believed that the regulation provides adequate evaluation and

control of the licensee and any potential changes without the burden of frequent hearings which might be involved if a 5 year interval is adopted in the

license.

The Commission included'the renewal provision in the rule to provide an

opportunity to'review the operating history and determine whether wastes should

continue to be received and disposed'of at the'site. The renewal provides

incentive to update the license to reflect developing technology and to fully

factor operating experience and new site information and site performance into

periodic reassessments. The renewal provides a greater degree of assurance

that the licensee and the Commission will perform the reassessment.

The commenters' belief that adequate controls exist independent of the renewal

process was based in part on the tight control of changes and opportunities

for notices and of opportunities for requesting hearings in § 61.25(a). (Note

that 9 commenters believed that proposed § 61.25(a),does not provide reasonable

flexibility. See issue B-4 for a discussion of'changes made to provide additional flexibility.) Further monitoring of site activities is provided through

inspections and reports filed by licensees. Comprehensive annual reports are

proposed in § 61.80(h). Annual financial reports are to be submitted under

§ 61.80(g). An annual financial re-evaluation of closure funding by the

Commission is required by § 61.62(c).

A relevant legal point is that licensees,or interested parties can request

hearings on any Commission licensing action under existing rules. In proposed

requirements such as those in § 61.25 the Commission is advertising the

opportunity to request hearings and providing opportunity to request hearings

before taking action. Any licensing action taken as a result of Commission

review of reports or inspections would be subject to requests for hearings.

The staff reconsidered the issue of how to assure periodic reassessments and

reduce the potential hearing burden on licensees. Three alternatives to the

proposed renewal provisions were considered. One was to add a section to,

§.61.24 "Conditions of licenses" to require submittal of periodic reassessments or to require a condition in the specific license issued to the applicant

for submittal of such periodic reassessments. All references to renewal would

be deleted and reliance placed on'theuiew.requirement in § 61.24. The'second

was to expand the scope of reporting'requirements in § 61.80 to cover additional

areas of concern. All references to renewal would also be deleted. A third

was to delete the requirement to automatically notice renewals in § 61.25(b).

The second altenative to rely on reports 'provides the greatest assurance of

reduced opportunity for hearings. No opportunity for a'hearing exists unless

the Commission issues orders or otherwise amends the license based on evaluation(of the reported information. Updates or reassessments required by conditions of licenses could'appear to be equivalent to submittal of an application. In such case, the opportunity for hearings could'exist.' Thus relying

on conditions of licenses reduces the assurance of reassessment while not

B-20
completely assuring no hearings. The third alternative would keep renewals to

assure reassessment'but publicize the opportunity for hearings'only when

significant changes to license'conditio'ns were made, e.g.-, when'renewal

involved changes in any conditions covered by 61.25(a)(1). The need for

periodic reassessment has been dramatically proved by experience with existing

sites"'and other materials licensees and the Commission believes it must be

assured by renewal.

Stone and Webster recommended that the renewal interval begin when'actual

receipt of waste'begins rather than when the license is issued since the

applicant does'not-begin construction until the licen'se is issued. This change

wastnot adopted.since the rule does not'specify the renewal period (5 years

was given'as an example only) and',such factors can-be factored into the expiration date establishing the renewal- period. Additionally,' construction should

only involve a few months.

The Department of Energy suggested'that §.61.27(d) or some prior section 'ihdicate the amount of time for which'a license is issued. Section 61.'27 refers

to "any" expiration date on'the license. As proposed,' Part 61 would not have

mandated an expiration date but 5 year.renewals were referenced as typical in

V.G. of'the Supplementary'Information, as noted earlier.' A~new paragraph was

added to § 61.24 "Conditions of licenses" to establish'the'requirement for an

expiration date in the license. Flexibility to set the date on a case-by-case

basis was retained to allow periods longer or shorter than 5 years.

Don't Waste Washington endorsed the language in § 61.27 stating the licensee's

continuing responsibility for site closure, postclosure observation, and transfer to the site owner whether the authority to continue to receive waste is

renewed or not; Staff agrees'and no changes were made to change the language

other than grammatical.

Rule Changes:

1. Add to § 61.24 a new (j):

The authority to'continue disposal of wastes shall expire at the date

stated in the license except as'provided in § 61.27(a) of this Part."

2. Delete "license renewal" in'§ 61.25(b).'-

ISSUE B-6

Issue:' Closure procedure'a burden

Commenters: Ontario Hydr6 (51)

Oswald U. Anders (73)

U.S. Ecology (101)

Rule'Citation: §§ 61.25'and 61.27 and 61.7(c)(2)

Summary'of Comments: Two commenters'suggested not subjecting the licensee to

opportunity for hearings at closur'e and one suggested deleting the requirement

for a license amendment to allow closure.

B-21
Analysis of Comments: Ontario Hydro expressed the view that hearings before

issuing the license should be sufficient and that a negative, result from

hearings on closurewould impose an unfair. financial burden on the licensee.

Anders expressed a general veiw thattheprocedures proposed i'n Part.61 are

over-regulation and will lead to perpetual litigation. Closure was singled

out as the final, blow - the lack of the right to "walkaway in frustration."

U.S. Ecology noted that closure plans will be reviewed in the initial application and periodically updated and expressed the view that no license amendment

should be required.

In response to these comments and the comments concerning the regulatory burden

of the renewal.provision (Issue B-5), changes to license conditions (Issue B-4),

the burden of multiple hearings (Issue B-9), and concerns of.States and local

citizens and governments (e.g., Issue F-2), the staff re-examined the procedures

proposed to assure up-to-date information and periodic reassessment.

For most licensees, closure will be a continuing activity all during operations

and final plans will not usually involve major activities. Broad input and a

last chance for the most affected persons to agree on the plans for long term

care seems prudentand in the best interest for providing assurances to the

custodian so that the custodian is willing,'to make the required upfront

committment. The requirement for a closure amendment and noticing closure was

retained.

Rule Changes: None.

ISSUE B-7

Issue: Length of Post Closure Observation and Maintenance Period

Commenters: Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)

Bechtel National Inc. (44)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: § 61.7(c)(3) "Concepts" and 61.29 "Post Closure Observation

and Maintenance"

Summary of Comments: None of the commenters took exception with the need for

a period of post closure observation and maintenance by the licensee. The Atomic

Industrial Forum and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers suggested

that since the period may need to be extended or possibly shortened based on

site specific conditions, it should be included in the site closure plan rather

than the rule. U.S. Ecology commented similarly about the need to consider

site specific conditions at closure which could warrant a shorter period. They

suggested that provision be made for a period of less than 5 years if conditions

warrant upon request of the licensee. The Department of Energy questioned the

basis for applying the 5 year period in all cases since a shorter or longer

time period might be required depending on site specific conditions.

B-22
.The American Nuclear Society, The AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers and Bechtel national, Inc. commented that the'-requirement, as written in requiring

a minimum of 5 years was open ended and'did not provide sufficient guidance to establish adequate funding for the time required. They suggested that'a specific .time frame should be set such that.the-licensee could plan for.the.time required. Chem-Nuclear.Systems commented similarly noting that a clear position on the retime frame is necessary for.an operator to set aside funds to cover those activities. .

Analysis of Comments: .The comments do not take exception'with the need to ,observe-and maintain the site after site closure to help ensure it is in a stable condition prior to transfer of control to the site.owner. They do take exception,..h6wever, with the fact that specifying a minimum of 5 years results in an open ended requirement which can affect a licensees planning activities and also the-fact that site conditions may warrant'a shorter or longer period .:-,of observation and maintenance. NRC did not intent to establish an open ended ... requirement and believed that by specifying a minimum of 5 years, a.specific Limited time' frame iould be established which could be extended, if needed, based on site specific conditions..'.NRC staff agrees that the length of time required will 'be a function of site specific conditions at closure.and'the post operating history of the site.

Rule Change: Based on the staff's analysis of comments, § 61.29 has-been modi- fied to read as follows:

§ 61.29 Post-closure observation and maintenance...

Following completion of closure.authorized in §:61.28,. the licensee-shall observe, monitor, and carry out necessary maintenance and repairs at the disposal site until the site closure is complete and the license is'transferred by the Commission in accordance with § 61.30.. Responsibility for the disposal site must.be maintained by the licensee6.for 5 years.. A' shorter or longer time period for.post closure observation and maintenance

may be established and approved by the Commisson as a part of the'site

closure plan based on site specific conditions.

ISSUE B-8 '

Issue: License transfer

Commenters: Environmental Law Project (9)

PA Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)

Arizona State Clearinghouse (47)

State of California (93)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100) U.S. Ecology (101) -;

Conference of' Radiation.Control Program Directors (103)

U.S. Ddpartment of Energy (119)

General Research (123)

Rule Citations: .§ 61.23 (g),-61.30, and related citations 61.24(a), 61.26.

B-23
Summary of Comments: One commenter was concerned that adequate safeguards'are

specified in the event. of transfer of thdilicense from'one operator to another.

Two commenters we're concerned about requirements for specific plans and assurances related to transfer of the license to the custodial agency and three'were

concerned'about delays in accepting transfer by the custodial agency. The Conference raised several questions concerning the concept of license transfer to

a state or federal agency after closure. They'questioned-what criteria would

be used to judge the agency, what enforcement actions might be taken, and why

a state might be licensed for custodial care but not DOE. The. Conference

suggested considering termination after closure.. Pennsylvania questioned

whether the rule would'allow the operator to remain the licensee for long term

care if so desired by the site owner. 'California expressed'concern about a

state assuming responsibility without adequate funds. (See Issue E-1). The

DOE suggested that custodial license conditions be added to the rule in § 61.31.

Analysis of Comments: The commenter concerned about license transfer to another

operator was primarily concerned about transferees being subject to all re'quirements that the initialflicensee was. The commenter wanted more'explicit'assurance. The proposed 'rule requires a license amendme'nt for transfer of the license

in § 61.24(a), "Conditions of licenses." 'A general requirements for issuing

amendments is in § 61.26(b) which says that the'Commission will apply the'criteria set forth in § 61.23. Section 61.23 specifies the standards for issuing

the initial license. Thus the proposed rule does require equivalent assurances.

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. who questioned whether a specific plan for institutional care is required and'how an applicant can assure compliance with such

a plan raised good points. Section 61.59(a) outlines certain minimum specific

activities which the custodian must perform. The amount of detail required

concerning activities during institutional control will be dictated by two

factors. One is the degree of reliance on the activities to assure protection

of the public health' and safety in the technical analyses. The second is

financial planning. Section 61.63 requires Commission approval of the arrangements and adequacy of financial assurances for institutional control. Costs

must be estimated for institutional care to determine adequacy. Thus some

preliminary plans would be required. Finalization of such plans would be part

of the application for amendment to transfer to the site owner pursuant to

§ 61.30. The staff does not agree with DOE that license conditions for the

custodial agency should be added. The conditions will be site specific, and

flexibility is needed. Detailed conditions were not added.

The applicant cannot assure the actions of the site owner. The applicant should

demonstrate that close coordination has occurred with the Federal or State

government who owns or will assume ownership of the disposal site. The certification required in § 61.14 is'intended to be "informed" consent and agreement.

The applicant can only be expected to providethe basis fo'r informed certification and financial planning and'evidence of the arrangement. Just as the

Commission determines that the applicant's proposals provide reasonable assurances, the applicant is'demonstrating'the custodial committment provides

reasonable assurance that institutional care will occur.

The commenters were concerned about delays in transfer under § 61.30 because

the custodial agency might impose more stringent requirements or use "when'the

agency is prepared" to effect delays. Such delays could deplete financial

reserves set aside. The commenters (U.S. Ecology and Chem-Nuclear Systems,

B-24
Inc. the two companies currently operating sites and the Atomic Industrial Forum)

correctly-identify a weakness in the proposed licensing procedures. The dilemma

the Commission faces is how to assure that the custodial agency has the commitment,'staff, funds, authority, etc.' to-carryout the institutional care''before

releasing the site operator without imposing an unfair burden on-the'site

operator as the-commenters suggeit.' In the draft EIS, alternative licensing

options were discussed in Chapter'8,'including a co-licensee larrangement up

front. 'The co-licensee experience with the West Valley, New York'reprocessing

facility did not solve this dilemma. None of the commenters offered a solution

other than making transfer a "part of the closure agreement.and not the regulation." Contingency planning for delays in transfer will have to'be a riskassociated with doing business unless case-by-case solutions are found. The

proposed rule provided maximum flexibility to address the issue on a case-bycase basis and no changes were made.

Two factors important to the transfer to the landowner are the limits on-NRC

authority and the importance of early and continuinginvolvement by the landowner. The turnover to the landowner is a contractural arrangement between

the operator and owner that NRC cannot'man'date.' The NRC can object to transfer

only. As pointed out in the analysis'of comments on § 61.59, since the landowner (usually the State) ultimately is responsible, it behooves the landowner

to be'involved during the lifetime of site operations. Continuing' awareness

and involvement should minimixe any last minute problems intransfer.

The Arizona co'mmenter recommended that license transfer occur after operations

to'receive wastes cease. The commenter is concerned that the lack of economic

incentive to cirryout closure ahd'postclosure activities could prompt the operational licensee to use legal means to escape responsibility. The commenter

suggested that provisions for the landowner to assume responsibility and marked

'funds and then' carryout closure, post closure observation :and'institutional

care should be added as a requirement in the rule to eliminate, reliance on the

operator.

The rule as proposed has sufficient flexibility to allow a number of options

including licensing options. The license can be transferred any time not precluded in the rule.: The landowner and custodian can be'joint licensee's'and

share or shift responsibilities at ahny point in the process... The State may be

the operator. The Arizona or. Pen'nsylvania"scheme--'operator as''long term care

licensee--may happen under the proposed rule but is not mandated. The'

Pennsylvania proposal has some drawbacks, but if the custodial period is short

because of waste restrictions or method of disposal (e.g , sealed mine), it

might be preferable. The Commission prefers to keep the flexibility for operator/ custodian roles in view of the LLW Policy Act activities and negotiations.

!With respect'to the questions raised'by tih'eConference,-criteria to be used to

judge'the State readiness for license trasfer will be focused on having staff,

authority, and funding in place. Any state can be a licensee - the'key is

readiness to implement the custodial program. Possible''enforcement'actions

include any the Commission is authorized to take against licensees. The state

would qualify as a "person" under Commission rule and would be a licensee.,in

the same status as other licensees'. ' The only reason for licensing a state and

not DOE is lack'of authority (see''Issue A-4). '-The Commission lacks the

authority to license DOE to provide institutional control.

B- 25
The'General Research Corporation expressed concernover the'lack of more prescriptive procedures 'for closure and postclosure activities. The commenter

was concerned that end points of these phases are not well defined and unanti-.

cipated problems may arise to interfere with 6rderly transfer for institutional

control. The commenter raises some interesting points to factor in specific

site planning but staff believes the level of detail and attempts-to postulate

all possible problem scenarios and include coverage to be too prescriptive and

speculative for a rule.

Rule Changes: none

ISSUE B-9

Issue: Hearings

Commenters: Environmental Law Project (9)

Oswald U.'Anders'Ph.D. (73)

Northeast Utilities (85)

Health Physics Society (96)

Rule Citation: § 2.105, V.G. of the Supplementary Information, § 61.25

Summary of Comments: One commenter believed the rule should require that public

informational hearings be held near the proposed site. Two commenters believed

that the multiple opportunities for hearings are a'burden and will virtually

eliminate the private sector. One expressed a general'concern about the burden

of hearings and questioned how the scope might be limited.

Analysis of Comments: The Environmental Law Project is concerned that public

hearings be mandatory. The suggested hearings'would be in addition to the

adversary hearings which can be requested under existing regulations. The,

Project also believed that residents of the area should be given two months

notice for the hearings and a local public document room should be established.

The Commission considered the alternative of~mandatory hearings of the,"adversary

type" as prescribed under existing regulations rather than such hearings being

optional. Establishing a new type'of hearing and prescribing the conduct of a

new type of informational hearing was not considered. Nothing in the proposed

rulemaking would prohibit holding such hearings. The applicant, the State,

the local government, or the Commission could hold informational~hearings.

In view of State activities under,the. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act,

a Commission requirement for local hearings could be duplicative and cause

additional delays. Developing the rules for suchhearings would be difficult

-and would require supplementary proposed regulations. The proposedregulations

require notification of local officials. Local officials and citizens can;

comment on and provide'input for the environmental impact statements for the

site. Thus the suggestion was not adopted.

The Commission~also considered mandatory local public document rooms. Local

document rooms have been established for existing.Commission disposal site,,.

licensees so a requirement would codify current practice. In the DEIS, caseby-case flexibility was indicated as preferable in case the state has made other

arrangements or lack of interst or willingness for a local group to accept

B-26
responsibility for maintaining the docket files. The Project offered no specific

arguments that would negate these views expressed in the DEIS. No change was

proposed.

The Northeast Utilities expressed concern-that the multitude of public hearings

and the associated uncertainties and burden would result in no private entity

being willing to develop a site. Northeast Utilities reviewed the five-phases

that make up the life cycle of a site and counted seven opportunities for

hearings assuming five'year renewals and 25 years of operation. (The seven

identified'would be a minimum number,-depending on how many changes require

notice and opportunity under § 61.25.) The commenter's concerns are addressed

under issues B-5 (renewals) and B-6 (closure) for these parts of the cycle.

No issue was taken with opportunity for'initial hearings'. The remaining

opportunity discussed by the commenter is at transfer to the custodian.

Oswald U. Anders expressed similiar concerns about the private sector viability

under the proposed regulatory scheme,' including multiple opportunities for.

hearings.

'As discussed for renewals (Issue B-5) 'and closure (Issue B-6), the licensee or

their interested party can request hearings on any Commission action. The

"Commission'has a'choice in whether to advertise the opportunity and delay action

for a specified period to'allow requests'as in 61.25(a)(1). In response to

.the concerns raised by commenters,' the required number of notices in § 61.25(b)

-has beenireduced by deleting renewals.'-

Limiting the timing and scope of hearings would involve changing the existing

process defined by 10 CFR Part 2. No changes to Part 2 are appropriate for

one category of licensee.

Rule Changes: See Issues B-5 and B-6.

ISSUE B-10

Issues: Post-Operational Monitoring

Commenters: ',Environmental Law Project (9)

-'lniversityof North Carolina (30)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of.Environmental

Resources (16)

'Duke Power Company (48)

Rule Citation: § 61.29 and 61.59

Summary of Comments: Five comments were received on this particular issue by

the commenters:

(a) "...the five-year active monritoring phase required by the proposed

rule § 61.29 is far too short..." (9)

(b) "At least ten years of some form of active monitoring seems to be

required, and perhaps more..." (9)

B-27
(c) "Some specific provision for additional monitoring if determined

necessary by geologic or other conditions would be helpful." (9)

(d) "It should also be made clear that active controls, especially

environmental surveillance, could continue beyond the 100 year time

period if the custodial agency so desires." (16)

(e) The environmental monitoring program should only continue during the

five-year post closure period if environmental monitoring is intended

to be a period of sampling of wells and other environmental samples

for radioactivity. If environmental monitoring is deemed to be

required for the period of 100 years, it should be severely limited

to occasional samples of the ground water pathway." (48)

Analysis of Comments: Environmental monitoring at proposed near surface disposal facilities under 10 CFR Part 61 is intended to be comprehensive and

extend beyond the post-closure observationand maintenance period. § 61.53(a)

requires a preoperational monitoring program and § 61.53(b) extends .this program

throughout the facility construction and operational period. § 61.29 requires

that the site licensee maintain complete responsibility for the site for a postclosure observation and maintenance period of 5 years and, as part of this

responsibility, the licensee must monitor the site. NRC has some discretion

over the length of this post-closure period and may extend it as conditions

warrant. With respect to Comments (a), (b) and (c), NRC is'not bound toa

5-year monitoring program, but depending upon site characteristics, facility

inventory or other factors, will determine the length of required postoperational monitoring on a facility-specific basis. (See change made,

Issue B-7.)

The staff disagrees with comment (e). The nature of the monitoring program

and extent of sampling will also be depend on site characteristics and will be

determined on a site specific basis.

With respect to Comment (d), the staff feels that the language of § 61.59(b)

is clear: The Commission will determine the length of the period of active

controls. As mentioned above, the length of this period will be determined

based on facility-specific characteristics. Although the custodial agency may

continue active controls beyond the period required by theCommission, the

Commission has in establishing the performance objectives and technical

requirements of 10 CFR Part 61, operated on the basis of not assuming reliance

on active controls for more than 100 years following transfer of control of

the disposal site.

Rule Change: See Issue B-7.

ISSUE B-11

Issue: License each disposal unit

Commenter: Arizona State Clearinghouse (47)

Rule Citation: Subpart B

B-28
Summary of Comment: Arizona suggested that a licensing approach oriented to

individual disposal units be considered.

Analysis of Comment:' Under Arizona's proposed scheme, only limited numbers of

disposal units would be authorized for use. Use of additional units would not

be authorized until filled'units were'adequately closed'and stabilized. Such

an approach would guarentee that closure was completedduring the operating

life of the site. However, it would involve additional'burden's for ;;he licensee

,and the Commission since specific license,amendments would be required. These

amendments would be an administrative burden and would subject the licensee to

additional requests for hearings' since hearings can be requested'concerning

any ,Commission licensing action. The proposed rule already provides for tight

control of licensee 'activities and periodic reassessments. The licensee car

be'reqUired'through the license to complete closure as units are filled.

From a technical point-of view, the site closure activities will be verysite

specific. Some-features of closure can be accomplished as you go, others,-will

involve-larger-aveas of the site or the entire site or longer timeframes. The

applicant will have to identify closure activities 'and'schedules inorder to

adequatelyjdevelop funding. These plans'will be part of the activities covered

by'the license and license conditions. '

The Commission agrees with the thrust of'the commenter's point that closure

should be'completed to the extent practical during operations to minimize the

work-that must be done after operations cease and economic 'incentives are gone.

The Commission prefers to keep site specific flexibility and minimize administrative burdens in implementing this approach. Thus the suggestion was not

adopted.

Rule Change: None.

ISSUE B-12

Issue: Signing application under oath

Commenters: Ontario Hydro (51)

General Electric (89)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

Rule Citations: § 61.20(a), 61.24(b)

Summary of Comments: The commenters questioned the need to sign the license

application and statements under oath.

Analysis of Comments: Knowingly submitting false information to a federal

agency is a crime. Signing under oath focuses attention on the responsibility

for the submitted information and provides added weight if the information

misrepresents facts or circumstances should the Commission be forced to take

action. Considering the long term importance of information associated with

waste dispoal, such focus and assurance seem reasonable.

Rule Change: None.

B-29
ISSUE B-13

Issue: Number of copies of application and EIS

Commenter: Union Oil Company of California (66)

Rule Citation: § 61.20

Comment: "The applicant should be required to provide only enough copies of

the application-and EIS to satisfy the distribution requirement."

Analysis of Comment: Section 61.20 requires the applicant to file 3'copies of

the application and environmental report and retain 85 copies for distribution

as directed. The distribution and basis for directing the applicant to

distribute copies is in proposed § 2.101(b). The numbers of officials and

interested parties will be different for each applicant. The 85 copies were

judged to the adequate to cover expected distribution needs. The number was

specified up front so that the applicant would know that multiple copies will

be required and can se'ek bulk rates for printing or copying. The current

provisions of 10 CFR 51.40(c) require the applicant for disposal facilities to

retain 85 copies' of the environmental report for'distribution. This number

was retained. Submission of 3 copies instead of 15 as required in § 51.40(c)

was adopted because of Paperwork Reduction Act limits. The Commission has no

better number and the 85 copies requirement was kept.

Rule Change: None.

B-30
ISSUE C-1i

Issue: Systems Analysis/Obje'ctiv~es vs. Prescriptive Requirements''

Commenters: Department of the Environment, London (19)

Commonwealth Edison (35)

'Los Alamos National Laboratory (43)

Ontario Hydro (51)

Georgia Yuan (77)

General Electric Company (89)

'Don't'Waste Washington Legal

Defense Foundation-'(97)'

American Institute of Chemical

Engineers (102) ' Conference of Radiation Control Program'Directors (103)

Carolina Power and Light Company (106)

New England Nuclear Corporation (110)

United States Department of the'Interior (114)

U.S. Department of 'Energy (119) -

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: Subpart C

Summary of Comments: Almost all commenters supported the approach of addressing

disposal from an overall systems standpoint; establishing overall performance

:objectives'(radiological protection standards) and minimum technical'requi.rements; and leaving considerable flexibility'in 'how an applicant or licensee

would design' and operate a site. For example, the U.S. Department`of the

'Interior stated'they agreed, in general, with the flexibility and conservatism

of the combined prescriptive and'performance objective approach.'

The New England Nuclear'Corporation,'The General Electric'Company and Carolina

'Power and Light 'all offered-a'similar comment that'the development of performance standards-in 10 CFR 61 is the best approach to establishing licensing

requirements for land-dis'posal-of low-level'radioactive waste. They agreed

that only'essential generic'presc'r'iptive requirements' should be included in

the regulations and all site'specific requirements should be incorporated in

individual facility licenses.- 'Ne& England Nuclear further commented they"

- agreed that both'performance objectives and prescriptive requirements are

necessary'. Pe`rformance objectives'should Lbe limited to occupational' and

'environmental impact concentrations"and sh'ould.be specified in the' regulations.

They also stated that generic prescriptiveTre4uirements are appropriate-to limit

LLW co centrations and to protect inadvertent'intruders. 'These' and prescriptive

;:.requireme'nts which provide financial 'surety should also'be in'corporated'in the

regulations. In the cases where prescriptive requirements are adopted from

other existing or proposed regulations these should be referenced or incorporated

in 10 CFR 61. Other prescriptive requirements which limit'site inventory'or

which protect against excessive migration of radionuclides are site specific

prescriptive requirements. Detailed prescriptive requirements should not be

in the regulation.

B-31
The U.S. Department of Energy commented, however, that the proposed regulation

is restrictive by setting both overall performance objectives and technical

requirements, which could significantly increase the costs and occupational

health impacts without any significant.benefits in increased safety. DOE

recommended that primary emphasis should be on the overall performance objectives, and the Commission should provide applicants with flexibility to propose

specific subsystem performance criteria based on a systems approach which considers site characteristics, design, and operating practices.

The Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation questioned the justification

for relying primarily on performance objectives in a area where concern for

public health and safety is so great. They further questioned why additional

technical requirements could not be used in.the rule.. The American Institute

of Chemical Engineers commented'that the rule should'present only performance

objectives and no technical requirements. .Th'ey. argued that the establishment

of technical requirements would constrain a licensee, result in overconservatism,

and prevent an operator from taking advantage of natural or engineered features

of a site which could allow disposal of higher concentrations without affecting

public health and safety protection.

Yuan commented that while the goal of flexibility has"merit, the proposed rule

does not provide enough s'pecific guidance. .She particularly felt that the site

suitability requirements would be difficult to apply' because they are too general

and depend on meeting'the performance objectives.

Analysis of Comments: The approach the NRC has followed is to set overall performance objectives to define an.acceptable level of safety.leaving an applicant

or licensee flexibility in choosing design features and operating practices to

achieve the objectives. The NRC also established some minimum prescriptive

requirements that were judged necessary in all cases in light of past operating

experience with waste disposal and based on specific controls needed for disposal of waste according to the classification system established by Part 61.

Based on the comments, this approach appears acceptable and NRC plans to continue its use. The U.S. DOE provided no specific details with respect to their

claim that Part 61 could significantly increase.costs and occupational health

impacts without any significant benefits in increased safety. NRC has examined

the Part 61 requirements as modified based on comments filed on the draft rule

and further staff analysis, and believes that they do provide a significant

benefit in increased safety over the long-term and a reduction in long-term

care costs fora small increase in -costs to s'ome waste generators to improve

waste forms and a small increase in disposal costs.. With respect to the

comments from the American Institute of Chemical Engineers that the' technical

requirements will constrain a licensee and not allow full' consideration of site

characteristics and design features, the NRC believes that the flexibilityprovided in the~technical requirements will not unduly constrain a licensee. They

will, however, help ensure a uniform level in safety in disposal and that problems which have occurred in the past will not occur to the same extent in the

future.

Rule Change: None

B-32
ISSUE C-2

Issue: Need for EPA Standards

Commenters: Catherine Quigg (13), ,

Conference of' Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

North Carolina Radiatibn Protection Commission (109)

Kerr-McGee (115)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: Subpart C

Summary'of Comments: Quigg questioned whether NRC is 'preemptinig EPA standards

setting authority. North Carolina urged a high priority'for EPA efforts. The

Conference supported'NRC objectives in t'e 'absence of EPA'standards.- Kerr-McGee

expressed the view that the exposure and emission standards proposed for Part 61

are premature and beyond the agency's authority to the extent that they are

not already embodied in 10 CFR Part 20. The EPA supported the performance

objective and prescriptive requirements approach used and noted that the information presented will assist EPA in its standards program.

Analysis of Comments: Quigg's commeht is addressed in the following analysis

of Kerr-McGee's comment.

The Kerr-McGee comment is based upon-the transfer to EPA', by Reorganization

Plan No. 3 of 1970, of Atomic Energy Act authority to establish generally

applicable environmental standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive'material. Such EPA standards can take the form of "limits

on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive

material, in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under

the control of persons possessing or using radioactive materials" (the quoted

language is from Reorganization Plan No. 3). The comnente'r argues that this

transfer of function leaves NRC no authority to issue exposure and emission

standards. Until EPA acts'NRC is alleged to be frozen into the standards of

10 CFR Part 20 promulgated prior to 1970.'

The comment sweeps too broadly, overlooking the legislative history of Reorganization Plan No. 3, which clearly establishes that the role to be played by EPA

consists of establishing base levels of radiation exposure'or concentrations

of materials regulated under the Ato'mic En'ergy Act when the materials have been

dissipated to the general 'environment'and are i'o'longer under control at a

specific site. (See Hearings, "Reorganization Plan Nos. 3 and 4 of 1970" Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization'and Government Research, Committee on

Government Operations, U.S. Senate,'1970,' at pp. 136-142.)

A subsequent memorandum dated December'7,'1973, from Ray L. Ash,! Director of

the Office of Management and Budget further clarified the relationship between

AEC (now NRC) and EPA as to standard setting authority. EPA was ordered, on

behalf of'the President, to discontinuee preparation 'of any standards for-facilities, and to restrict its role under Reorganization' Plan No. 3 'to setting

standards for the total amount'of radiation in the general environment'from'

all facilities combined in the uraniunifuel cycle.

B-33
When viewed against this more closely defined division of labor it is clear

that the standards in proposed 10 CFR 61.41 fall within the ambit of NRC

authority. The standards govern release of radioactive materials from within

the boundaries of locations under the control of licensees. The Supplementary

Information to the proposed rule also notes that the standards are anticipatory

of EPA ambient standards.. If and when EPA issues ambient standards the release

rates in Part 61 will be adjusted, if necessary, to be consistent and in harmony

with the EPA standards.

The Commission also rejects the notion that the standards of 10 CFR Part 20

are frozen in place until EPA takes final action on related ambient standards.

There is no law of which the Commission is aware that stipulates that it must

await the action of another agency before it can discharge its statutory duties

to protect the healt iand safety of the public from the hazards of source,

byproduct, and special nuclear material disposed of in commercial near-surface

burial grounds.

Rule Changes: None

ISSUE C-3

Issue: Performance Objective for Environmental Protection

Commenters:

Rule Citation:

of radioactivil

Marvin Lewis (3)

New Mexico Department for Health and Environment (4)

Catherine Quigg (13)

PA, Dept. of Environmental Resources (16)

Department of the Environment, London (19)

Joseph H White III (21)

Union of,'Concerned Scientists (36)

American College of Nuclear Physicians (53)

Union Oil Company of California (66)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control (79)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

State of New York Department of Law (99)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

New England Nuclear (110).

Colorado Department of Health (111)

Kerr-McGee (115)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

§ 61.41, Protection of the general population from releases

ty. I

Summary of Comments: There was no clear pattern or recurring issue in the

comments. Marvin Lewis commented that there is no absolute amount of leakage

which would be considered unsafe and the entire contents, of a site could leak

out slowly into the environment without violating the proposed rule. Joseph

White, III asked what amount of off-site migration would be acceptable to NRC.

B-34
The State of New York advocated a "zero discharge" criterion for ground and

surface waters or at least an ALARA criterion.

The EPA commented that the establishment.of an individualexposure. limit at

'the site boundary for enviornmental releases as proposed in § 61.41;was appropriate.,'They stated that the 25 mrem/yr limit is in the correct range of values

(1-25 rrem/yr was analyzed by NRC) that should encompass any future EPA standard

for LLW.disposal.facilities. Based on NRC's analysis, NRC does not anticipate

any need-to change the technical requirements of Part 61 to meet!such an EPA

standard. The'Department of the Environment, London commented that-the standards

specified in the rule appeared to'be reasonable. The approach of setting an

individual.dose limit for inadvertent intrusion and separate limits-forground

water releases is consistent.with the proposed U. K. approach to radiological

protection standards for disposal options and with ICRP principles. ;The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors supported the objectiveas,

proposed.

As discussed under Issue C-2, Kerr-McGee Corporation commented that the.standards

established in § 61.41 were premature and beyond the NRC authority to the extent

that they are not already embodied in 10 CFR Part 20.. Catherine Quigg asked

why NRC didn't wait for the EPA to set its limits and,.in effect, preempted

the EPA's authority by "anticipating" the EPA standards. The Colorado Department of Health also expressed the view that this performance objective was

not sufficiently justified and noted the legal challenge to the 25 mrem

criterion.

Kerr-McGee also commented that the proposed limits.in § 61.41 are toostringent

and unsupported. They specifically noted that the apparent use of.the EPA

40 CFR 190 standard'for fuel cycle facilities to derive a standard for LLW disposal facilities is not correct since:. . -

(1). EPA specifically excluded operations at waste disposal facilities from

Part 190..-. NRC may not promulgate its own standard in the absence of

''action by EPA; . . .

(2) The limits proposed are'too low since-they are a small fraction of the

.existing limits in Part 20,which have not resulted in any untoward results.

They.are also-a small'fraction'of natural backgroundexposure which leading

authorities'believe is r'ot hazardous or harmful; and,

,(3) The limits deviate from that specified in EPA 40 CFR Part' 190 since they

do-not exclude radon and its daughters excluded by 40 CFR Part'190. Without.this.exclusion theynote that the rule may be-unduly stringent when

applied.to the disposal lof either..'uranium or-thorium ore residue wastes

at a LLW disposal'facility. -

The Pennsylvania Department of Enviro nmntal Resources pointed out that the

same ALARA principles applied in'the development of the 40 CFR Part 190

standardsmay also-be..applicable in the case of LLW disposal facilities since

engineered barriers'and other site design features could further reduce potential exposures'in a'cost effective'manner.

The Department of the Environme'nt,.London commented that the dose limits for

ground water releases are consistent with current U.S. practice and, when

B-35
combined with the requirement that EPA Drinking Water Standards should not be

exceeded, should ensure the doses are'as!low'as reasonably achievable.' The

New Mexico Department for Health and Environment recommended that the EPA

drinking water standards''should be applied'to both existing and future potential public and private drinking water supplies. The Union of Concerned

Scientists similarily'commented that the EPA drinking water standards'should

be extended to all actual or potential water supplies outside the site boundary.

The American College 'of Nuclear Physicians recommended that the EPA drinking

water standards should'be applied at the site boundary. They pointed out that

the "nearest public drinking water"supply" criterion might change after establishment of the site causing'potential danger of retroactive design limitations.

South Carolina noted that the'rule should clarify whether the EPA drinking water

limit or 25 mrem/yr apply 'at the' site boundary. EPA commented that it was

inappropriate to apply the EPA drinking'water standard in § 61.41 as proposed

by NRC and stated it should be deleted from § 61.41. Kerr-McGee recommended

that the 10 pCi/l limit for uranium and thorium in drinking water should be

deleted from § 61.41. Argonne suggested including standard deviation for the

limit for uranium and thorium.

New England Nuclear Suggested clarifying changes concerning the use of "annual"

and "dose." The DOE commented that the basis for the drinking water limits

should be provided.

Analysis of Comments: With respect to the comments of Marvin Lewis and Joseph

White III, the performance objective in § 61.41 defines an acceptable level of

safety regarding releases to the environment from all environmental pathways

of release'from the-site. It thus defines'a safe level for releases from the

site. Since migration is the principal environmental release pathway; the

performance objective also defines an "acceptable" amount of migration that

would be allowed at the site.

Kerr-McGee's comments that the performance'objectives were premature and beyond

NRC's authority were discussed and addressed under Issue C-2. The-EPA, under

its generally applicable standards setting authority, has responsibility to

prepare a standard that will set limits on radioactivity in the general

environment from disposal facilities. Presently, there exists' no such EPA

standard. In the absence of a'standard, NRC examined a range of limits within

that expected for the EPA standard'and selected a proposed performance objective that establishes a release limit for the site boundary. The performance

objective thus takes the place of EPA standards and will be replaced by the

EPA standard when it is developed. 'Under its regulations development authority,

NRC may establish such limits on releases as it deems necessary to ensure protection of the public health and'safety.. As such, NRC developed the performance

objective under its general authority to establish such limits for radiation

protection purposes. In a rule making action, NRC is not solely limited to

existing standards in Part 20 and NRC does not intend to withdraw any portions

of the proposed rule that may be related to the performance objective.

NRC did not adopt the 40 CFR Part 190 standardlfor application to LLW disposal

facilities and as such is not subject to any limitations that are expressly

implied by EPA in the application of that standard." Rather, NRC'used the

40 CFR 190 standard to help establish a range of dose guidelines that should

be analyzed in selecting a performance objective for Part 61. Based on the

analyses, NRC selected 25 mrem (whole body and other organs except thyroid)

B-36
! , 77 F-,; -' 1 T

and 75 mrem (thyroid) as the preferred performance objective for environmental

releases. The performance objective represents what is achieveable and ALARA

at a LLW disposal facility and as such :is a small :fraction of other dose limits

set out in 10 CFR Part 20. The actual performance at individual disposal

facilities may be less than 25 mrem/yr based on site specific conditions. 'NRC

does not believe it is too stringent or low and'based on EPA's comments, believes

it is close to any standard EPA'may develop in the future. NRC, thus, has made

no change to this part of the performance objective on environmental releases,

but has, however, added the ALARA concept for emphasis

As suggested by Kerr-McGee, Part 61 does not apply to the bulk disposal of

uranium and thorium mill tailings or wastes .(byproduct'material as defined in

§ 40.4(a-1)) which are covered by"Part'40. Disposal of other uranium and

thorium wastes and small amounts of tailings is permitted by Part 61. Also,

NRC has not addressed as a part'of:this rulemaking the subject of the linear

non-threshold model, radiation hormesis,; or other detailed aspects dealing

with radiation dose response relationships. They will be'addressed in other

forums.

With respect to comments on the application'of EPA drinking water standards to

the nearest public drinking water'supply, NRC heavily'weighted the EPA comment

that its use in § 61.41 was not appropriate and believes that it should be

deleted from'the performance'objective.`'NRC intends, as a part of the review

of an application for a site, to consider and evaluate water usage near the

site including application of appropriate standards.''

With respect to comments on "annual" and 'dose," NRC did not express the limit

in terms of effective dose since NRC is-presently evaluating, as a part of

development of proposed amendments to Part 20, whether and how NRC will implement'this-approach.' Until this work is completed'NRC does'not plan to'use this

approach'in' individual rulemaking actions-and no-change will Lbe made'to §'61.41

':'in this regard.' Based on the final'decisions made in amendients to'Part'20,

however, compatible changes may need'to be made to the performance objectives

in Part 61L- NRC considers the perf6rmance objective dose limits'expredsed in

units of rem, to mean dose'equivalent' The term annual or year'refers tobany

period'of 12 consecutive months.'' ' '

Rule-Change:' Based on the staff'sranalysis of comments, the'performance objective for protection of the general population from'releases of-radioactivity

has been revised'to delete reference to the EPA drinking water standard-and

include ALARA. The revised performance objective reads as follows:

§ 61.41 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 environ-

'ment to as low as is reasonably achievable. 1,,

B-37
ISSUE C-4

Issue: ., Performance Objective for Intruder Protection

Commenters: Marvin Lewis (3)

Catherine Quigg (13)

Department of the Environment, London (19)

Commonwealth Edison (35)

Union of Concerned Scientists (36)

Union Carbide Corporation (39)

Bechtel National Inc. (44)

Ontario Hydro (51)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

Oswald U. Anders (73)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Amy S. Hubbard (90)

New York State Department of Law (99)

Paul Ziemer for EG&G Idaho, Inc. (104)

Program Review Committee

Carolina Power and Light (106)

New England Nuclear (110) ,, i,

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (113)

Kerr McGee Corporation (115)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: § 61.42 - Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion

Summary of Comments: There was no clear pattern or recurring issue in the

comments. The Union of.Concerned Scientists stated that the nature of the

intrusion events should be specified in the amendments. The American Society

of Mechanical Engineers inquired about the time frame that should be applied

to the inadvertent intrusion to evaluate the 500 mrem/yr. Marvin Lewis

commented that 500 mrem seemed like a large exposure for making a small mistake

and questioned how a 500 mrem exposure could be ensured without on-site.

security. The Birmingham Audubon Society commented that instead of using

500 millirem per year, it should be no more than 10 percent of background per

year. Catherine Quigg inquired how the NRC arrived at the 500 mrem limit.

She asked if NRC took into consideration the greater health risk to children,

pregnant women or the fetus, or ill, elderly people from such a dose. She

stated there is no basis for NRC projecting that only one, or at most, a few

persons would be exposed and asked how NRC could predict how many people might

be farming or digging in a certain plot of land over the next 200-300 years.

Amy Hubbard commented similarly noting that present trends in population growth,

soil erosion, and.water resource needs will result not in inadvertent intrusion

but actual permitted uses of the land and water at a site. She stated the

analyses of-intruder exposures were deficient since they did not consider a

more plausible family intruder where some numbers of the family would spend

more time at the site and some family. members (children and pregnant women)

would be more sensitive to radiation. She concluded that the analysis was

inadequate for present day society and its applicability to the future is even

more uncertain.

B-38
The Department of the Environment, London commented that the approach of setting an individual dose limit for inadvertent intrusion is consistent.with the U.K. approach;and with ICRP principles. They questioned, however, whether the limit

was consistent with ICRP dose limits because the rule did not state whether the limit is in terms of effective dose. They.stated this point should be clarified. The New England Nuclear Corporation also recommended that NRC clarify the performance objectives by specifying internal and external dose equivalent limits to individual organs as suggested by the ICRP.and that dose be defined to mean.".dose equivalent". They inquired as to whether "annual" and'"year" refer to-a calendar or a sliding year.: Onario Hydro supported the.500 millirem dose limit as only a few people could conceivably receive that dose. -The.New England Nuclear Corporation commented they agreed with the proposed.dose limit provided that waste concentration limits are calculated to ensure, with reasonable probability, that the inadvertent intruder.does not receive more than 500 mrem/yr. They further noted that since the inadvertent intruder is identified as the critically exposed individual foremost radionuclides, more effort should be directed into determining the probability of intruder scenarios occuring. Waste concentration limits could then be relaxed if these interaction probabilities are factored into the impact calculations. The New-York State Department of Law stated they were impressed with the innovative approach to disposal regula- .tion through protection of various populations at risk; general populations, intruders and employees. The American Nuclear Society and Bechtel National Inc. commented on the absoluteness of the performance objective and recommended using the word "should" in place of the word "must".

The Union Carbide Corporation commented that with continuing passive institu- tional.controls such as deed restrictions, the dose limit of 500 mrem was too low. The Union.Carbide Corporation recommended it be raised by a factor of 10 to the occupational exposure limit of 5000 mrem. Carolina Power..and Light commented similarly noting that the 5000 mrem/year limit currently applied to radiation-workers represents an acceptably low risk and should be the standard applied,,that.there is a low probability of intrusion and a limited-number of individuals-would be involved. The Department of Energy, the LLW Management Program Review Committee, Argonne National Laboratory, and Oswald U. Anders all commented that the inadvertent intruder scenario is given too much weight. Reasons stated included the fact that it leads to unreasonably low concentra- tions for radionuclides in Table 1, exercises inordinate control over potential disposal site options, and safety regulations for the general population should not.be dictated by the hypothetical actions of a very-small number.of:indivi- duals., rThe LLW Management Program Review Committee noted that the intruder scenario is more analogous to an :accidental exposure pathwaythan to a' chronic

exposure pathway. They sugggested that more emphasis should be placed on requirements to reduce the likelihood of intrusion such as use of durable

monuments large-enough to warn potential intruders. Oswald Anders also noted the inadvertent intruder could be sufficiently warned by a big enough monument with.an inscription in-deep relief on it about the disposal site. For the same * reason, the U.S. Department of, Energy recommended that the NCRP 25 rem acci- dental exposure limit.be used as.the intruder dose limit rather than 500 mrem. They also-noted that the 500 mrem limit leads to unreasonably.iow~concentra- tions and increases the costs of disposal. Oswald Anders commented that the inadvertent intruder's needs are readily taken care of by placing the required cap onto the burial trench. He stated no.truly inadvertent-intruder would burrow to more than 7 feet under the ground without considerable deliberation and knowing what he is doing. The Kerr-McGee Corporation also objected to

B-39
restrictions embodied in the intruder performance objective. They argued that

the inadvertent intruder hypothesis is-predicated on the assumption that the

government will-,fail which is inconsistent and antithetical to our constitution. They also argue that this is doubly-the case since the proposed regulations require licensees to provide funding for institutional-controls of

indefinite duration.

The EPA commented that the 500 mrem dose limit was not appropriate as a regulatory limit. A licensee would not be able to monitor or demonstrate compliance

with a specific dose limit'imposed in the objective today that applies to an

event that might occur several hundred years from now. They recognized use of

500 mrem as a 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 then 500'mrem per year.

Commonwealth Edison commented that this performance objective lacked adequate

provision for protection of the general public from potential releases to the

environment. They noted that'although terrorists are not "inadvertent" intruders, they believe there should be a plan to safeguard a site from terrorists

in that disposal sites' may be more susceptable to covert acts than nuclear

power sites. Amy Hubbard also commented that acts of terrorism and sabotage

were neglected.

Analysis of Comments: With respect to comments that NRC express the dose limit

in terms of effective dose, NRC did not express the limit in terms of effective

dose since NRC is presently evaluating, as a part of. development of proposed

amendments to Part 20, whether and how NRC will implement this approach. Until

this work is completed NRC does not plan to use this approach in individual

rulemaking actions and no change will be made to § 61.42 in this regard. Based

on the final decisions made in amendments to Part 20, however, compatible

changes may need to be made to the performance objectives in Part 61. NRC

considers the performance objective dose limits expressed in units of rem, to

mean dose equivalent. The term annual or year refers to any period of 12

consecutive months.

NRC staff agree with EPA's position that it is not appropriate to set out a

specific limit in the performance objective although a limit should continue

to be used as a basis for the waste classification concentration limits in

§ 61.55. A dose-limit in the performance objective will be essentially

impossible to monitor against and ensure compliance with for several reasons.

Inadvertent intrusion into a LLW disposal facility-is a hypothetical event

which may never occur. NRC's objective'is to ensure that if-it should occur,

the exposure to the individuals involved would not be unacceptable high. Since

it is not possible to control today what may happen several hundred years in

the future, NRC is controlling the concentration of waste disposed of today

such that if someone should contact it through reasonable'uses to which the

site could be put in the future, the individuals involved-would not receive a

high exposure. NRC used 500 mrem as a basis for determining the concentration

limits in waste which would result in actual potential exposures to an-inadvertent intruder'of a few 100 mrem at 100.years and a few mrem at 500 years. Thus

the performance objective is to keep potential exposures to an inadvertent

intruder to a dose limit that is not unreasonably high given the accidental

and hypothetical nature of the event. Using 500 mrem as a limit to calculate

concentration limits yields potential exposures of a few mrem after 500 years.

B-40
In addition, there is no practical way in which a licensee could monitor and

assure compliance with an actual exposure limit and there is no way to absolutely predict the type of intrusion event whichimight occur, when it might

occur, and how many people might be involved.

,-The majority of the commenters, including Argonne:National Laboratory, the

Union Carbide Corporation and the U. S.. Department of Energy, Oswald Anders,

the LLW-Management Program Review Committee, and the Carolina Power and Light

Company, in their, comments about considering probability of occurrence,

expressed concern about weighting too heavily inadvertent intrusion in

determining disposal requirements for-waste. Several expressed concern about

the basis for-the 500 mrem limit and some recommended that a higher dose limit

(e.g., 5000 mrem or 25 rem) should be applied.

NRC's selection-of the 500:mrem limit was based on (1) public opinion gained

through the 4 regional workshops held on the preliminary draft of Part 61;

(2) its acceptance by national and international standards organizations (e.g.,

ICRP)-as an acceptable exposure limit for members of the public; and' (3).the

results of analyses presented in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS. In considering EPA's comment-above that the intruder dose limit is not appropriate as a regu- latory limit and considering ALARA (given the mix of waste disposed of at a

site) actual potential exposures at 500 years would only be a few' mrem; comments on the-nature of intrusion events and ability to predict what with'

actually-happen; and comments that NRC has weighted intrude'r considerations

,too heavily,,NRC has changed its approach to addressing inadvertent intrusion.

No change.has been made inithe intruder scenarios considered since'they'reflect,

to the extent that we can predict today, reasonable , probable and productive

uses of the disposal facility site... As such, probability of occurrence of-.

specific events will not be quantitatively assessed. The.NRC believes that

the primary concern of those who feel that the intruder protection'objective

is too~restrictive.is the effect that this has on the concentrations' of certain

nuclides that are acceptable forrdisposal 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 NRC has reevaluated 'the

calculations that establish the waste-classification concentration limits to

eliminate unnecessarily conservative assumptions with the-result that'the

analysis is more realistic and the limits for'several important nuclides have

been raised. With this action, the NRC believes that most of the concerns of

those who encouraged higher exposure.limits or less emphasis on protection of

intruders will have been met. ,

As previously discussed, the actual-'exposures to an intruder if such events

:should occur at 500 years would be. A fewrmillirem.,. NRC did not specially

consider the greater health risk to children, pregnant women or the fetus, and

others except to the extent that they may already be considered as a part'of

the 500 mrem exposure limit recommended by. various national and international

authorities such as the ICRP. -. D

Several commented about the nature of the intrusion events, (Union of

Concerned Scientists), how many people.wouldbe involved, how NRC predicted this (Catherine Quigg) and questioned 'the adequacy of site security to preclude inadvertent intrusion. (Marvin Lewis); Kerr-McGee objected to the

restriction in-the performance,objective since it'assumed failure of the

government which is inconsistent with our constitution.' For purposes of

B-41
analysis, NRC considered 3 intrusion events.-.These were:selected based on

evaluation of the broad range of events possible, those considered by other

investigators, and the'likelihood of occurrence. The 3 events can be characterized as intruder construction (exposure to workers constructing a house at

the site), intruder agriculture (exposure to individuals living in the house

constructed and consuming food grown onsite), and intruder discovery (exposure

to an individual who'digs into the waste, realizes something is wrong and

ceases his excavation activities). NRC assumed that-only a few individuals

would be exposed though such'activities based on the number of people normally

required to construct and live in a house. With'respect to site security and

institutional control, during the operational and post closure observation and

maintenance periods,'the licensee would be responsible for maintaining site

security and control of the site. This would' include fencing, posting,

security guards, and controlled entrance and exit from the site. During the

following 100 year institutional control period the government land owner

would be responsible for site security which would include maintaining the

fence and warning signs, physical'surveillance and control over access to the

site. NRC does not assume that the government fails at the end of the 100-year

institutional control period, but rather that the 'government'ceases active control over access to the site. 'Thus, Kerr-McGee's'assumption has no foundation

in the rule. The rule does not presuppose collapse or failure of government,

but rather places a restriction on the character of radioactive material disposable by near surface'disposal that'serves to relieve government of the burden

of actively excluding persons from'the site in perpetuity. The lifting of

institutional contr'ol under the rule results from the fact that an inadvertent

intruder will not be subjected to an unacceptable high-dose of radiation

(defined to be 500 mrem for purposes of analysis). 'Based upon the kinds of

material' expected to be buried and public opinion, the NRC staff determined

that the maximum period of institutional control will be 100 years after

closure. Kerr-McGee also' states that funding is required for institutional

controls of an indefinite duration. This is not so.' Active-institutional

controls are not indefinite (100 years as noted above).if the concentration

limits of § 61.55 are adhered to. Other passive controls such as government

land ownership, records, deed restrictions and covenants which will have

little to no cost would continue'after active controls cease and would serve

as an additional means for preserving and'transmitting information about the

site.

Finally, as noted above, NRC also did not'directly consider the probability of

various intrusion events occurring except to the extent of considering reasonable, probable productive uses to which the land could be put. Unusual activities such as an archaeologist reclaiming artifiacts at the site were not considered. NRC agrees with the comments on use of "permanent" markers at a site

to inform of the material disposal'of at'the-facility.

Rule Changes: Based on the staff's analysis of comments, the performance

objective for protection of the inadvertent intruder has been revised to delete

specific reference to 500 mrem. It reads as follows:

Design, operation and closure of-the land disposal facility must ensure

protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal

site and occupying the site or contacting the waste at any time after

active institutional controls over the disposal'site are removed. -

B-42
-

In addition, words have been added to Part 61 to indicate that monuments are

required to warn against intrusion.

ISSUE C-5

Issue: Protection of Individuals During Operations; ALARA for the

Performance Objectives

Commenters: Dow Chemical Company (17), (83)

Department of the Environment, London (19)

New York State Department of Law (99)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

New England Nuclear (110)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule:Citation: §61.43 Protection of Individuals During Operations; Subpart C

Summary of Comments: EPA commented that this section was not clear with respect

to whether releases to the environmental during operations would be covered by

Part'20, as implied here, or by the performance objective in §61.41,on'6rotection of the general population from releases of radioactivity. EPA further

commented that it was, their view the performance objective on protection of

.the population should apply both during and after operations. The DOW Chemical

Company commented that in an effort to reduce the uncertainties associated with

pathway analysis, the NRC should make it very clear that the spirit of the'ALARA

conceptrapplies to all standards and technical criteria. The Department' of

the Environment expressed the view that the approach used to develop Part 61

reflected ALARA principles throughout. New York and the Conference commented

that ALARA should guide all site activities and all of Subpart C. 'New England

Nuclear cautioned against using ALARA to impose excessive restrictions. 'a

Analysis of Comments: NRC agrees with EPA's view on application of §§61.41

and 61.43. NRC intends that §61.43 would require that everything in 10CFR

Part 20 with respect to occupation safety, control ofradiation in restricted

areas, control of radiation in unrestricted areas, and maintaining radiation

exposures and releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas as low

as reasonably achievable would apply to the disposal facility. Releases of

radioactivity to the environment during operations and over the~long term after

operations cease would be governed by §61.43. Although §61.43 conflicts' with

-limits in Part-20; NRC believes the lower limits in §61.43,which are achievable,

should apply in the spirit of-ALARA.

Rule Changes:

1. Add to §61.'41:

i' .- Every reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity

in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable:

2. Add to §61.43:

Except for releases-of radioactivity in effluents from the land disposal

facility, which shall be governed by §61.41 of this part every reasonable

effort shall be made to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably

achievable.

B-43
ISSUE C-6

Issue: Stability of the Disposal Site After Closure

Commenters: Dow Chemical Company (17)

Joseph H White, III (21)

Sierra Club (37)

Duke Power Company (48)

Northeast Utilities (85)

New York State Department of Law (99)

Rule Citation: §61.44

Summary of Comments: The New York'State Department of Law commented that they

particularly support the notion of site stability as a criterion for successful

disposal. If the site is stable over longiperiods of time, the likelihood of

excessive long-term maintenance costs is significantly lower. They also point -

out that, as history has shown, site owners (States in this case) have been

and probably will be saddled with unrecoverable multi-million dollar bills each

decade to maintain facility integrity. Joseph H. White, III inquired what would

be done if stability is not met. Duke Power Company commented that stability,

as defined, applied to the'waste and disposal site. They recommended clarification to show that the more important aspect is really stability of the trench,

not the waste. Dow Chemical Company commented that placing reliance on stability

of the disposed waste will be possible only if stability is specified and enforced

by the standards'and technical criteria during the disposal operation. They

pointed out that techniques'which provide stable waste forms are available today

.but due to lack of regulatory standards and technical criteria they are not in

general use. They noted that these techniques result in monoliths which place

the radionuclides into forms which are less likely to be dispersed and less

likely to be released to and transported by ground water. These monoliths are

more likely'to be recognized and therefore avoided;or properly'investigated

and handled by intentional or inadvertent intruders. They also commented that

these factors are within the concept of ALARA and reduce the need to rely on

the many unknowns and uncertainties associated with pathway analysis.

The Sierra Club commented that the goal of long-term stability and avoidance

of continued, active maintenance at the site is central to Part 61 and noted

the goal was enthusiastically shared by environmentalists;! industry and government. They expressed concern,'however, that there is no basis-in experience

with burial sites located in regions of moderate to high rainfall that indicates this goal can be achieved by the means outlined in Part 61. They further

commented that unless the recommended measures have been demonstrated to-work

at an already existing facility, then the measures are examples of wishf6ul

thinking and not concrete tactics whose implementation will result in the

desire goal. To establish regulation on the basis of a hoped-for future dream

and not on the basis of actual experience is a dangerous process that may lull

the unwary into a false sense of security.

They commented that the goal of stability supposedly will be achieved through

specific site design features. They cite for example, in § 61.51(a)(4) that

"Covers must be designed to prevent'water infiltration"' but note that at none

of the existing sites and after twenty years of experimentation has water

B-44
infiltration through covers been prevented. They note an apparent misunder- standing in Part 61 regarding the inevitable slumpage of trench contents. Without this understanding--that slumpage leads to cover indentations,- cracks and collapse--then it is possible to make the mistake that cover "design" can solve the problem. Likewise, they note there is a fundamental misunderstanding that slumpage can be avoided by techniques of placing materials into'the6trench

or by packaging of materials. They finally.comment that unless the relation- ships are clearly seen between gradual deterioration of packaging, slumpage, trench cover collapse and water infiltration, no meaningful design criteria

can be established.

Northeast Utilities suggested that Class A waste disposal areas be exempted from the .stability objective because the wastes are not required to be stable.

Analysis- of Comments: NRC has stated the stability performance objective-as a goal. The site characteristics, facility design and operations, and waste characteristics.should work together to assure protection ,of; the public health -and safety without the need for continued active care and maintenance. As dis- cussed-under Issue Number GEN-1, the absoluteness of the language needs modifica- tion. However, only minor custodial care (and minor maintenance) should be required over the long term. As Mr. White inquired, there may be cases where 'this goal will not be met in an absolute sense which may require some additional maintenance to achieve a stable site condition.

With respect to the comments by Duke Power, Dow and the Sierra Club, each seemed

to -reflect one part of the combination-of site characteristics, design and opera- tions (e.g., trench and covers) and waste form characteristics which-would work collectively to-ensure long-term site stability. That-is,- NRC does.not expect -reduced'infiltration through trench covers that are constructed on waste forms sand containers which are not structurally stable and which have not been placed -intoaltrench and backfilled in a-manner to help achieve a stable-disposal environment. It is with this view in mind that NRC in Part-61 separated out the:higher activity wastes-requiring that they be placed into a structurally stableform or container. Waste must also be disposed such that disposal -unit design, 'waste emplacement, backfilling and other-operational techniques will lead to a stable site condition.. Lower activity wastes thatdo not need-to

meet the structural stability-waste form requirement are required to be disposed of in separate disposal-units such that-they do not contribute tothe:slumping and collapse of trench covers. -(This is one of the-primary reasons:for trench

cover collapse problems -that-have occurred at several-existing sites.-) In this

way a stable foundation is created for a better designed-trench cap which can ,retard-infiltration and direct-water away-from disposal units. Disposal units containing lower activity compressible wastes may require some increased maintenance'to achieve a stable site condition but the hazard presented by such

-wastes is low. Also for such cases-,;greater'emphasis will be placed on appro- priate design and operations to achieve a stable site condition given the com- pressible andtdegradablenature of the waste involved.

Rule Change: Based on the staff's analysis of comments, NRC changed the stability performance objective (§61.44) by deleting the words "disposed waste and the" and adding the words, "to the extent practicable" after eliminate. In this way stability of the disposal site itself and the absoluteness of the requirements is addressed.

B-45
ISSUE C-7.

Issue: -Need for Additional Performance Objectives

Commenters: Los Alamos National Laboratory (43)

State of California (93)

Health Physics Society (96)

Rule Citation: Subpart C

Summary of Comments: The Health Physics Society recognized the need to assure

radiation protection for employees, possible intruders, and the general public

during land disposal facility operations and beyond. They recommend that each

of these groups be properly protected using limits in 10 CFR 20, as currently

written or as proposed, rather than proposing a system of new and unique limits

related to waste disposal. Theyinoted the establishment of a unique 'system of

dose limits for 'a separate area of the nuclear fuel cycle seemed unnecessary

and may imply a special need for protection in the minds of the public; thereby

exacerbating ansalready confused public perception of radioactive waste disposal

issues. The Los Al'amos National Laboratory commented that it would be desirable

to add a performance objective to minimize intrusion by plants and animals which

have the potential for transporting radionuclides to the food chain. The State

of California noted that §61.40 sets standards to avoid excessive exposure to

humans and that excessive exposure to animal life should be avoided also.

Analysis of Comments: The NRC staff agrees with the comments of the Health

Physics Society that new radiation protection limits should not be developed

if existing limits can be applied. This is the approach that NRC has followed.

With respect to occupational safety, NRC has required that disposal facilities

comply with the same limits in Part 20 which other licensees must comply with.

With respect to releases to the general environment from disposal facilities,

however, NRC does not have any existing standards in Part 20 or EPA standard

to apply. Existing standards in Part 20 apply to effluents where a licensee

-can exercise direct control over the releases. They don't necessarily apply

to the migration and release of material from a disposal'facility from less

readily controllable means. At the same time, protection of the inadvertent

intruder is a new consideration applicable to disposal facilities, but not

necessarily applicable to other types of facilities NRC licenses. Thus, NRC

was faced with examination and determination of radiological limits involving

somewhat different considerations than those already covered in Part 20. As

discussed in the EIS;fhowever, NRC did consider the range of existing.,standards

in establishing performance objective for environmental and intruder protection.

NRC recognizes the need to minimize intrusion by plants and animals and considered

this as part of the draft EIS analysis. NRC established no specific requirements

in this area because of the site specific nature of the type of animals and

vegetation which should be'considered. NRC plansto review, on a site specific

basis, to ensure that burrowing animals and deep routed plants which could serve

to transport radionuclides offsite are not a problem.

Rule'Changes: None

B-46
J

ISSUE D-50-1

Issue: Complexity siting requirement

Commenters: Ontario Hydro (51)

Union-Oil''Company of California (66).

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

Georgia-Yuan (77)

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (79)

U.S. Ecology (101)

U.S. Department of Interior (114)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: 61.50(a)(2)

Summary of Comments: Six of the eight commenters questioned the vagueness.,of

the requirement: i.e., what does it mean to be capable of being characterized,

modeled, analyzed, and monitored? Two of the commenters-(South.Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control and U.S. Department of Energy)

suggested examples:or rewordings to answer the preceding-question. The U.S.

Department of the Interior'queried-what.types of models were included, i.e.,

physical scale, numerical, or conceptual; and, Union Oil Company of California

asked questions such as: what role will modeling play, what site characteristics

and events'will be'modeled,' and are there NRC-approved models?.,

Analysis of Comments: The staff recognizes the vagueness of Section 61.50(a)(2)

and has attempted to provide additional explanation in the draft technical

position paper on site suitability and site characterization. The staff'is

revising that technical position paper and the examples and suggested rewordings

offered by'-South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental. Control, and

the U.S.;Department of Energy will be incorporated into that.revision. .(See

-page 5 of NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection, and Characterization.")

The staff does not believe that a concise statement can be made in the regula-

'ition to remove the vagueness'noted by the-commenters. Rather, technical

~position papers on these subjects will.provide direction.. In addition the

staff is developing an in-house modeling capability and will. share that

capability through pre-qualification of prospective computer codes.

Rule Change: No changes are recommended for Section 61.50(a)(2).

ISSUE D-50-2

,Issue: Ground water requirements

Commenters: Department of the Environment,.London (19) . Sierra Club, Radioactive Waste Campaign (37)

Ontario Hydro (51) ; '-. . -Union Oil Company,(66). - Argonne National Laboratory (68)

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

B-47
Paul F. Hadala and Don C. Banks (76)

South Carolina Department of Health and Enviornmental Control (79)

State of California (93)

Peter Skinner for Attorney General of New York (99)

New England Nuclear (110)

U.S. Department of Interior (114)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: 61.50(a)(4), 61.50(a)(7), 61.50(a)(8)

Summary of Comments: Four commenters (Ontario Hydro, Argonne National Laboratory,

Department of Interior; and Department of Energy) concurred with the exception

to Section 61.50(a)(7) to permit disposal below the water table where diffusion

dominated the ground-water flow system. The Department of the Interior recommended

using the term "molecular diffusion" and both they and Ontario Hydro specified

a soil hydraulic conductivity of less than 10-6 cm/sec as appropriate. The

State of California, on the other hand, took considerable exception to disposal

below the water table and spoke in favor of total containment. They suggested

a revision of Section 61.50(a)(7) as follows:

The disposal site must not be located 1/within basins containing usable

groundwater or their recharge area, or 2/within geologic formations which

will permit the diffusion of radionuclides to the environment, or their

transport by groundwater to a degree exceeding the performance-objectives

of Subpart C.

The Department of the Environment, London, commented that no requirement on

ground water other than meeting Section 61.41 was needed. One commenter

recommended a siting requirement on soils which will preclude or reduce leachate

migration by attenuation. Two commenters (Georgia Institute of Technology and

Peter Skinner for the Attorney General of New York) recommended separate mention

of requirements for impervious and porous soils. Both cited the ability of

porous soils to drain readily and thereby avoid prolonged contact of infiltrating

water with the waste. The former commenter suggested the impervious soils could

be treated to keep water out of the disposal units; the latter commenter suggested

a leachate collection and treatment system for the impervious soils.

Three commenters requested that Section 61.50(a)(7) provide a minimum depth to

the water table, and, the Department of Energy stressed the importance of avoiding

the transection zone of the water table..

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control recommended

that the natural resources considered under Section 61.50(a)(4) specifically

include ground water and aquifers underlying the sites and suggested examples

of ground water characterization data needs. Two concerned citizens

(Commenters 76) suggested revision of Section 61.50(a)(8) to conform to the

wording used in the staff's draft technical position on site suitability and

site characterization. Union Oil Company suggested that §61.50(4) address areas

of "known" natural resources.

New England Nuclear suggested addressing changes in natural background radioactivity due to construction and assigning a probability limit on ground water

intrusion.

B-48
I 17 -w -- arie:-

* Analysis of Comments:. The staff appreciates the approval for the exception to

- permit disposal below the water table where moleculardiffusion dominates the

ground-water system. -The staff disagrees with the comment received from the

State of California and-would point out that a clay encapsulated disposal unit

-proposed bylthe State -is somewhat comparable. The basic difference is .that

the type of site envisioned by the;staffas. satisfying the exception isaan

inactive flow system so the water which would contact the solid/solidified

wastes Would move on the-order ofiless than one foot-per year. Given~the low

hydraulic conductivity and affective porosity of the soils, very little water

would actually contact the waste or flow from the disposal'units.; The travel

-time will result in sufficient reduction of concentration of. the small amounts

released; and fine-grained soils will typically provide significant attenuation

for most radionuclides. The staff-interprets the State 'of.California comment

to be largely based on experiences with disposal of liquid wastes in fine-grained

' soils above the-water table. The staff considers that experience is not

applicable to the disposal required under 10 CFR Part 61. .

The comment from the Department of the Environment, London raises the very

interesting question of why, if the performance objectives can be shown to be

met, do there have to be any requirements related -to ,wate'r'access 'or diffusiondominated transport. The commenter states that it oo'n is necessary to ensure

the releases via ground water will not result' in failure to meet the performance

objectives. -Given the latter.statement, all that is really needed in the

regulation are the performance objectives. However,. the staff, has identified

in 61.50 and 61.51 certain characteristics which will if present (or in some

cases if absent) enhance the ability to meet the performianc o bjectives and,

consistent with the ALARA concept, result in potential releases which are both

within-acceptable limits and as low as reasonably achievable through prudent

site selection and site design. Since the staff considers the water (soil

moisture) to-be the prime catalyst for degradation of waste containers, leaching

of wastes, subsidence, and.transport, particular attention.has be'en'given to

limiting the access of water.into the.disposal unit.

The staff-does not consider a specific-siting requirement on'such characteristics

which promote attenuation of radionuclides to be appropriate.. Whereas the staff

does agree that attenuation is advantageous for some radionuclides,tothers such

as H-3, C-14, Tc-99 and I-129, are not significantly attenuated. Rather, the

rule uses siting requirements which will keep water away from-the wastes', result

in low volumes..released,. and provide long travel time for decay.

Proposed sites with impervious or porous soils will be,'evaluated on a case basis.

The staff agrees that site design features can effectively limit access of water

to-wastes; however, the staff takes exception to any design which relies upon

a leachate collection and treatment system as violating Section 61.44. Sump

systems may well be installed in the.disposal units.to collect precipitation

entering while the trench is open. :The sump systems can' provide monitoring

-locations and, if necessary, leachate collection systems. However, the staff

does not want-the disposal facility designed so as to v on bely the 'sump systems

'to make the facility meet the performance objectives''and/or to prevent bathtubbing.

Rather, the disposal facility should fully meet'the performance objective on

isolation (Section.61.41) without the.sump systems. '

The staff agrees with the Department of Energy comment on' avoiding alternative

wetting and drying within the disposal unit due to fluctuations of'the water

B-49
table. However, the staff does not feel that a numerical value can be assigned

to a minimum"'de'th to' the water-table. That particular; depth will' vary according

to soil type due to the height of the capillary fringe above-the water table.

The staff will review the minimum depth on a case basis,. and, if the soil type

changes across the site as'at the Sheffield'site, on a trench basis based on

soil moisture and tensiometer measurements.

As indicated in the draft technical position paper on site suitability and site

selection,%'the term natural resources does include ground water and aquifers

underlying the site. The staff agrees that the wording in Section 61.50(a)(8)

can be improved as suggested. The intent of the section is to require, through

site requirements, a travel time for potential releases at least approximately

equal to the time required for groundwater to travel to the site boundary.

During the travel'distance, decay, sorption, precipitation, and other processes

could act to reduce concentrations to within acceptable limits. In addition,

the travel distance to'the site boundary provides space in the buffer zone for

remedial actions, if needed, prior to releases to the surface environment.

Staff agrees with the ground water data needs identified by South Carolina and

they'are reflected in the'BTP (NUREG-0902). The data needs are too'prescriptive

to include in the rule, however.

Staff agrees with Union Oil that the applicant should not have to perform

extensive exploratory evaluations looking for'natural resources and that "known"

resources would be addressed.

New England Nuclear',s suggestions regarding addressing changes in natural

background due to construction and addressing'ground water intrusion on a

probabilistic basis as was done for flooding are interesting points. Changes

in ground water background will be a very site specific'issue and is judged to

be of most importance in the environmental monitoring program. (See-Issue

D-53-1). Staff did not adopt this suggestion. (See responses to DEIS comments:

Commenter 32, Item 12 and Commenter 38, Item 5.) Staff also did not adopt the

probabilistic approach for intrusion in favor of retaining the flexibility of

an objectives and'reasonable assurance approach.

Rule Changes:

1. Section 61.50(a)(4) should be changed to delete "economically significant,"

and insert "known". Conforming changes should also be made to §61.12(h)

(see Issue B-i).

2. Section 61.50(a)(7) should be changed as follows:

The disposal site'must provide sufficient depth to the water table that

ground water intrusion, perennial or otherwise, into the waste will not

occur. The Commission will consider an exception to this requirement to

allow disposal below thew'ate'r table if it can be conclusively shown that

disposal site characteristics will result in molecular diffusion being

the predominant means of radionuclide movement and the rate of movement

will result in the performance objectives of Subpart C of this part being

met. In no case will waste disposal be permitted in the zone of fluctuation of the water table.

B-50
3. Section 61.50(a)(8) should be changed to read as follows:

The hydrogeologic unit used for disposal shall noL discharge ground water

to the surface within the disposal site.

* -ISSUE D-50-3

Issue:

Commenter:.

Surface-water drainage and flooding

New Mexico Secretary for Health and Environment (4),

* Sierra Club, Radioactive Waste Campaign (37)

Duke Power Company (48),

Union Oil Company (66)

Georgia Yuan (77) ... South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Northeast Utilities (85)

State of California (93)

U.S. Ecology (101) - New England Nuclear (110)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

(45)

Control (79)

Rule Citation: Supplementary Information, V.C.(3) Surface Water

61.50(a)(5), 61.50(a)(6)

Summary of Comments: The commenters.raised four questions on the siting

requirements related to surface water drainage. These comments can be-summarized

as:-

(1) definition of terms, specifically upstream drainage areas, costal high-hazard

area, and wetland,

(2) the adequacy of the exclusion of waste disposal based on the 100-year

floodplain rather than the 300 or 500-year floodplains,

(3) whether engineering.drainage:modifications can be made in order.to meet

the requirements, and .

(4) the vagueness of the terms, such as generally free, minimized, and decrease.

Analysis of Comments: The second sentence in Section 61.50(a)(5) implements

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines. The terms "coastal

-high-hazard area" and "wetland"are defined in the ExecutiveOrder. The term

"upstream drainage area" can be defined in conventional hydrologic terms as

all the land surface which drains, either by channel flow or sheetwash, across

the near-surface disposal facility., Since these definitions either exist already

in federal.regulations or are standard definitions,.the staff does not see the

need to re-define or reproduce the definitions in 10 CFR Part,61.

The comments on the adequacy of exclusion of waste disposal from the 100-year

floodplain fell in two groups, namely those, such as the State of California, who

felt the probability of occurrence was too high given the length of radiological

hazard and others who misinterpreted the meaning of the 100-year floodplain and

assumed it meant one flood of that magnitude was certain within a 100-year period.

B-51
With respect to the probability of occurrence, the 100-year floodplain is that

land which would be inundated by a flood having a 1 in 100 chance of occurring

in any particular year. The staff feels the major hazard due to flooding is

associated with the period of site operations when disposal units are open.

Given that Section 61.51(a)(6) required that the contact of water with wastes

must be minimized during and after disposal and Section 61.52(a)(9) requires

that disposal units be closed and stabilized as each unit is filled and covered,

the disposal units will be open a comparatively short time. Once closed, the

covers and site drainage system will provide protection against flooding. The

staff considers the 300 or 500-year'floodplains to be unnessarily restrictive;

and, the staff questions whether an adequate data base or standard methods of

determining the 300 or 500 year floodplains exist.

The question on engineering modifications raised by U.S. Ecology and Union Oil

will be addressed more fully in technical position papers related to site

suitability, selection and characterization and to site design and operations.

The requirements on well-drained, free of areas of standing water, and minimal

upstream drainage areas relate primarily to the site after construction.

However, natural areas of poor drainage or frequent ponding can be indicative of

seasonally high ground-water levels. In addition, any engineering drainage

modifications must have a lifetime in excess of 150 years and must be consistent

with Section 61.44.

With respect to the vagueness or non-prescriptive nature of the requirements,

as questioned by Georgia Yuan, the staff recognizes that potential disposal

facilities may represent a wide variety of site characteristics. Whereas the

staff prefers, for example, sites which are well-drained and not subject to

frequent ponding, the staff views the Barnwell site with its shallow bays perched

on surficial clay deposits as a suitable site for low-level waste disposal.

Basically then the'staff anticipated that "non-prescriptive" siting requirements

will be site screening tools which will be met in most cases and which, if not

met fully, will require a site-specific evaluation. The staff finds this

preferrable to treating the "prescriptive" siting requirements as exclusionary.

The State of New Mexico supported the wording of §61.50(a)(6) and suggested

editorial changes to the Supplementary Information to be more consistent with

§61.50(a)(6) to insert "The potential for flooding should be low". Staff believes

this issue should be addressed by clarifying the real concerns raised by potential

flooding as indicated in recommended rule change 1 below.

Rule Changes:

1. Wording in Section V.C.(3) Surface Water of the Supplementary Information

should be revised as follows if it is used in the future:

Areas which are poorly drained, subject to flooding, or downstream of

significant upstream drainage areas should be avoided to reduce-the

potential for'inundation or exhumation by erosion of the disposal units.

2. Insert a reference to Executive Order 11988 in §61.50(a)(5).

3. No changes are recommended for §61.50(a)(6).

B-52
ISSUE D-50-4

Issue: Colocation with hazardous waste disposal facilities or other

nuclear facilities

Commenters: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (38)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (79)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

American Nuclear Society (87) - U.S. Ecology (101)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

Colorado Department of Health (111)

Rule Citations: 61.51(a)(7)

61.50(a)(11)

Summary of Comments: Comments on this.issue covered two separate rule citations,

61.50(a)(11) dealing with masking of.the environmental monitoring program and

61.51(a)(7) dealing with using the disposal site for radioactive-wastes only.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control commented

that the requirement on masking of the environmental monitoring program should

not be interpreted so strictly as to prevent location-adjacent to.existing

federal facilities. U.S. Ecology suggested an editorial revision.

Most of the other commenters agreed that the requirement on disposal of radioactive wastes only (Section 61.51(a)(7)) was too restrictive and that colocation,

without co-mingling, could be advantageous.

The.Utility Nuclear Waste Management.Group noted that proposed Part 61 would

not preclude location of a disposal facility at a reactor site and the ANS noted

that location adjacent to another nuclear facility is not prohibited.

Analysis of Comments: The staff agrees with the comments from South Carolina,

ANS, and the UNWMG, however, the staff cautions-that the environmental

monitoring program for a near-surfacedisposal facility must be able to identify

and quantify releases. Should adjacent activities also result.in releases,

the environmental monitoring program must be able to differentiate the source

and quantity'of releases. U.S. Ecology objected to the use of "significantly

masked" and expressed the view that the monitoring program is either masked or

not masked. Only not masked should be acceptable. Staff chose to leave the

flexibility for locations near other nuclear facilitiesibut would repeat the

caution on identifying and quantifying.,releases and'interpreting results.

- ,, ... -. ., ., .I

With.respect to co'location', there appears.to be.a misinterpretation of the

requirement. The.requirement indicates that the disposal site, which is subject

to NRC licensing, shall'be used only for-disposal of.radioactive wastes. It

does not preclude colocating facilities, such as.at Sheffield. However, the

hazardous waste.site~must'be separate from-the licensed radwaste site and potential interactions between the sites must be fully evaluated in terms of the

site performance objectives.. This issue is also.discussed under issue D-52-4.

B-53
Rule Change: No wording changes are recommended for Sections 61.50(a)(11) or

61.51(a)(7). Note that 61.51(a)(7) should be relocated in the rule to §61.52 on

operations.

ISSUE D-50-5

Issue: Tectonics

Commenter: University of California, Los Angeles (8)

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

Georgia Yuan (77)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: 61.50(a)(9)

Summary of Comments: Three of the commenters raised the question of the

relevance of seismic or volcanic hazards to low-level waste disposal given the

orders of magnitude difference between time frames between those geologic,-

phenomena and the hazard of the low-level wastes. The UCLA comment indicated

that Section 61.50(a)(9) may completely eliminate all potential sites in `

California; yet, it is highly unlikely ground faulting would result in releases

given the other siting and waste'packaging requirements.

The Department of Energy and Georgia Institute of Technology suggested rewording

the requirements as follows: "Active seismic faults or volcanic sites are

unsuitable."

Analysis of Comments: The staff deliberated to great lengths the question of

whether,.given all the minimum technical requirements on site selection and

waste packaging, surface faulting would result in significant releases of

radionuclides. The staff has also considered indirect effects of faulting,

such as creation of barriers or highly transmissive drains for ground water

flow.

The staff also gave serious consideration to the UCLA comment that the proposed

requirement could possbly eliminate all potential sites in' California. That

comment ignores the key words in the requirements which are "with'such frequency

and extent to significantly effect the ability'of the disposal site to meet

the performance objectives...preclude defensible modeling and prediction of

long-term impacts."

Rather than adopt the wording suggested by the Department of Energy and Georgia

Institute of Technology, the staff has provided a mechanism for site-specific

evaluation of such'factors as recurrence intervals, probabilities, liquefaction

potential and ground accelerations to compare against a 500-year radiological

hazard, dimensionally stable waste container requirements, solidified waste

forms, and disposal above the water tables. The minimum technical requirement

would not arbitrarily eliminate-potential sites so much as (1) provide a site

screening test which will be met in most cases and (2) mandate a thorough

evaluation of site performance in areas.of known tectonic, hazards.

Rule Change: No changes are recommended for Section 61.50(a)(9).

B-54
ISSUE D-50-6

Issue: Demographic requirement

Commenters: Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

-New England Nuclear (110)

Rule Citation: 61.50(a)(3), 61.50(a)(11)

Summary of Comments: The Department of Energy and New England Nuclear have

expressed reservations about the reliability of projections of population

growth'for 100 years or more. U.S. Ecology recommended-specifying a timeframe

for population projections to clarify whether 100 or 500 years is intended.

.In addition, New England Nuclear has indicated that zoning requirements should

bemandated in order to restrict off-site activities which may affect.the performance of the disposal facility.<'

The Birmingham Audubon Society indicates strong approval for the requirement

as written.

-Analysis 6f'Comments: The comments on the reliability of long-term projections

are very interesting, since a significant portion of the staff findings to support approval of a license'application will be based in large part upon long-

.term'projections' equivalent to the'duration of the radiological hazard. The

staff recognizes each of these projections, whether-dem6graphic, hydrogeologic

or other, has a degree of uncertainty. Part of the staff review of any projections focuses on this uncertainty and how it has been handled by the

applicant.

In addition, the staff considers the previous experience with commercial lowlevel disposal sites to illustrate that suitable sites can be reasonably found

in areas of low population density and minimal population growth potential.

With respect to requiring zoning restrictions on land adjacent to a nearsurface disposal facility, the'staff considers this to be unnecessary since

site selection and an appropriately-sized buffer zone around the disposal site

can provide sufficient separation from near-by activities. This should be

especially true when one considers the type of site which meets the entire set

of site suitability-requirements. The site should have very limited water

resources, either surface or subsurface, insignificant mineral resources,:a

low population density'to draw a'work force from; and then there should-be no

existing nearby facilities which could adversily impact the site or theenvironmental monitoring program.: .

With respect to specifying a timeframe'for projections,'the staff considers

such-a'provision to be overly prescriptive for the rule;. The projections

should address the combination of factors discussedrin'the preceding paragraphs.

Both 100- and 500-year intervals are a part of the disposal scheme but should

:be addressed in different levels of.detail and approach in view of the uncertainties and changing institutional control and intruder protection measures

related to each-period. -

B-55
. IRule Change: No changes are recommended for Sections 61.50(a)(3) or

61.50(a)(11).

ISSUE D-50-7

Issue: Transportation siting requirement

Commenters: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (38)

Rule Citation: Proposed new requirement for 61.50(a)

Summary of Comments: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency have recommended an additional

siting requirement on accessibility of near-surface disposal facilities to major

transportation routes. The Pennslyvania DER expressed concerned that the largest

contributor to population exposure is transportation from the waste generator

to the disposal facility. In addition, the Pennsylvania DER recommended a

separate section for minimum institutional requirements, such as transportation routes, public water supplies, and population density.

Analysis of Comments: Transportation requirements are addressed in D. 0. T.

regulations, and given that they-are met, the, issue of accessibility of major

transportation routes'becomes primarily'an economic consideration to be

considered in site selection and the evaluation of alternatives required under

NEPA. The other two-"institutional" requirements recommended by Pennsylvania

are already present in Sections 61.50(a)(3) and 61.50(a)(4).

Rule Change: No changes are recommended.

ISSUE D-50-8

Issue: Properties of site soils

Commenters: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (79)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: Proposed new requirement for 61.50(a)

Summary of Comments: Each commenter has proposed additional siting requirements

related to characteristics of the soils. South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control has proposed requirements that the mechanical and

physical properties of the soils be compatible with certain uses required . primarily in Section 61.51(a), e.g., suitable for compaction. The Conference

of Radiation Control Programs Directors have recommended exclusion in areas of

high natural radioactivity. The Environmental Protection Agency recommended

a requirement that the site soils be permeable enough that water infiltrating

into a trench can drain through the trench bottom rather than accumulate.

Analysis of Comments: The staff feels each of these suggested requirements is

unnecessary. The requirements in Section 61.51(a) which South Carolina addresses

will be met, but not necessarily with on-site soils. Off-site soils may be

B-56
I .

trucked in, as at Sheffield, or engineered features may be used. Requirements

such as being capable of supporting the construction equipment or being amenable

to the surface water drainage are implicit if stabilization is to be accomplished.

With respect to areas of high natural radioactivity,.these areas would be excluded

if they could be shown to violate Section 61.50(a)(11). Otherwise, the staff

sees no valid reason for excluding.these areas.

The staff agrees with the concept of the EPA comment and has.included a recommendation in the technical position paper on site suitability, selection, and

characterization .(NUREG-0902, p. 8) that the bottom of the disposal unit should

,drain at least as readily as water can infiltrate into the disposal unit. - However, the staff feels that this can beaccomplished.by site characteristics,

design features, or most frequently a combination of both. Therefore, the,

staff has given the applicant flexibility while requiring in 61.51(a)(6) -that

the contact of percolating or standing water with wastes after disposal must

be minimized to the extent practicable.

Rule Change: No changes are recommended.

ISSUE D-50-9

Issue: Time spans for siting and design requirements

Commenters: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (10)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)

South Dakota State Planning Bureau (69)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Rule Citations: Supplementary Information, V., C., (5) Stability; 61.12(d);

61.50; and 61.51

Summary of Comments: The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has raised

the general question of how long do the various siting or design requirements

have to be satisfied. This comment was repeated in various terms by Bechtel

National, .the American Nuclear Society, and the Atomic Industrial Forum. Bechtel

National and the American Nuclear Society requested that the design basis natural

events or phenomena be identified and that the length of hazard associated with

these be stated.

The South Dakota State Planning Bureau offered the suggestion that the stability

requirement be specified as 100 years; whereas the Birmingham Audubon Society

commented that waste stability should be required for the 500-year duration of

the radiological hazard.

Analysis of Comments: As indicated in Column 1 on page 38084 of the Federal

Register notice, the siting, design, and waste package requirements relate to

both stability of the disposal site and control of releases within acceptable

limits. Over the time frame of the radiological hazard, reliance must be

placed primarily on the site since the waste package and design features will

decrease in effectiveness. Therefore, each of the siting requirements in Section 61.50(a) should be considered applicable over the indefinite future and

should be evaluated for at least a 500-year time frame.

B-57
The time requirements on design and waste packages, however, should be applied

to a shorter period. Given any necessary passive maintenance to maintain the

design features in an effective manner,; the staff would anticipate a gradual

decrease in effectiveness of the design features and waste package such that

they will continue to provide a significant though decreasing contribution to

isolation for approximately 300 years. This should be particularly true

because the design features will have been observed, repaired and modified, if

necessary, to assure a stable disposal site prior to the end of the institutional control period.

Bechtel National and the American Nuclear Society request that the time frame

for which design bases natural events or phenomena must be considered be stated.

This comment raises.much'the same question as raised by the ACRS on time spans

for siting requirements. The staff believes that the time frame for considering the design bases natural events or phenomena is equivalent to the minimum

time of concern'for siting requirements (500 years). The design life of the

particular design feature would thus be evaluated over the period (300 years)

when the feature is significantly contributing to isolation and a follow on

period of contribution of less significance. Additional guidance will be

provided in a BTP on site design.

Rule Changes: No changes are recommended.

B-58
ISSUE D-51-1

Issue: Site design --

Commenters: Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)

Arizona State Clearinghouse (47)

Duke Power Co. (48)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Peter Skinner for Attorney General, State of New York (99)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (.101)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

Texas Department of Health (117)

U.S. Department of Energy'(119)

Rule Citation: 61.51(a)(3), 61.51(a)(4), 61.51(a)(6), 61.62(a)

Summary of Comments: Five of the commenters objected to the absoluteness of

the requirements in 61.51(a)(4) and 61.51(a)(6) and suggested replacing the

words "prevent" and "eliminate" with "minimize." Several indicated the words

"and improve" should be removed from 61.51(a)(3) or similar concerns about

mandatory improvements. Several commenters questioned the use of, "eliminate"

when referring to.,erosion in.§61.51(a)(5) and active maintenance in §61.-62(a).

The Texas Department of Health requested preferential consideration be given

to progressive slope design for burial; and Peter Skinner indicated concern

that-the rule does not provide specific guidance for engineered features which

would deal with leachate generation and that site areas used for disposal of

Class A waste will require more maintenance.

Analysis of Comments: Sections 61.51(a)(3), 61.51(a)(4), and 61.51(a)(6)

are design objectives. Given these are design objectives, the actual. -

achievement will be-to minimize, rather than absolutely prevent or eliminate.

*'The staff anticipated that at most sites, design features can be used.to

improve natural site characteristics, particularly with respect to surface

water drainage and limiting infiltration into the disposal unit. Additional

guidance will be provided in the technical position paper on site design

and operations. .Staff agrees that improvements may not be mandatory and

inserted "where appropriate" in §61.51(a)(3).

The commenters on §§61.51(a)(5) andr61.62(a) are referred to the definition of

"Active maintenance" in Section 61.2. 'It is the staff's intent that the need

for active maintenance be eliminated and staff believes that this goal as

reflected in the definition can be-achieved.

With respect to progressive slope.design for burial, the regulation does not

specify the type of disposal unit. Alternative types of disposal units have

been evaluated in NUREG'.s CR-0308 andCR-0680. Additional guidance will-be

provided in the technical position paper on site des'ign-and in an NRC-sponsored

symposium in September, 1982 on the same subjects. .

B-59
The staff will provide more specific guidance on avoiding leachate generation

and addressing the inherent instability of Class A waste in the technical

position paper on site design and operations. (See the discussion of stability

under Issue D-52-2 also.) The site designer should give particular attention

to the design of that portion of the site used for disposal of Class A wastes

and use innovative designs to provide long-term stability.

Rule Changes:

1. In Sections 61.51(a)(4) and 61.51(a)(s6), change "prevent" and "eliminate"

to "minimize." (See Issue GEN-1 also.)

2. In Section 61.51(a)(3), add "where appropriate" after "and improve."

ISSUE 0-51-2

Issue: Design life of markers and monuments

Commenters: Union of Concerned Scientists (36)

State of New Mexico (45)

State of California (93)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: 61.52(a)(7), (9)

Summary of Comments: The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends that "warning

signs" with a 500-year design life be employed as a deterrent to inadvertent

intrusion. The U.S. Department of Energy also recommends requiring permanent

monuments for the site.

The States of New Mexico and California request that there be a provision for

a "permanent" identification monument with a'design life of 500 years. They

recommend this be high enough to be 'visible above the contour of the disposal

site.

Analysis of Comments: There are few "signs" in the traditional sense that

have design lives of anything approaching 500 years. The staff would consider

granite monuments, near the survey marker control points required in 61.52(a)(7),

which have the radioactivity'symbol and descriptive data engraved on them as

permanent markers. Staff also notes that the'later the monuments are installed, the

longer they should last during the passive control period. Thus installation after

the licensed period of active institutional control may be appropriate and this

flexibility was provided by the suggested change.

Rule Change: Addition to subsection 61.31(c)(2).' "permanent monuments or

markers warning against intrusion have been installed."

ISSUE 0-51-3

Issue: Alternatives for Class A or Classes A & B Waste

Commenter: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (38)

Rule Citation: §§61.50, 61.51, and 61.52

B-60
Summary of Comment: The commenter suggests that the NRC consider less stringent

siting, design, and operational requirements for a facility designed to contain

Class A or Classes A and B wastes than one containing Class C wastes. The

commenter indicated that the present rules are designed to ensure containment

of Class C wastes.

Analysis of Comment: The proposed ri

to the disposal of Class A wastes. I

ments for Class B and C wastes have l

protection added for Class C wastes.-

requirements can be lowered to those

ule assigned lesser operational requirements

However, the stability and design requirethe same basis, with additional intruder

The staff does not'agree that the Class B

.for Class A wastes.

The commenter is correct that the siting requirements apply equally to all

classes of waste and staff believes that this position continues to be reasonable

in view of the minimum nature of the requirements. Section 61.54 provides

flexibility to approve hlternative design and operational requirements and

would be the vehicle for considering proposals such as less restrictive measures

for disposal of Class A waste only.

Rule Change: No changes are recommended.

ISSUE D-51-4

Issue: Intruder barrier engineering

Commenter: PA Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Joseph H. White III (21)

Ohio EPA (38)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)

University of Arizona (78)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: Section 61.7(b)(5)

Summary of Comments: The University of Arizona and Department of Energy point

out the usages of the term "engineered barrier" in 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61 are

inconsistent. Ohio and Pennsylvania noted that "engineered barriers"-mayialso

be used to describe features that limitior control water movement. Chem-Nuclear

Systems Inc. indicated their support for the use of'"engineered barriers". as

an alternative to deeper'disposal for Class-C waste. White questioned what

types of barriers may be used. - -

Analysis of Comments: The usage in'10'CFR Part 61 for the term "engineered

barrier" is inconsistent with 10 CFR Part 60. The usage in 10 CFR Part 61

should be'changed to "intruder barrier." -

Options other than depth involve use of natural or man-made barriers having - an estimated protection lifetime of at least 500 years. Options might include

multiple layers of soil, clay, gravel,tand boulders or caissons capped with

concrete. Additional guidance on such bptions will be addressed in the Branch

Technical Position on design and operation'being prepared.:_

Rule Change: Change "engineered barrier" to "intruder barrier" in 61.7(b)(5),

in 61. 52(a) (3).-

B-61
ISSUE D-52-1

Issue: Segregation of wastes

Commenters: Joseph H. White III (21)

Alabama Power (33)

Union Carbide Corporation (39)

South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control (79)

State of New York (99)

New England Nuclear (110)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

State of Washington (112)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: § 61.52(a)(1).

Summary of Comments: Alabama Power is concerned that the waste classification

requirements should not prohibit mixed classes of waste being shipped on one

transport vehicle. For example, if a container of Class B or Class C waste

needs to be transported by a shipping cask the commenter felt that, any remaining

space in the cask should be allowed to be filled by available waste containers,

including Class A waste containers. Otherwise, transport costs would be

needlessly raised. The commenter believes that waste containers should be

segregated at the disposal site rather than segregated by the generator into

different transport vehicles.

Union Carbide stated that Class A material would form a good shielding buffer

from the more radioactive Class B material. By segregating the waste classes,

burial trenches for Class B may be filled-with dirt simply to provide shielding

which could have been provided by the Class A material, resulting in better

land use.

The State of New York, New England Nuclear, the Utility Nuclear Waste Management

Group, and DOE questioned the meaning and intent of the term "interaction" in

the requirement in § 61.52(a)(1). The Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group

suggested defining sufficient separation as no interactions that can result in

premature failure of the disposal facility. The State of Washington questioned

the need to segregate by waste class at arid sites, indicating that comingling

should be allowed. White questioned how wastes would be segregated.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control recognized

waste segregation as a viable option to further assure meeting the performance

objectives over the long-term; however, waste segregation has several short-term

drawbacks. These include increased operational exposures due to the absence

'of shielding-provided by the Class A wastes, a need for at least two trenches

open simultaneously and a resulting need for additional handling equipment,

and higher radiation levels-at the trench boundaries with.a resultant significant increase in occupational exposure.

Analysis of Comments: The intent of the rule is not to prohibit waste from

more than one class from being shipped on the same transport vehicle.

B-62
Consistant with transportation requirements, the staff has no objection to

comingling different classes of waste in transport.

In response to Union Carbide's:comment, the staff notes that the Class A wastes

are segregated to provide better long-term stability of the disposal site because

Class-A waste, such as ordinary trash-type wastes,-is less stable. If mixed

with higher activity.Class B wastes, the-deterioration of Class A wastes could

lead to failure of the cover system and permit water to penetrate the disposal

* unit, resulting in potential migration of.:the higher activity wastes. Therefore,

the,.long-term potential for waste migration is considered a more important factor

than the optimization of short-term operational parameters. This same reasoning

is applicable to the comments raised by the South Carolina Department of Health

-and Environmental Control. The operational exposures can be directly monitored

and controlled such that applicable standards are not exceeded. In addition,

recent advances have been made in the technology to remotely place wastes with

a variety of lifting devices, thereby providing some mitigation of potential

occupational exposures.

In identifying the need to clarify the term "interaction," the commenters noted

that it was vague and unenforceable. The intent of the provision was to protect

Class B and C wastes from the less stable Class A wastes. Class A waste as

proposed may contain absorbed liquids, dewatered resins, and biological materials,

for example, that may release solvents, water, known chelates, or other mobile

components. These mobile components may interact with other wastes in the

disposal unit. If the other wastes are Class A and of lesser hazard, the

consequences of the interaction are minimized. In addition, Class A wastes

are less stable and more prone to degradation, will consolidate and provide a

less stable support for disposal unit covers, leading to increased infiltration

of precipitation and increased potential for surface water intrusion through

voids in the covers. When the additional moisture from any of these sources

leaches the waste, some of the solvents and organics'are mobilized along with

soluble radionuclides. The amounts and range of these mobilized materials will

be very site specific and depend on factors such as soil types, hydraulic

gradients, precipitation, and cover designs. The language in the rule was

modified to reflect the desired protection of Class B and C wastes and to

reference meeting the performance objectives instead-of the absolute "no

interaction.". In addition, the rule was modified to permit disposal of stable

Class A waste with Class B and C wastes.

The State of Washington regulates the arid disposal site located near Richland,

Washington. The State noted that ground water or surface water are not significant factors at arid sites, and, segregation of Class A wastes seems to be

unnecessary when weighed againsttheiburden of operating separate disposal

units. The State noted that co-mingling of Class A and B wastes would dilute

the Class B wastes and have potential benefit. The State's observations may

have merit for arid sites, but they are difficult to adopt in a rule that must

address sites located in all parts of. the country. ,However,-the Commission

anticipated the need to-consider alternative disposal requirements and included

§ 61.54, '"Alternative requirementsefor design and operations" to provide for

consideration--of-such alternatives, without granting;exceptions to the rule,

provided the performance objectivesiof Subpart C are met.; State requirements

could certainly contain similar provisions for alternatives and remain compatible

with the rule.

B-63
- -

Rule Changes:

1. The concern raised by Alabama Power has been addressed by changing the

wording of § 61.52(a)(1) to more clearly indicate the intent as follows:

"...placing in disposal units which are sufficiently separated from

disposal units for the other waste classes..."

2. The concern about the meaning of the term "interaction" has been addressed

by relating the requirement to the performance objectives as follows:

"...so that any interaction between Class A wastes and other wastes

will not result in the failure to meet the performance objectives in

Subpart C of this Part."

3. The concern about comingling waste classes has been partially

by adding the following statement to § 61.52(a)(1):

"This segregation is not necessary for Class A wastes if

the stability requirements in § 61.56(b) of this Part."

addresses

they meet

ISSUE D-52-2

Issue: Factors in Stability of the Site

Commenters:

Rule Citation:

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (10)

Nevada, Department of Human Resources (14)

University of North Carolina (30)

Sierra Club (37)

Duke Power Company (48)

South. Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control (79)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

State of New York (99)

Atomic'Industrial Forum (100)

U. S. Ecology (101) -

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

State of North Carolina (109)

New England Nuclear (110)

State of Washington (112)

Department of Energy (119) -

Environmental Protection Agency (122)

§ 61.52(a)(4) and (5)

JSummary of Comments: The ACRS requested that Section 61.52 be reevaluated

since subsidence is the result of many factors, including primarily the manner

fof placement of waste packages in the trenches. DOE questioned why have' these

requirements, which increase costs, if the overall performance objectives are

,met; and, the.Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group felt the specific stability -requirements were unnecessarily prescriptive as to the specific method to

minimize subsidence.

B-64
Numerous commentors (Sierra Club, Duke-Power Company, Utility.Nuclear'Waste

Management Group, Atomic Industrial Forum, U.S. Ecology, American Society of

Mechanical Engineers, and New England Nuclear) objected to placing wastes.,in

an "'orderly" manner. Several-indicated their comment was based on increased

>.costs and/oroccupational exposures'.due.to handling the-waste packages-to meet

the requirement. Several asked for'an.explanation of-a specific-method;.and,

several indicated stacking may not benefit long-term package or trench integrity

.due-to-corrosion and/or decay. -';. - .

The Conference of Radiation ControlProgram Directors indicated support.-for

.§ 61.52(a)(5). Duke Power Company requested an-editorial.-change; and, the

University: of North Carolina indicated filling void spaces-.with earth:material

will not beisuccessful unless there is mechanical compaction of~the backfill.

The.South Carolina-Department of Health and Environmental Control-requested . that the staff:specify'what material, other than.earth materials,,.are:suitable

-for.use'as backfill. The State.of.Nevada Department of Human Resources

indicated that subsidence may be delayed 50-100 years at arid sites; and, the.

,-State of Washington recommended-that more emphasis should be placed-on avoid-

*ing:slumping and wind erosion at arid sites. EPA-indicated that gases.can

build up sufficient pressures over a period greater than 50 years to affect

the stability of trench covers, thus requiring active maintenance and repair

of breaches..

The'Stateeof New York and EPA questioned the long-term.stability.of Class A

disposal units and indicated that, even if the overall performance objective

on releases was met, the Class A disposal units will pose a significant -nuisance

condition. The.State of New York-indicated that-the appearanceeof Class-A

disposal units will lead to-public -and local government steps to close-the sites

.and will- undo the favorable treatment of Class B-and C wastes. Further-,the

*EPA raised the question~of releases of both radiological and longer-term-nonradiological contaminants, while the State of New York indicated that decay

during -the period~of institutional control cannot-be relied upon to reduce the

hazard of Class A wastes if there is migration during that period. .The State

.of New.York:and the Sierra Club recommend the same requirements for-Class A

,-wastes as for Class B and C wastes. -

Analysis of Comments: The ACRS correctly.points-out.that subsidence is-the

result.of -many factors, including primarily the manner of placment of.the.waste

* packages in the-trenches. The staff addressed these lessons learned by proposing

requirements on many of these factors,.including'placement of thewaste package

so as to maintain package integrity during placement, to minimize void spaces

between packages, and to permit filling of the void spaces (§ 61.52(a)(5)).

Although the Department of Energy suggested that meeting the overall performance

objective of stability is sufficient, the staff has taken the approach throughout

the regulation that the best way to assure:the entire system (site characteristics, design, operations, waste classification, waste form, etc.) will meet

the overall performance objectives is-to-place requirements on each of the

components of the system. The staff has attempted to provide flexibility on

.,how the specific requirements will be met;;and, this is reflected in the

rewording of § 61.52(a)(4). . -

In addidition,-the staff will-providejguidance on preferred methods of meeting

the specific requirements in a branch technical position paper-on design and

operations. The BTP will stress that, while no one method can prevent

B-65
I

subsidence,- thelcombined effect of thetotal system' shouldbe a dramatic.

reduction in'the'potential for catastrophic or significant-failure of trench

caps as observed at.several closed low-level waste disposalsites. Also,'

Section 61.12(b) requires, in the-application, specific information which

relates to subsidence. Section 61.13(d) requires specific technical information related to long-term trench stability.

The staff agrees that there are alternatives, such as backfilling individual

layers of waste packages after placement or grouting between the wastes, to

orderly placement'of the'waste packages. Likewise, there are alternatives,

such as the use- ofgranular backfill between individual layers of waste'packages,

to mechanical'compaction of the-backfill. The, staff-will -address means. to

avoid the longer term slumping or-subsidence at'arid'sites in the BTP on design

and operations. In-addition, technical analyses pursuant-to Section 61.12(b)

and 61.13(d)-should address Nevada's and'Washington's concerns in the application-phase. Experience-has shown that'short-term (5-10-year)-subsidence in

humid sites is more dramatic and requires a greater amounts of maintenance than

subsidence at arid sites. Long-term subsidence at either-type of site will

likely be gradual and can'be dealt with through minor maintenance activities

by the custodian.

With respect to the generation of gases raised by EPA, several specific requirements such as on trench covers and waste characteristics should reduce the rate

of gas generation-such that it may diffuse through the soil or trench cap

without pressure buildup. In addition, sumps constructed for drainage while

trenches are open and used for monitoring and/or remedial pumping after trench

filling may provide sufficient venting-to-the atmosphere, especially if granular

backfill is used. The effects of trench gas, like the effects of gradual

deterioration of waste packages, are addressed by'the requirements for continued

maintenance during the post-closure observation and institution control periods.

The concerns expressed by the State of New York and EPA about the long-term

stability and appearance-of Class-A disposed'units is well-taken. The staff

would point-out that the siting and design requirements (§ 61.50 and 61.51)

are applicable to all waste classes. In addition, the rule has been revised

so that all waste classes must be disposed of in accordance with § 61.52(a)(4)

through (11). Further guidance on Class-A disposal units will be provided in

the BTP on design and operations and in an NRC-funded symposium'on design and

operations in September-1982.- Innovative thinking and techniques are needed

for disposal of segregated Class A wastes; and, the BTP and symposium should

provide an appropriate forum.

Rule Change:

1. Revise § 61.52(a)(3) as follows:

"All wastes shall be disposed of..."

2. Revise §-61.52(a)(4) to eliminate "orderly" -placement and to stress the

objectives rather than prescribe methods. The revised section should read:

'' "'Wastes must be emplaced in a manner that maintains the package

integrity'during placement, minimizes the void spaces between

packages, and permits the void spaces to be filled.

B-66
ISSUE D-52-3

Issue: Basis for 100 foot buffer zone

Commenters: Joseph H. White III (21)

Law Engineering Testing Co. (34)

Paul F. Hadala and Don C. Banks (76)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

New England Nuclear'(110)

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

Tennessee Valley Authority (116)

Rule Citation: § 61.52(a)(8), 61.2

Summary of Comments: All commenters generally supported the concept and purposes

of a buffer zone; however, there was disagreement on whether a specific distance

should be required. White asserted that 100 feet is too small. Law Engineering

and TVA questioned the basis for the 100 foot buffer zone and stated that the

buffer zone'rshould be based on site performance objectives. Hadala and Banks

and the Audubon Society suggested that the minimum buffer zone size be increased

to at least 300 feet. The Department of the Interior suggested a threedimensional zone based on site performance; and, New England Nuclear suggested

that the buffer zone extend farther in the direction of ground-water migration.

Analysis of Comments: The proposed prescriptive requirement of a minimum'buffer

zone of 100 feet in § 61.52(a)(8) was arbitrarily selected.' The intent was to

provide adequate space for monitoring or remedial action and adequate physical

separation from off-site'activities. The intent was to evaluate the needed

:size'on a site-specific basis, emphasizing that 100-feet was an absolute minimum.

Certainly the distance would vary both from site to site and directionally at

a given site. Greater distances were anticipated in the-direction of groundwater~flow where contingency actions might be required or in directions needed

for-surface water management or erosion control measures. ,In--addition,

discussions-with theiCorps of Engineers indicated that 100 feet may not be

sufficient for purposes of remedial action. Therefore,,,the prescriptive 100 feet

was dropped'and'the purpose of the buffer zone was expressed. The buffer zone

must be adequate to meet'the performance~objectives. In addition,,the Department of interior-comment that the buffer zone include depth as well as~lateral

boundaries was adopted in the definition. Unrestricted use of land and-resources

beyond the three-dimensional buffer zone is possible during and after site

operation, thereby, reducing the impacts of the disposal site.

White also questioned what mitigative measures may take place in the buffer

zone as discussed in § 61.7(a)(2). The possible measures are site/situation

specific and the staff felt that-speculation in §.61.7(a)(2) concerning what

specific measures may be employed-,was-inappropriate.,

Rule Changes: .

1. Amend § 61.52(a)(8) to read: "A buffer zone of land must be maintained

between any buried waste and the disposal site boundary and beneaththe

disposed waste. The buffer zone shall be of adequate dimension tocarry

out environmental monitoringactivities specified in § 61.53(d),of-this

Part and take mitigative measures if needed."

IB-67
2. Add to § 61.12(b) "and adequacy of the size of the buffer zone for

monitoring and potential mitigative measures."

3. Revised definition of buffer zone in § 61.2 as follows:

"...licensee and that lies under the disposal units and between the

disposal units and the boundary of the site."

ISSUE D-52-4

Issue: Ancillary activities at the site

Commenters: Duke Power Company (48)

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control (79)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Middle South Services (84)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (113)

Tennessee Valley Authority (116)

Rule Citations: § 61.12, 61.13, 61.51(a)(7); 61.2

Summary of comments: South Carolina and ASME addressed the need for on site

surge storage provisions and consideration of the radiological impacts of

satellite activities, such as trucking terminals. The Audubon Society offered

strong support'of § 61.51(a)(7), and the UNWMG, Middle South Services, TVA,

and others suggested clarification of this provision on exclusive use for

disposal of radioactive wastes in order to clearly state that the provision

addresses waste types and not ancillary activities.

Analysis of Comments: South Carolina suggested adding a provision to § 61.12(f)

to require contingency plans for surge storage of wastes because natural

phenomena and unplanned events might interrupt operations and delay disposal.

The ASME made a similar comment for the definition of disposal facility in

§ 61.2. In such cases, storage would be required so that trucks could be off

loaded and released. Existing site operators generally have provisions in

their licenses for storage of up to 6 months, although prompt disposal is

encouraged and is the usual practice. Paragraph 61.12(f) requires a description

of "methods and area of waste storage" but makes no distinction between routine

and contingency storage plans.

South Carolina also suggested adding evaluation of the radiological impacts of

ancillary or satellite activities such as trucking terminals to the required

analyses in § 61.13. The'State noted that such ancillary activities could

have significant radiological impacts. Ancillary activities, such as incinerators, trucking terminals, or supply services, which might be located at the

disposal facility or in close proximity to the disposal site, would.be licensed

under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, et al., as appropriate. The performance

'Objectives in Part 61 would not necessarily apply since Part 61 deals with

disposal of wastes. The impacts of the ancillary activities, both radio-

'logical and nonradiological, would be addressed in the site specific EIS to

the extent they are known or anticipated.

B-68
Paragraph 61.51(a)(7) states "The disposal site shall be used exclusively for

the disposal of radioactive wastes." The wording resulted in confusion as to

whether other waste types-or other activities were prohibited. The confusion

centers-on the term "disposal site," which is defined in § 61.2 to mean "that

portion of a land disposal facility which is used for disposal of~waste.!' The

disposal site consists of disposal units and a buffer zone;jtherefore, the

requirements of § 61.51(a)(7) apply only to the disposal units and the buffer

zone.

The intent was to prevent co-mingling of radioactive wastes with other types

of wastes such as chemical or hazardous wastes. There was no intent to prohibit

ancillary activities, such as incineration or other waste treatment, at the

disposal facility provided they are not located within the perimeter of the

buffer zone. In addition, there was no .intent to prevent co-location of other

facilities outside the buffer zone. Thus, a hazardous waste disposal, site could

be developed at the same location and use common administrative facilities as

is currently done at the Beatty, Nevada site. The disposal sites for the two

types of wastes must bejseparate and the wastes must be properly segregated.

Concerns such as masking-the environmental monitoring data so that site

performance cannot be monitored must be addressed in such plans in accordance

with § 61.50(a)(11). The provision to describe such ancillary activities in

§ 61.11(c)(4) was intended to flag these activities so their impacts could be

assessed.

Rule Cha'nges: Section 61.51(a)(7) was revised and moved to § 61.52(a)(11).

Section 61.52(a)(11) restricts disposal to only radioactive wastes.

.. . .

. . .

ISSUE D-52-5

Issue: '

Commenters

Operational requirements on direct gamma levels and

comments on operation and closure

miscellaneous

Joseph White (21)

Union of Concerned Scientists (36)

Union Carbide Corp (39)

State of New Mexico (45)

S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (79)

Birmingham Audubon Society '(80)

Northeast Utilities (85)

State of 'California (93)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100):

U.S. Ecology (101)

The AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers (107)

New England Nuclear (110),,

Department of Energy (119)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citations: § 61.52(a)'(2), (a)(3),'(a)(6), (a)(7), (a)'(9)

Summary of Comments:

Direct gamma levels: Proposed § 61.'52(a)(6)'required that disposal take place

in a manner that limited gamma radiation at the surface to levels that are

B- 69
within a few percent above background. White questions the meaning of a few

percent-above background Union of Concerned Scientists; States of New Mexico,

South Carolina and California; New England Nuclear and DOE suggest-gamma

radiation levels should be some specific level above background. The Birmingham

Audubon Society suggested 1%. The DOE suggested 10% or 1 mrem/hour. Union

Carbide suggests'limiting gamma radiation to limits established in 10 CFR

Part 20. New England Nuclear suggested use of "exposure" or "dose rates" to

include other types of radiation. EPA indicated a few percent was vague and

didn't taken into account the variability of background radiation levels at

any particular site.

Miscellaneous Comments: South Carolina suggested adding a requirement in

§ 61.52(a)(9) that erosion control measures be carried out. The American

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) recommended defining "adequate" in this

paragraph.

Northeast Utilities and New England Nuclear (NEN) questioned whether the

disposal unit cover referenced in § 61.52(a)(3) includes an impervious cap.

NEN also questioned whether the 5 meters refers to the distance from the top

or bottom of the cover.

U.S. Ecology stated that the requirement in § 61.52(a)(7) to accurately locate

each disposal unit is reasonable if an allowed tolerance is indicated. The

ASME and AIF recommended clarifying "accurately located" in this paragraph.

Analysis of direct gamma level comments: The staff agrees that the requirement should be reexamined. The staff considers the permissible levels of

radiation in unrestricted areas, as specified in § 20.105 of 10 CFR Part 20,

to be appropriate for application at the time of transfer of the disposal

facility license to the site owner for the period of institutional control.

Although access to the site is restricted during this period of institutional

control, the persons working at the site should not be considered radiation

workers; therefore, the higher occupational exposures for radiation workers

are not appropriate. When ALARA considerations are applied to § 20.105, the

levels will probably not be significantly above a few percent of background.

The applicant or licensee is allowed greater flexibility and more specific

guidance on an acceptable upper limit by the reference to §20.105.

Analysis of miscellaneous comments: Paragraph 61.52(a)(9) requires closure

and stabilization measures to be carried out as disposal units are filled and

covered. South Carolina suggested specific reference to erosion control measures

which are an important part of closure and stabilization. The staff does not

feel specific reference to erosion is needed; however, erosion control would be

included in the site closure plan which must be submitted for approval as part

of the application for approval and will be periodically reassessed during

operations of the disposal facility. "Adequate" was replaced with a reference

to the approved closure plan to clarify the requirement.

Paragraph 61.52(a)(2) addresses the intruder barrier and waste emplacement for

Class C wastes. The Northeast Utilities recommended clarifying the term

"cover" in § 61.52(a)(2) to indicate whether the cover includes an impervious

cap. New England Nuclear raised the same point. The requirement in § 61.52(a)(3)

was addressing the' intruder barrier depth only, not materials or design. Design

requirements for covers are provided in § 61.51(a)(4). New England Nuclear

B-70
also recommended clarifying the 5-meter'distance.' The 5-meter distance is

-intended to be from the accessible surface to the top of the wastes, i.e.',Ithe

thickness of material between a potential'intruder and the wastes. The rule

was clarified to' so indicate.

;The suggestion to'add a tolerance limit to paragraph 61.52(a)(7) was not adopted.

`All measures, surveys, etc. by nature have some'rangefof error. In keeping

'with an objective-approach, a more prescriptive requirement was not adopted.

'Guidance on surveying accuracy, includingtboth-elevation and location, will be

providedin-the technical position paper on design and operations.

Rule Changes:

*1.'' § 61.52(a)(6) replace "gamma radiation" by "radiation dose rates" and

replace the reference to a -few percent of background with a requirement ..to comply-with § 20.105.

'-2. Amend § 61.52(a)(9) to read: "Closure and stabilization measures 'as'set

forth in the approved closure plan must be carried out as each disposal

unit (e.g., each trench) is'filled and covered."

3. § 61;52(a)(2): insert "top" before "surface of the cover."

ISSUE D-52-6

Issue: Closure plan

Commenters: Environmental Law Project (9)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (113)

General Research Corporation (123)

Rule Citations: Paragraph 61.12(g) requires a conceptual closure plan with the

license application and § 61.28 requires a final revision of the closure plan.

Related citation: § 61.52(a)(9).

Summary of Comments: The Environmental Law Project seems to be requesting a

detailed closure plan with the license application which can be periodically

amended and updated. The Audubon Society suggested a requirement for alteration of the site or disposed waste before closure if necessary to protect the

public health and safety. The ASME suggested making the rule sufficiently

prescriptive to eliminate the need for a closure plan and adding procedures to

assure that the closure is addressed and settled up front when the license is

issued. General Research Corporation expressed concern that Part 61 may not

establish adequate requirements for the specific content of the closure plan

and for revision during operations.

Analysis: An applicant is required to submit a closure plan with the license

application. Parts of the plan will be conceptual rather than detailed.

However, staff agrees that it would be appropriate to periodically "flesh out"

the conceptual portions of the plan as more information about the site becomes

available during site operations and to reflect changing technology. The'annual

review of the adequacy of the funding for closure required by § 61.62(c) will

be keyed to any changes and updates in the activities to be funded after

B-71
operations cease-and the status of measures completed as units are filled. An

important concept and requirement related to concern about updating or revising

the plan is the requirement to carry out closure and stabilization measures as

each disposal unit is filled in paragraph (a)(9) of §,61.52.- Closure is actually

a two phased activity. Much of the work will be done as the units are filled

and closed. This work can be defined and described in detail in the application.

The activities which must be delayed or are best delayed until after operations

cease and all units filled and covered will be more conceptual in nature and

will need to be updated.," However, the delayed activities must be sufficiently

defined and described to estimate costs in order to meet the requirements of

Subpart E. As a minimum, the plan and its basis will be updated at license

renewal and as part of approving closure pursuant to § 61.28.

The provisions of § 61.28 are adequate, without any changes,.to give the NRC

authority to require any changes in the site or wastes at closure that are

needed to protect the public health and safety. Thus, no change was adopted

in response to the Audubon comment. The General Research Corporation raised

several topics that might be addressed in the rule such as how can activities

during long-term care be factored in and what happens if the closure, plan is

not approved. While the points are valid questions, they are potentially very

site and circumstance specific. Additional guidance on the closure plan will

be considered as guidance for the format and content of the application is

developed. The Corporation notes that the rule does not state when the closure

plan must be revised, although several opportunities are provided when the plan

may be reviewed. The staff considers this flexibility appropriate.

Change in Rule: None

B- 72
ISSUE D-53-1

' Issue: '' -Environmental monitoring

Commenters:

l

Commonwealth of Pensylvania, Department of Environmental

Resources (16)

Joseph H. White III (21)

Union of Concerned Scientists (36)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)'

Union Oil Company of California (66)

Argonne'National Laboratory (68), (121)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Attorney General State of New York (99)

The American Society of-Mechanical Engineers-(107) ,-

North Carolina' Radiation Protection Commission: (109),- - New England Nuclear (110) .

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

f

Rule Citation: § 61.13 and 61.53

Summary-of Comments: One commenter noted with respect to 'Subsection 61.13

that analyses of release pathways should be conducted so that they may be

validated by 'data acquired from subsequent monitoring. 'Monitoring should be

conducted with this end in view and validation should be required atset

periods. (36)

'-The other comments received all relate to-§ 61.53. One commenter noted that

the requirement in § 61.53(a) for monitoring data covering a simple twelvemonth period for seasonally variable characteristics is insufficient. Seasonal

variations -having an impact on'future environmental monitoring would better be

related to-established normals, maximums:and minimums-as :provided -by appropriate

agencies (16). The State of North Carolina (109) expressed-the view-that the

12 months begin'when'the application is filed and continue-during the review

.period.

Another commenter noted that § 61.53(a) should include among preoperational

monitoring programs the areas of land use, local population density and

predicted future movements of population.. (21)

With respect to § 61.53(c) two commenterssuggested that the last sentence of

thatisection be rephrased to read: "The'monitoring system must be capable of

providing early warning of migration-of -radionuclides from the disposal units

before they egress-the site-boundary (emphasis added)."' (44) (87) Similar

concerns were expressed by another commenter (107). .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :,,.. ~ -' I -

One commenter suggested that:§ 61.53(d) should be amended to include language

specifying when performance specifications should be readied and to whom they

should be submitted (16) and one (68) suggested an explicit reporting requirement in § 61.53.

B-73
The State of New York suggested that § 61.53 be rewritten to provide detailed

prescriptive requirements, for groundwater monitoring, in particular (99).

Two other commenters also addressed providing more details. Union Oil (66)

objected to the term "information" in § 61.53(a) as unduly broad and recommended

specifying the type of monitoring in § 61.53(b). Argonne (68) suggested

clarifying that baseline data must cover both radiological and nonradiological

characteristics. Argonne also provided cost data on environmental monitoring

for the FEIS (121). Union Oil also questioned the need for monitoring during

construction.

New England Nuclear (110) recommended that technological enhanced natural

radiation be excluded from § 61.53(a).

The U.S. Department of the Interior (114)'recommended adding "geochemistry" to

§ 61.53(a). .

Analysis of Comments: In-general, the'comments received on. this aspect of the

rule have not required substantive change in the applicable sections of the

rule. Analysis of individual comments follows in the order that the comments

were listed above.

With respect to the comment on § 61.13, it is the staff's intent that analyses

of release pathways will be conducted by the potential applicant with respect

to specific verifiable locations: i.e., environmental monitoring stations.

Results of monitoring will be. made available to the Commission on an annual

basis as per §61.80(h)(2)(ii), and verification of site performance will be

made by NRC based upon the applicant's technical analyses, the results-of the

applicant's environmental monitoring and NRC release limits.

In establishing the period for pre-operational monitoring in § 61.53(a), NRC

intentionally set a minimum time period of 12 months'for seasonally variable

data'. If site conditions warrant additional monitoring to establish an accurate

baseline of environmental data, NRC~may require such monitoring on a sitespecific basis., It is also NRC's intent that site monitoring results be

related by the applicant to data acquired over a longer term by appropriate

agencies to determine the representativeness of the site data. This intent

will be elaborated upon in regulatory guides to be issued subsequent to this

rulemaking.

The State of North-Carolina (109) expressed concern about the additional time

the 12 month preoperational monitoring program would require in view of the

January 1986 exclusionary date in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act. The State

suggested changing the rule to require that the applicant "shall have implemented

such preoperational monitoring by the time a license application is submitted."

Since NRC review would'probably take'about-15-18 months and construction cannot

begin until the license is issued, the State believed adequate data could be

developed while review takes place. 'Section 61.53(a) requires 12 month data

only for those characteristics subject to seasonal variation. The NRC can

'-grant exemptions to the rule that are' consistent with health and safety under

§'61.6. For example, if regional data on seasonal characteristics was

exceptionally good and applicability to the site clearly established, the NRC

would consider a request for an exemption to the 12 months data requirement.

An applicaton with no preoperational data to confirm site characteristics

would involve demonstrations that are very speculative in nature. Further,

B-74
the .site characterization and preparation of an application will take at least

a year. These activities and the monitoring take place in parallel. The data

submitted would not have to be based on 12 months data from every monitoring

point developed. The rule is sufficiently flexible to permit, phased development

pof-data based on interim findings. Thus from a practical view, the requirement

should not be a burden or pacing item and the suggestion was not adopted.

The site suitability-requirements of §-.61.50(a)(3) necessitate gathering of

population and land use data by the appljcant. This data is generally

-available from existing sources (such as federal, state or local agencies;

aerial photographs or other remote sensing; or topographic maps) and therefore,

monitoring of these subject areas under § 61.53(a) is not necessary..

The rule in § 61.53(c) states that the monitoring system must be capable of

providing early warning of migration of radionuclides from the disposal site.

-The disposal site as defined in § 61.2 contains both the disposal units and

the buffer zone. The rule's intent is that monitoring.should take place

within the buffer zone so as to detect any migration-before radionuclides

would reach the site boundary. Hence, the commentor's point of clarification

on this item is accurate and the language of the rule should be revised

accordingly.

With respect to the comment on § 61.53(d) relative to when performance specifications should be readied and.to whom they should be submitted, the rule sets

forth in Subpart C the performance objectives to be met under the rule. The

applicant (or licensee) must submit plans as part of the license application

for taking corrective measures if migration of radionuclides indicate that the

performance objectives of Subpart C would not be met. Action levels, evaluation

of results, and special reports in addition to the annual report required by

§ 61.80(h) will-be addressed on a site specific basis and specific license

conditions. Thus no new reporting requirements were added to the rule.

The State of New York (99) suggested that § 61.53 be totally rewritten to

provide specific prescriptive requirements for monitoring programs. The

commenter suggested adding specific requirements for groundwater programs such

as number of wells, depths, zones, and gradient orientation. A monitoring

layer beneath the disposal units was also suggested. The commenter correctly

notes that the NRC has experience with monitoring systems at existing sites.

This experience suggests the highly site specific nature of monitoring programs.

Similar considerations apply to Union Oil's (66) comments on more specificity.

Argonne's (68) point about radiological/nonradiological is addressed to some

extent by the list of topics or subjects in 61.53(a). The addition of

geochemistry in response to commenter 114 further emphasizes nonradiological

characteristics. One additional factor to consider is that environmental

impacts and monitoring are a key issue under NEPA and will be addressed under

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. The focus of Part 61 is the health and

safety performance objectives based on radiological considerations. With

respect to Union Oil's comment on the need for monitoring during construction,

staff believes such monitoring is needed. As the list of subjects in § 61.53(a)

indicates, the monitoring intended is more comprehensive than just monitoring

pathways per se.- Information on site characteristics important to understanding

the site and predicting long term performance and events is intended. For

example, excavation of a trench can yield important data on soil and ground

water properties. Additional data on seasonal variations can be obtained.

B-75
The NRC does plan to address monitoring programs in regulatory guides and

believes that'this is the better forum for addressing the details.

New England Nuclear (110) recommended that technologically enhanced natural

radiation due to excavation operations or change in pH be explicitly excluded

from Part 61 in § 61.53(a). Specifically, Radon and K-40 levels in ground

water may be increased due to site operations. As proposed, § 61.53 does not

address this phenomonon. The commenter expects that the enhancement should

not violate EPA drinking water quality regulations and may therefore be excluded.

Such a specific prescriptive requirement' is not in keeping with the approach

of § 61.53. Details such as altered radon and K-40 levels prior to receipt of

waste would be documented and evaluated as- part of the site specific data.

Any guidance on this issue would be included in a regulatory guide. No change

to the rule was adopted based on the comment.

The U.S. Department of the Interior (114) recommended that the technical area

"geochemistry" be added to the list of subjects listed in § 61.53(a). Staff

agrees and the addition was adopted.

Rule Changes:

1. The last sentence in § 61.53(c) should be changed from:

"The monitoring system must be capable of providing early warning of

migration of radionuclides from the disposal site."

to:

"The monitoring system must be capable of providing early warning of

releases of radionuclides from the disposal site before they leave

the site boundary."

2. Add to 61.53(a) after "geology": "geochemistry"

R-76
ISSUE D-55-1

Issue: Waste'classification - basis for numbers

C':

z

'Commenters:' D. M. Mathews, Ph!D (23)'

Sargent and Lundy (24)

Wisconsin Electric (32)

Sierra Club (37)

Ohio EPA (38)

Bechtel (44)

Duke Power (48)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

Georgia Institute o'of Technology (70)

'The University of Texas Medical Branch (75)

'American Nuclear s6ciety (87)

General Electric (89)

Health Physics Society (96)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

'American Institute of Chemical Engineers (102)

Carolina Power & Light (106)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers' (

New England Nuclear (110)

Kerr-McGee (115)

Atomic Energy of Canada (118)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

107):

Rule Citation: Table 1 of Section 61:55.

Summary 'of Comments:' This group of commenters in one way or another objected

to the'numbers-set out in Table 1. 'Commenter 24 stated that the waste

concentration scheme and associated concentration limits would have a'substantial

impact on the 'nuclear power industry's waste disposal costs,'but gave no basis

for the statement. Commenter 24 suggested replacing the values in Table 1 with

'those from'FBDU's'study NUREG/CR-1005,"rather'than the current "arbitrary"'values.

Commerter'44 thought that the logic for the'concentritions was not apparent,

and cited as an example the propose'd limitl(O.8 Ci/m ) for C-14. 'As stated by

the commenter, "it would appear, for example'?"that carbon-14 which contains

less than 0.8 microcuries per' cc may be disposed of 'as segregated waste'but

that any concentration greater than 0.8, even if it is only a tiny'increase,

immediately requires that the disposer seek special permission from the government for disposal. 'The'abruptdemarcation needs-explaining so' that the logic

of-it can be understood."

'Commenter' 38 thought'that depleted uranium should be classed as a heavy metal

poison, not as-a radiation hazard,-'and questioned why-it should be'controlled

at all. Commenters'68 and '107 questioned'the status of low'-activity bulk solid

wastes containing uranium and/or:th'or'iium'and referenced -the draft BTP published

October 23, 1981'(46 FR 52061) on uranium and thorium wastes. '-Atomic Energy

of Canada questioned the ehtries 'for uri'anium 'and the potential for excluding

natural uranium oxides because of 'the'edifferent'limits for uranium as a metal.

The DOE raised similiar concerns about uranium' fluoride compounds. Similarly,

B-77
commenter 38 thought that "iodine-129, as found (which means diluted with

reactor-produced stable iodine) is of such low specific activity it is less of

a radiation hazard than natural potassium or rubidium."

Commenter 23 did not see the line of reasoning associated with the numbers in

Table 1, and made a comparison with NCRP total body burdens for I-129 and

Sr-90. He requested a statement regarding'how the numbers were chosen.

Commenter 23 was also distressed that there was no consideration in the table

regarding the chemical composition of the isotope under consideration. "It is

my contention for example that iodine-129 in.the form of lead iodide which has

a very low solubility would be of less hazard than iodine in the form of

potassium iodide which has a rather high solubili-y." Commenter 70 suggested

that physical form be considered for H-3 and C-14 1imits.

Commenters 75 and 96 and others felt that the numbers for the beta emitters

not specifically listed were unduly restrictive. Commenter 37 felt that the

half-lives of the listed nuclides had not been'adequately considered. Commenter

106 and others felt that decay during operations had not been adequately

considered. Commenter 89 felt that the system and supporting rationale is

workable.

Analysis of Comments: The basic problem is that the commenters could not see

the basis for the numbers in thetable as published in the Federal Register

Notice. However, the noticeclearly states that the.basis for the numbers is

contained in NUREG-0782, the draft environmental statement.for the rule. Many

of the comments are general and did not identify specific values in Table 1

that were of concern.

The FBDU values in some cases are even more conservative than those in NUREG-0782.

Other problems have been identified with the FBDU work. The FBDU numbers do

not form a workable classification system in that they do'not consider stability

or waste form. The FBDU work contains some errors (for example, their treatment

of direct gamma radiation is in error by at least a factor of two and possibly

higher, and the lung modeljFBOU uses is in error for transuranics by about a

factor of 10) that have been corrected in the NUREG-0782 work.

The comment on the demarcation between acceptable and.nonacceptable quantities

of C-14 reflects the verynature of all numerical limits in that on.one side

of the limit you are ok but on the other.side you are not. -It's possible that

the commenter is confused byTable 1, with the same number for C-14 and other

isotopesin all three columns. It would probably be better to set out two

tables for Table,1.

The basis for limits for specific isotopes and which isotopes toinclude in

the table(s) was re-examined in the FEIS and the commenters are referred to

the EIS and the discussion of comments on the DEIS on this issue. Staff

generally agrees-that,,natural uranium should be deleted from the table.-The .-proposed final version ofithe rule allows disposalof low specific activity

residues (except for large quantities of mill tailings wastes) as Class A waste.

Under DEIScalculations, iodine-129.is important since it can give high

intruder exposures.(and population impacts based upon intrusion) and dominates

.the ground water pathway. The possibility that the calculated impacts from

iodine-129 are,exaggerated by not considering dilution with stable iodine was

included in preparing the FEIS.

B-78
As far as chemical forms of isotopes effecting.the results is concerned, the

commenter is probably correct. However, staff does not.have the data necessary

(and neither, undoubtedly,.do most waste.generators),.to draw these'distinctions

in the classification scheme. Similarly for the physica'lform of H-3 and C-14.

Rule Changes:

(a) Modify Table 1 to make two tables.

(b) Change limits and/or delete some nuclides (e.g., possibly

ISSUE D-55-2

uranium, C-14).

*. Issue: De minimis levels for waste

Commente rs: PA, Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Dow Chemical (17)

United Technologies - Packard (25) . University of North Carolina (30)

Alabama Power (33)

Sierra Club (37)

Ohio EPA (38)

Union Carbide (39)

Bechtel (44)

Duke Power Co. (48).

Ontario Hydro (51)

American College of Nuclear Physicians (53)

Kentucky Special Advisory Committee on Nuclear'Issues (

Union Oil Company of California (66)

Stock Equipment Company.(67)

-Argonne National Laboratory (68)

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81).

Middle South Services, Inc. (84)

Northeast Utilities (85)

American.Nuclear.Society'(87)

General Electric, Wilmington (89)

Arkansas Power and Light (94).

Health Physics Society.(96)

Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation (97)

Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (98)

Atomic Industrial Forum,,Inc. (100) '

U.S. Ecology (101)

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (102)

Conference of Radiation-Control Program Directors (103)

Carolina Powerand Light (106)

American.Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

North Carolina Radiation Protection.Commission (109)

NewEngland'Nuclear ,(110)

U.S. DepartmentfofEnergy,(119)

55)

Re C : 0 C .. P 2 a Rule Citation: 10 CFR Parts 20 and.61'.'1'... . t'

B-79
Summary of Comments: Of the commenters who commented on the concept of-setting

levels for wastes below which there is no regulatory concern, i.e., de minimis

wastes, all but apparently one (Commenter 97) supported the concept. In their

response, commenter 97 stated that "we agree with the proposed regulation's

statement that there should be no generic 'de minimus' category for waste."

While the great majority of the remaining commenters supported the de minimis

concept firmly, some commenters' support was more of an implied nature. For

example, commenter 37 suggested that at places such as medical hospitals and

research institutions, wastes having half lives under 190 days could be

segregated, stored for decay, and sent to a "regular municipal landfill if

there is certainty that full decay has occurred. This would significantly

reduce low level dump site volume requirements (currently 25% of total low

level waste volume is provided by medical wastes) and provide a more rational

segregation." Holding wastes for decay is discussed'further under Issue 0-55-14.

Some of the commenters supporting the de minimis concept made direct reference

to NRC's position that exempting particular waste streams from compliance with

the Part 61 regulations was preferable to setting generic de minimis levels

for all isotopes. Commenter 16, for example, thought that setting "exemptions

on the basis of certain waste streams is of dubious value and is considered to

be a poor excuse for failure to deal with the controversial topic." As another

example, commenter 51 thought it unfortunate that the rules' did not establish

a generic de minimus category, as it would (in the commenter's opinion) have a

greater economic advantage than case-by-case decisions. This commenter then

remarked, however, that as there is not yet a concensus on a generic de minimus

level, any level chosen would be premature. A number of other commenters

suggested that a de minimis' classification be added to the Part 61 regulation,

perhaps as an additional' column to Table 1.

Considering all the comments, the fundamental concern appeared to be not whether

a generic or a case-by-case approach 'should be taken, but that action to develop

de minimis standards should be taken as soon as possible. As stated by

commenter 81, "the establishment bf a 'de minimus' category of low-level waste

(LLW) whether upon a generic or case-by-case basis, would be extremely useful

and would result in considerable savings of time, money and valuable burial

space at disposal sites without any corresponding increase in risk to the public

health and safety." Several commenters (e.g., commenter 100) suggested that

NRC "permit case-by-case reviews of requests for specific applications of the

'de minimus' concept during the period criteria-are being developed." Some

suggested specific values for specific waste streams or radioisotopes. For

example, commenters 68 and 107 suggested that low specific activity wastes

containing uranium or thorium should not have to meet the proposed waste form

requirements for Class A, B, and C wastes.

A potential pitfall in development of de minimis levels was observed by

commenter 25 and others, who noted a problem with the de minimis standard for

H-3 and C-14 in relation to DOT transportation standards. We permit disposal

of waste containing H-3 and C-14 in liquid scintillation fluids in concentrations less than .05 uCi/gm without reguard to its radioactive content. However,

DOT defines radioactive material as material with a specific activity greater

than 0.002 uCi/gm (49 CFR 173.389(e)). Thus the H-3 and C-14 shipments must

be identified as radioactive and hazardous disposal sites and landfills are

reluctant to accept radioactive shipments. This situation led the commenter

B-80
i'

to note that "since the DOT regulations require a radioactive hazard label,

the relaxed requirements of paragraph 20.306 are null and void for any wastes

which must be transported from the generator's site.-"'

Analysis of-Comments: NRC agrees'with,'the importance'of setting timely

standards for disposal of certain wastes by' less restrictive means.'- NRC'agrees

with the commenters that establishmrrint'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,

and also believes that such levels can be set and'enforced so that the public

health and safety is ensured. NRC staff also believes 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). As stated elsewhere, disposal facility stability would

be best facilitated by requiring that all wastes be placed in a''stable form.

NRC staff, however, believe that this would be costly to many small entities

and is difficult to require of waste streams which may contain only small

amounts of radioactivity or are only ,sus'pected of being so. NRC has therefore

compromised by requiring that high activity wastes (i.e., Class B and C wastes)

-be stabilized in a segregated manner from Class A wastes, for which no waste

stability requirements'are imposed. The result is improved overall site safety

and stability relative to disposal of waste without consideration of classification. Some maintenance would still be required for Class A disposal units,

but such disposal units would only contain low activity waste.'

NRC plans to further examine cost-effective methods to improve the overall

stability of Class A disposal units. ' .Some methods might include improved'

packaging. It is apparent, however, that eliminating waste streams that do

not have to be disposed by rigorous methods will have a significant effect in

improving overall disposal site stability. Restricting disposal to wastes which

truly need to be disposed under the''Part 61 requirements'would also improve

the cost-effectiveness of future potential improvements in Class A waste

stability.

Regarding the issue of setting de minimis levels on a generic or on a case-bycase basis, NRC staff still believe 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 NRC

plans to work toward this' goal over the'next few years. However, the question

of setting generic limits involves resolving a number of issues and questions

such as limits for public exposures, pathways by which the public may be exposed,

and ensuring compliance with the de minimis''require'ments.'" NRC staff believe

that the process of resolving such issues' and questions on a generic basis would

be expidited by first examining such issues with respect to a few specific waste

streams. From these specific cases',-'generic requirements may be determined.

Attempting to set generic limits and'then'applying these limits to specific

waste streams, conversely, is believed to be less likely to produce workable

results on a timely basis.

Rule Changes: Part 61 should not be deferred until additional waste streams

or generic de minimis requirements are''determined.

NRC staff plan, however, to accelerate work on setting standards for disposal

of waste by less restrictive means.'-Such standards are expected to include

B-81
consideration of controlled on-site disposal by licensees as well as disposal

into sanitary landfills and hazardous waste disposal facilities.

As a part of this, NRC staff intends to examine disposal of some specific waste

streams, and will accept petitions' for rulemaking or applications from licensees.

In making such petitions'or applications, licensees' or petitioners should provide

at least the following information:

o a description of the process-by which the waste is generated;

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

nonvarient are generally preferred.

The preceding guidance should be included in the discussion of the final rule.

ISSUE D-55-3

Issue: TRU classification (10 nCi/gm limit)

Commenters: Catherine Quigg (13)

Department of the Environment, London (19)

Florida Power & Light Company (31)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (32)

Alabama Power (33)

Ohio EPA (38)

Union Carbide Corp./Medical Products Division (39)

Duke Power Company (48)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Northeast Utilities'(85)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Power Authority of the State of New York (92)

State of California (93)

Arkansas Power and Light (94)

Health Physics Society (96)

Wisconsin Electric (98)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (102)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Director (103)

Carolina Power and Light (106)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

B-82
-

North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission (109)

New England Nuclear (110)

-Colorado Department of Health (111)

Kerr-McGee (115)

U.S. Department of Energy (119) .

Argonne National Laboratory (120)

Rule Citation: Table 1 of;Section 61;55.

'Summary of-comments: This subject created a lot of discussion, with a number

of-related points addressed. Of the commenters, 4 thought that th6'10'uCi/gm

limit should be-either retained or lowered, while most of the remaining suggested

that the-limit be raised.

The commenters who suggested that the 10 nCi/gm limit be raised presented-a

number of points. Commenter 19 commented that the limit "could be too

restrictive for Class -C wastes," and-also stated that-it wasn't'clear whether

the limit applied toiClass A and Class B wastes as well. This commenter (19)

was also concerned thattthe rule didn't allow case-by-case consideration of

'higher levels for disposal for improved-methods (the commenter notes-that

'allowing case-by-case considerations is in the'rule but erroneously says that

it doesn't apply to TRU waste). That is, there is noallowance for disposal

between shallow land disposal and a high level waste repository at intermediate

depth. The commenter thought that such a tact would prove to be very expensive

in the' UK.

'Several -commenters stated that the technical justification for' the'10 nCi/gm

limit' had not been demonstrated since it came from the'old comparison with

-natural radium (31, 32, 33, 39, 106, 107,' 115). Many'said'that the"number was

conservative or arbitrary. Other commenters observed that assay procedures

for 'alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes were difficult, and one stated that it

- had not been'determined that the detectable limit for alpha-emitting TRU radionuclides is down to less'than 100 nCi/gm',- thus making-the 10 nCi/gm limit not

measurable and therefore "not enforceable'(33). The difficulties 'of*' routinely

measuring for TRU radionuclides at such low levels was also noted by other

commenters (e.g., 96). Along these lines', several commenters objected to the

logic that since 10 nCi/gm is achievable, it should be continued.'' Commenters

(e.g., '110) state'd that' "operations should only be said to be ALIARA when the

cost to reduce impacts from these operations is'justified by the benefits

occured and when further costs to reduce impacts are not justified. Compliance

with an excessive restriction or achieving a lower level of impact are not

necessarily ALARA." Some of commenters (e.g., 38, 87, 107) stated that the

limit led to great quantities of waste that is only suspected of containing

TRU isotopes (mainly due to origin) to be needlessly stored. As stated by

commenters 87 and 107, "much of the' waste presently stored as transuranic

waste is segregated from low-level waste on the basis of waste origin since

the 10 nCi/gm'limit is too' low for accurate measurement and certification.

However, segregation according to the 100 nCi/gm limit could be achieved,

eliminating expensive retrievable storage and deep geologic disposal of

'suspect' transuranic waste."- , -- - - '

As implied 'above,- many if not most'of the

be safely raised to 100 nCi/gm. '.One (31)

commenters suggested that .the limit

suggested that based on studies the

B-83
I lure

limit could.be as much as 50.times higher. -These commenters stated that raising

the level to 100 nCi/gm was technically defensible and would furthermore provide

some advantages. As discussed above, one advantage would.be enforcability.

That is, with current measurement techniques,, it was very dififucit if not

impossible to certify that one.was below 10 nCi/gm but much less difficult to

certify that one was below 100 nCi/gm. In discussing this, commenter 106

observed that although 10 nCi/gm is achievable during normal power plant

operations, there are documented reports (EPRI Project 613, August 1980) of

levels associated with unusual fuel performance which were occasionally in the

10-100 nCi/gm range. The commenter felt that the very small amount of waste

that falls in this range could be readily disposed of safely. The commenter

also believed that "all waste from operating power reactors could safely be

assumed to fall below the 100 nCi/gm level, thereby achieving compliance by

definition and making it unnecessary to perform direct or indirect measurements

which are technically very difficult."

..Another advantage stated by the commenters was that a 100 nCi/gm limit-would

encourage volume reduction through incineration and othermeans while conversely,

a 10 nCi/gm limit would discourage volume reduction. Commenters expressed the

view that it may be necessary to dilute wastes in.order to meet the concentra-

.tion limits and that discouraging volume reduction would be contrary to NRC's

policy on volume reduction as published in the Federal Register (46 FR 51100)

on October 16,-1981.

The commenters cited a number of reports, documents, and ongoing activities as

providing justification for their contension that the 10 nCi/gm limit be

raised to at least 100 nCi/gm. Reports cited included those by Leddicotte,

et. al. ("Suggested Concentration Limits for Shallow.Land.Burial of Radionuclides"), Adam and Rogers ("A Classification System for Radioactive, Waste

Disposal--What Waste Goes Where," NUREG-0956), and Rogers.("A Radioactive Waste

Disposal Classification System,".NUREG/CR-1005).: One commenter (81) notes that

the latter two documents have been criticized since they used an older ICRP-2

.lung model rather than a more realistic ICRP-30 (Task Group) lung model.

Commenter 81 then cited-a recent-publication by.Dunning and Killangh ("A Comparison of Effective Dose Equivalents From Three Major Internal Dose Compilations," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 1 No. 1, 1981) and contended

that this publication demonstrated that "conclusions derived on the basis of

the ICRP-2 lung model are valid for the transuranics." Staff does not agree

with the commenters contention.

Other documents cited by commenters included:

o a proposed revision of DOE Manual Chapter 0511 (dated 7/30/81);

o a recent mark-up of House Bill HR 5016 by the House Science Committee;

o the proposed EPA regulation for high level waste disposal, 40 CFR 191.

Others thought the NRC analysis of the TRU limit in the draft environmental

impact statement was excessively conservative. The most common comment in this

regard was that NRC was too conservative in that it did not consider dilution

by other (lower activity) wastes, and that if dilution was considered, the

allowable concentration could be increased by an order of magnitude or more.

B-84
One commenter (110) stated that studies are quoted in the DEIS which "indicate

'that the average radioactivity concentration in waste can be expected to be

from 1% to 10% of the maximum concentration." Another commenter (81) referenced

a DOE document'by'Healy'-and Rodgers ("Limits for the Burial of the Department

of Energy Transuranic Wastes," LA-UR-79-100, January, 1979) which indicated

that a dilution factor ofW20-6O could be expected for DOE trash wastes.

Two'commenters believed that there were some errors in NRC's-calculations.'

For example, commenter 102 thought that an inhalation pathway would not be

applicable with layered disposal. This'commen'ter-also compares conclusion's

in the DEIS with supposed conclusions in the documents NUREG-0456 and NUREG/

CR-1005. Commenter 115 believed that NRC's method for calculating airborne

dispersion by an intruder was in error-and'suggested another technique based

upon resuspension by wind. Similarly to commenter 102, commenter 105 also

;stated (erroneously) that since all'transuranic waste wouldibe Class C waste,

such'waste would always be disposed a minimum of 5-meters below the earth's

surface and could therefore never be contacted by an intruder.;

One commenter questioned'whether the transuranic concentration limit is a

cumulativeilimit.-for all trin'suranic'isotopes (except Pu-241) or if it is'

based upon a concentration per transuranic isotope. Another commenter (31)

urged the Commission to perform an in-depth evaluation of TRU isotopesginreactor plant radioactive waste streams prior to adopting the 10 nCi/gm

concentration limit, and to evaluate the practicality of techniques for

'demonstrating compliance.

'Commenters that'supported the 10 nCi/gm limit or did not want it raised included

commenters-13, -93, 103, and 111. Commenter 93 expressed~general support for the

'"10 nCi/gm'limit for near surface disposal'of low-level waste, anc'stated-that

"wastes that exceed this limit should not be considered low-level waste and

'should'not be buried at~commercial low'level waste disposalfsites." Commenter 103

expressed support for "confirmation of the definition of transuranic wastes as

recommended by the conference serveral years ago." Commenter-111 stated that

"transuranic wastes should be limited to 10 nCi/gm regardless of its decay mode

due to the'fact that the'daughters may be hazardous."

Commenter 13 had a number of concerns, and included some enclosures to.support

her positions and concerns. (Note that commenter 120 clarified some of the points

the commenter attributed to him.) The commenter stated that based upon experience

at Maxey Flats, INEL, and ORNL, which indicated that plutonium migrated'much more

quickly than originally anticipated, one-would expect to see the concentration of

transuranics allowed for shallow land burial regulated downward.

The principal concerns, however, appeared to be that:

(1) much greater than 10 nCi/gm of TRU would be considered for land

burial; and ' '

(2) the limit for Pu-241 isttoo high since it-decays to Am-241, which

the commenter considers to be extremely toxic.

The first of the above two concerns is based upon two items. One is section 61.58, which allows "other provisions for the classification and

characterization of the waste, disposal site, and method of disposal, if it

B-85
finds reasonable assurance of compliance with the performance objectives. ."

The second is the footnote in Table 1 which states that the concentration may

be averaged over a waste package (multiply by 200,000 for a.55 gallon drum).

-The commenter noted that this allows up to 2 million nanocuries of TRU or

70 million nanocuries of Pu-241 per 55 gallon drum. These issues are addressed

as part of Issues 0-55-5 (Case-by-case approval- of disposal of wastes in greater

than Class C concentrations), D-55-7 (Averaging concentrations over packages),

andfin the FEIS.

Other specific comments/questions on TRU waste from commenter 13 were:

o Why didn't- the NRC put "less than 10 nCi/gm in columns 1 and 2 on

page 38085. Doesn't it apply?

o Why didn't the NRC say that TRU waste above 10 nCi/gm should be given

retrievable surface storage until its new regulations for intermediate

waste are available?

Commenter 85 suggested that 163 day half-life Cm-242 should be exempted from the

limit. Commenters 87 and 107 suggested removable surface contamination limnits.

The DOE commented that the TRU limit should be based on pathway analyses and

that DOE is reassessing its use of the 10 nCi/g limit.

Analysis of comments: The commenters raised a variety of issues. Most of the

comments were written without consideration of the draft EIS. In the draft

EIS, staff made-an effort to come up with numbers for individual transuranics,

but this effort suffered from two basic limitations: (1) the analysis did-not

consider decay chain daughters and (2) the analysis did not go from individual

isotopic concentrations and calculate an effective cumulative limit for all

alpha-emitting isotopes. These limitations were factored into the final EIS.

Staff agress that Cm-242 deserves special consideration and has addressed it

in the same manner as Pu-241.

There has been some discussion by commenters and others regarding raising the

TRU limit to the range of 100 nCi/gm. The best reason for doing this appears

to be the ability to measure transuranics. It's easier and less expensive

for them to show that they are under 100 nCi/gm than under 10 nCi/gm.

Work in the draft EIS did not consider dilution due, to depth of disposal and

by other waste streams; .the calculated limit for many if not most alpha-emitting

TRU isotopes was about 10 nCi/cm3 (about 6 nCi/gm). Staff agrees that not

considering that Class C waste (which has been disposed at a minimum depth of

five meters) would still be difficult to contact even after 500 years was an

unnecessarily conservative assumption. Other considerations include dilution by

lower activity waste streams, improvements in health physics methodologies, and

differing disposal site environmental characteristics. In order to provide more

realistic estimates of the consequences that will result from disposal of TRU

wastes, the analyses were reevaluated in the final EIS, with the result that

the near-surface disposal limits for transuranics and other isotopes were

raised by a factor of 10.

B-86
-

.The following discussion addresses some of the specific questions raised by

the commenters who supported'a raised limit:

':o .Commenter 19 questioned whether the limit applied to Class A and B waste

as well as Class C waste. The answer is yes.

o Commenter 19 was also concerned that there was no disposal method between

shallow land burial and a repository. A partial answer is that developing

requirements for disposal by such intermediate methods (and correspondingly

,higher isotope concentrations) is planned. Licensees will have to continue

* to store wastes not acceptable when evaluated on a case-by-case basis until

a commercial or DOE facility is available. The commenters concerns are

valid but not new or a result of Part 61.

o :' The justification for the 10 nCi/gm limit (commenters 31, 32, 33, 39) was

.addressed in the draft EIS.

o *The comments (31, 33, 38) that assaying for alpha-emitting TRU isotopes

is difficult, impossible to routinely directly measure down to 10'nCi/gm,

*and leads to a lot of suspect waste are.good comments and support a higher

'limit. . -'

o Commenter 39 questioned the logic that the 10 nCi/gm limit should be

continued because it is achievable since there have been occasions when

wastes could not meet this limit and were not acceptable at the commercial

disposal sites. Unless there is no limit,.there may be some waste streams

- which are over the limit and this point is not sufficient reason to change

the limit.. -

go As-proposed and.as finalized, the limit is a cumulative limit foriall TRU

(except Pu-241 and Cm-242) isotopes rather than an individual isotopic

limit. The cumulative limit is more conservative but also contributes to

*the need to raise the limit.

o Commenter 31 suggests that we should take a close look at TRU isotopes in

reactor waste, as well as the practicality of determining compliance,-prior

to adopting the 10 nCi/gm limit. Because of the license'conditions'in

* effect at the disposal~sites, licensees have had to comply with the.limit

for years. However staff is continuing to look at these issues and follow

work being done by-EPRI and others in.this area. Raising the limit for

.Class C wastes should alleviate some.of the commenter's concerns.

Commenter 13 expressed concerns about plutonium migration,' disposal above

10 nCi/gm, the Pu-241 limit, applicability of the.IO nCi/gm limit 'to columns 1

and 2 in Table 1, and requiring storage of TRU wastes above the limits.

In response the comment regarding "migration" of TRU isotopes at Maxey Flats

and ORNL (migration has not-been reported at.INEL), the experience at Maxey

'Flats.and ORNL does not prove that TRU;isotopes migrate faster than expected.

Maxey Flats and ORNL are similar.situations in that in both cases we have had

bath-tubbing aswell as disposal in fractured formations. The bathtubbing at

ORNL has led to surface seeps. On one hand, we have had extended periods of

contact between water and waste'(plenty of time to form a semi-organic leachate

leading to concern regarding chelating agents) and on the other hand we have

B-87
"I,

had instances of rapid flow through fractures. We also have had lots.of surface

contamination at these sites. However, consider the situation at other places

such as the HLW tanks at Hanford and the Barnwell and Sheffield sites. Where

there are no fractured formations and percolating water has flowed through the

waste and soil rather than being allowed to bath-tub, plutonium and other TRU

isotopes have shown a definite propensity to migrate little if at all (even

with organic chemicals present).

Case-by-case determination of higher limits than 10 nCi/gm is addressed in

Issue D-55-5. In approving any exceptions or alternatives to the technical

requirements in Part 61, meeting the performance objectives rather than the

numerical concentration limits will be the bottom line. Thus the response to

the question about what criteria will be used to evaluate proposals to dispose

of higher concentrations is, the performance objectives form the "criteria."

With respect to the Pu-241/ Am-241 issue, the submitted information included

no calculations or pathway analysis. Based on work associated with the EIS,

staff continues to believe that it can be demonstrated through analysis that

the 350 nCi/gm number for Pu-241 is conservative. The applicability of the

10 nCi/gm in TRU limits for Class A and B wastes needs to be clarified in a

revised table. The proposed rule and table were somewhat confusing with respect

to columns 1 and 2. There is no need to require that licensed TRU waste be

stored. The requirements already exist under existing rules. If the waste

cannot be transferred out of the licensee's possession, the licensee must safely

store it.

Commenter 13 also questioned the numerical TRU concentration limit for "nearsurface" that would be approved on a case basis. NRC is not in a position at

this time to set such a limit, and there is furthermore no compelling reason

to set one now. A concentration limit for intermediate depth disposal will be

considered at:a later time. NRC would want to caveat any future limits to allow

for flexibility and future improvements. If NRC gets a license application in

the meantime, a site specific limit can be'included as part of addressing the

license application. Similiar arguments apply to the question on numerical

limits on the depth of disposal.

The ANS and ASME suggestion to add a 100 picocurie per square centimeter

(pCi/cm2) limit for transferable contamination of TRU nuclides was based on

proposed revisions to the DOE Manual Chapter 0511. The surface contamination

limit could reduce the potential exposure for an archeological or scavenger

type intruder. Part 61 did not attempt to protect such intentional intruders

who would be looking for identifiable waste such as lathes. Protection of the

inadvertent intruder was considered and surface contamination is not important

in the scenarios. However, such a limit is not unreasonable for DOE wastes

as an ALARA approach in view of the more frequent disposal of contaminated

equipment of interest and of the TRU contamination in DOE wastes that is

primary and not incidental to other nuclides.

In response to commenters 102 and 115, NRC's intent regarding the 10 nCi/gm

limit in the proposed rule was that the limit apply to all classes, not just

Class C. Given the uncertainties regarding natural and human actions over

long time periods, and the long half-lives of many of the transuranic isotopes,

NRC believes that it is unreasonable to assume that Class C waste could never

be contacted by humans. Although the commenters assertions regarding the draft

EIS analyses did not accurately describe what was actually done, the analyses

B-88
were reassessed for the final EIS to determine whether there existed excessive

conservatism. In regard-to the methodology used to calculate airborne'dispersion,

;such dispersionkisoassumed to result from mechanical-disturbance'of the-soil, not

from wind resuspension as mistakenly asserted by dommenter 115. ,

Rule Changes:

1. Raise the-limit for TRU includes.with half lives greater than'five.years

'to-100 nCi/g for Class C wistes.

2. Clarify the case-by-case.approvalpprovision.

3.. -Clarify the TRU limits for Class A and B.

4. -Add a separate limit for Cm-242.

ISSUE D-55-4

Issue: Waste classification - Ra-226

Commenter: Commonwealth Edison (35)

Bechtel (44)

New Mexico Secretary for Health and Environment (45)

American NucleariSociety (87)

American Society of Mechanical'Engineers (107)

North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission (109)

Rule Citation:"Table 1 of 61.55.

Summary of Comments: Basically, the commenters want to'know what to do-with

waste contaminated with or containing Ra-226, a radioisotope.which is-.not.

currently listed in'Table 1. Commenter 35'states that they-possess several

radium-226 sources used at their fossil fuel stations for flow'rate determinations. Commenter 45 states that'it is not clear whether Ra-226 will.be'

permitted for disposal and in what concentrations. Commenters 44, '87, 107,

and 109 all request a value or concentration limit for Ra-226 disposal.'

Analysis of Comments: As the-commenters have observed, there is no'waste'

disposal concentration limit for Ra-226'.' It'appears.that there~are'two'!types

of radium wastes to be considered: (1) small concentrated source's such as.

sealed sources or radium' dials, and (2)-wastes which contain.small amounts of

radium incidental to other radioisotopes such as mining or manufacturing"'

residues. The former would in general'not fall' under the'auspices ofjthe''Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, and would also not 'app' ar tb'be generated 'in 'significant

quantities. The EPA has a program for collection of discrete radium sources.

Disposal of the latter type of..waste'is probably more common and May.or may

not involve material regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. NRC has not placed

limits for such material.in:§ 61.55-because such wastes are.believed to generally

not occur in-sufficient quantities to warrant'it. However, the staff sees no

reason to.exclude small amountsof.iUranium orthorium moill tailings wastes that

might result from laboratory as'say,, research 'activites, environmental sample

analyses, etc. Therefore, a provision 'for disposal of small quantities of

tailings waste as Class A waste'shoul'd be'added.' For purposes of this provision,

B-89
a small quantity'could be defined as 10,000 kilograms containing not more than

5 millicuries of'radium-226. This radium' concentration is'typical of uranium

mill tailings (0.5 nanocuries per gram). The' quantity of'radium-2261is that

contained in 150 pounds of natural uranium at equilibrium with its daughter

products using a specific activity of 6.77 x 10-7 curies per gram from Appendix B

of 10 CFR Part 20. 10 CFR Part 40, § 40.22 permits persons to possess and use

under general license 150 pounds of source material per year. Permitting the

disposal of such a quantity in a near-surface disposal facility is judged to

be acceptable. For larger amounts, specific approval would'be required.

Suggested Rule Change: Amend 61.1(b)(2) to read-

(2) Disposal of uranium or thorium tailings or wastes (byproduct material as

defined in § 40.4(a-1)) as provided for in Part 40 of this chapter in

quantities greater than 10,000 kilograms of uranium tailings or wastes

containing less than five (5) millicuries of radium-226.

ISSUE D-55-5

Issue: Case-by-case approval of disposal of waste in greater than

Class C concentrations

Commenter: Catherine Quigg (13)

Los Alamos National Laboratory (43)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Northeast Utilities (85)

State of California (93)

North-Carolina Radiation Protection Commission (109)

Rule Citation: Section 61.55, Table 1 of Section 61.55, and Section 61.58.

Summary of Comments: The commenters' concerns were related to a footnote in

Table 1 and paragraph 61.55(d) which indicates that greater concentrations than

Class C limits may be determined to be acceptable for'near surface 'disposal

under certain conditions. The footnote'to'Tablel1, for example, states "Until

establishment and adoption of other values or criteria, the values in this table

(or greater'concentrations as may be approved by the Commission in particular

cases) shall be used in categorizing waste for near-surface disposal." Paragraph 61.55(d) states "Waste that has a radioisotope concentration that exceeds

the values shown in Column 3'; Table1 of this section, is not generally acceptable

for near-surface disposal and shall not be disposed of without specific

Commission approvalpursuant to §'61.58 of this part." Section 61.58 stateb

that "The Commission may, upon request or on its own initiative, authorize other

provisions for the classification a'nd characteristics on a specific basis, if,

after evaluation of the specific'characteristics of the waste, disposal site,

and method of disposal, it finds reasonable assurance of compliance with the

performance objectives in Subpart C of this part."

In their responses, the commenters either asked for clarification of the

requirements (43,, 85,'109) or were opposed tob'any exceptions in near-surface

disposal requirements (13,'80). Commenter 80, for example, stated that "there

should be no'exemptions in near-surface disposal prohibitions against the higher

level wastes." Commenter 13 was concerned that the Part 61 requirements would

'allow large quantities of transuranic isotopes` to be disposed by near-surface

B-90
I

disposal. This concern appeared to be motivated by Section 61.58 as well as

by another footnote in Table 1 which states that radionuclide concentrations

may be averaged over the volume of a package and'for a 55-gallon'drum the

concentration limits may be multiplied by 200,000 to determine allowable total

activity.'- Commenter 13 'noted that this'allows up'to 2 million nanocuries of

TRU or 70 million'nanocuries of Pu-241 per 55 gallon drum. '(Note that while

the commenter correctly calculates the maximum activities that the concentration'limit would allow in a drum,' intentional dilution to'meet this'limit was

not intended and concentrated sources are not a common waste form in non DOE

wastes. (See issue D-55-7.) Commenter 13 also questioned who in NRC would make

a case-by-case decision and what'the criteria would be to judge whether a

particular site was suitable, and questioned what the;maximum limit on

transuranic concentration NRC will allow for land disposal.' Commenter 43 was

concerned'that the definition of waste that might be included in land disposal

was to6'open ended, and that according to'Section IV under Supplementary - Information, "high-specific activity wastes,- such as those produced presently

during the-cleanup operations at TMI-2, will qualify for'land disposal as

'Class C Intruder Wastes. "' Commenter 93:throught that TRU-contaminated waste

should in no circumstances be considered low level waste and each waste should

be disposed of at specifically-des'ignated sites'operated by-the federal 'government. Commenter 85 questioned what criteria would be used for approvals under

§ 61.58-and Commenter 109 was concerned about special treatment of certain

licensees that'might result from case-by-case approvals.

Analysis of Comments: 'The concentration limitations and other requirements in

Subpart D are intended to help ensure that the performance objectives' established

in Subpart C are met. That is, the concentration limits and other requirements

are not:the'end in themselves, but are a means of achieving the end.- The

Class-C limits were developed using the'performance objectives as criteria to

ensure safe disposal of waste considering the degree of isolation provided

by "normal" near-surface disposal. Obviously, to ensure that the performance

objectives are met, disposal of higher concentration of isotopes than'those

'1isted in column 3 of Table 1 would-have to be by disposal :technologies having

higher 'isolation capacity than'"normal" near-surface disposal. Such improved

disposal technologies could, depending upon the particular radioisotopes,

involve-better waste forms or packaging, or disposal by methods having additional barriers against intrusion.

While there are some minor changes which should be made to the rule to clarify

NRC's intent, NRC still believes that the best overall approach to the rule is

the existing framework in which requirements'are established which apply-to

the majority of the waste,'but 'some'flexibility is allowed in meeting the

performance objectives. The principal reasons for this position are as follows:

1. The approach allows for potential improvements in disposal technology, and

also allows for consideration of licensees which may produce unique wastes.

2. The approach is in keeping with the philosophy of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980 (Public'Law 96-'345) which emphasizes objectives and flexibility

to reduce burdens onthe-public.'

3. NRC will be looking next at setting regulatory requirements in the form

of amendments to 10 CFR 61 for licensing disposal by methods offering

greater isolation than near-surface disposal. These methods could include,

B-91
for example,, intermediate depth disposal or use of mined cavities. NRC

staff expect that the regulatory requirements developed will include.

setting limiting concentrations for isotopes of significant concern. In

the meantime, it is possible that license applications will be received

for disposal by such improved methods. NRC staff wish to retain the

flexibility to be able to address these license applications in theexisting framework of the rule. It is not, desirable to arbitrarily prohibit NRC from considering such applications, especially since there is a

current shortage in disposal capacity.

For similar reasons and in response to Commenter 13, NRC staff does not plan

at this time to establish an absolute concentration limit for land disposal of

transuranic or other radionuclides. In the near future, NRC intends to analyze

and develop technical criteria for disposal, by disposal methods offering greater

isolation than near-surface disposal. As'part of these efforts, NRC expects

to develop concentration limits for disposal by these methods; these concentration limits are of course expected to be higher than limits established for

near-surface disposal.- In any case, NRC staff expect to incorporate flexibility

into future requirements to allow for alternative ways to meet the performance

objectives as well as potential improvements in technology.

Commenter 43 stated reservations regarding the definition of wastes acceptable

for near-surface disposal. The commenter was particularly concerned that some

high-specific activity wastes from the Three Mile Island (TMI) cleanup would

quality as Class C wastes. While the commenter did not specifically state which

TMI wastes he was concerned, about, staff assume that he is referring to the

EPICOR-II first stage liners. These wastes contain organic resins which are

highly loaded with Cs-134, Cs-137 and Sr-90. The loadings on these resins would

qualify these wastes as Class C. The commenter's concern, staff assumes,

involves the radiolytic degradation of the organic resins.

The NRC is preparing a Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Waste Form which

recommends a restriction against the generation of organic resins which would

have total accumulated doses of greater than 108 Rads. At this dose level

organic resins begin to undergo substantial degradation. The BTP guidance

includes loading of organic resins in excess of 108 Rads when it has been

demonstrated that the specific resins will not suffer, substantial degradation.

Staff views this type of detail to be overly precriptive and restrictive for

the rule.

The EPICOR-Il first stage resins will receive total accumulated doses in excess

of 108 Rads. Due to their unique nature, the DOE has agreed to accept these

wastes for research and development and disposal purposes. See Issue D-56-15

also.

Suggested Rule Change:

1. Change the language in the footnote in Table 1 reading "...or greater

concentrations as may be approved by the Commission in particular cases..."

to read "...or greater concentrations as may be approved by the Commission

in accordance with § 61.58..."

B-92
ISSUE D-55-6

Issue: Compliance with waste classification .requirements

Commenter:' United Technologies.- Packard (25) . .

Florida Power.& Light (31)'.

Bechtel (44)

Duke Power Co. (48)

'Arkansas Power and Light (52)

' Department of the Army (63)

-Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (8i)

Middle South Services (84)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Florida Power Corporation (91)

Power Authority of the State of New York (92)

Arkansas.Power and Light (94)

Health Physics Society (96)

Wisconsin Electric Power. Company (98).

Atomic Industrial'For'um(100)

'- Carolina Poweriand Light (106)

' TheAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers (107),.(113).

North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission'(109)

New England Nuclear,(110) . -

U.S. Department of Ene'rgy (119)

Rule Citation:'Section 61.55 and Table 1.

Summary of Comments: These commenters' concern was how one determines compliance

with the waste classification requirement.' That is, how does one measure 'and

report all the radionuclides contained'in all the miscellaneous'waste streams,

and how accurate must one be? Most commenters were concerned that the regulations would require them to routinely measure for'every is6tope in Table 1'-

within each package of waste. As stated by commenter 25 in regard to trash,

wastes, "this mixture is not'amenable to analysis, therefore -'anystatement of

activity.can'only be a ro'ugh.estimate,'and the combining of radios of mixed

radionuclides will certainly increase the'uncertainty.," Commenter 31'was...

concerned'with the practicality of demo'nstrating compliance for non-gamma

emitting isotopes. Commenter'31 felt that ainy requirement' to.perform complete

assays on each waste shipment would (1) result.in significantincreases in

personnel radiation exposures'(from collection of m6re'and larger samples and

from increases in sample handling times),'(2) result in transportation

difficulties (transport casks tied up longer'while awaiting.completion''of

assays prior to shipment), and (3).'increase need'for' temporary on-site storage.

Similar sentiments-were expressed by 'other commenters,'including' commenters'..

84,'91,''94, and '98.

Some commenters mentioned specific isotopes which they, felt would be very

difficult to routinely measure and demonstrate'compliance with (e.g.,

Commenters 92 and 100). These isotopes included Ni-59, Ni-63, Nb-94, Tc-99,

I-129, and Cs-135. .

B-93
Commenters 44, 87, and 107 and others felt that classification of external

dose measurements should be allowed, particularly for wastes such as trash.

Commenter 48 suggested that rather than'sampling every container to determine

compliance, the waste could be generally classifiedby source. Only under

unusual or abnormal conditions would more, detailed calculations have'to be

made. That is, "PWR ion exchange resins might be said to be Class B-Stable

waste under normal conditions of reactor operation where there is less than X%

failed fuel in the reactor and where the total activity in the waste container

is less than Y curies." Commenters 106 and 119 (and' others) suggested that

the rule specifically state that indirect'measurement techniques would be

allowed. Commenter 81 strongly supported "the concept of using key isotopes

which can be externally measured and without opening the waste package." Some

suggested that the concentrations be averaged over a shipment. Commenter 106

suggested that the concept of error limits be' included for measurements.

Commenter 52 felt that it would be impractical to '"positively determine a

given activity level as being characteristic of.a given isotope," and therefore

the proposed waste classification methodology is also impractical. Others

stated that the limits in the table would tend'to-discourage volume reduction

and were therefore too low. One commenter'suggested'classification limits be

developed for every site(110). This'commenter was, also concerned that the

classification system "may lead to generators assigning conservative estimates

to waste concentrations and consequential under utilization of waste site."

In addition, the commenter was concerned that the "recommended scaling factors"

in the DEIS "are not applicable to industries making a wide range of custom

products."

Commenters 44 and 87 (and others) questioned whether the classification scheme

could be combined with'the transportation system 'requirements in 1O'CFR Part 71.

Commenter 63 indicated no compliance'difficulties for the Army.

Analysis of Comments: This'issue, along.with transuranics and de minimis, is

one of the largest issues-relatedjto the proposed, rule. Staff agrees that

additional guidance is needed for licensees. The draft waste classification

regulatory guideshould be made available for comment as soon as practical and

discussed in both the preamble to the'final rule and the final EIS. Staff

agrees that routine assay of all packages is not necessary or desirable.

Alternative methods, can be used to show'compliance. For example,' staff has

identified four'basic programs which maybe used either individually or in

combination by licensees. They are: 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 draft Branch Technical Position on

Waste Classification and in the FEIS. Staff also recognizes'that the confidence

with which licensees assure proper classification will increase as programs

are established and verified and'more experience is gained with the licensee's

specific wastes.

The answer to the question of can the clasification requirements in Part 61 be

combined with the transportation requirements in Part 71 is no. The requirements are based on different concerns and different time periods. Part 71

requirements are to get the materials safely to the site. Part 61 classification addresses what happens over the long term in the facility. For example,

B-94
nuclides that are short-lived may produce high gamma radiation levels which

are of concern in shipping and handling but of little concern over the'long

'termnand long-lived soft beta emitters such as C-14 that do not pose a'handling

hazard are of special concern over the long term.

'All measurements or calculations of radioactive content involve error limits.

Staff judged that this point is'sufficiently understood but will consider

the issue in the regulatory guide on classification.'

Rule!Chane : Add-a provision to the'rule'that indirect methods may'be used to

compliance with classification. Also the number of 'isotopes inithe

rule should be reduced to the, minimum needed. For example, Cs-135 could be

eliminated. Compliance with classification should be discussed in the-preamble

to the final rule.

ISSUE D-55-7

-Issue: Averaging concentrations over packages

Commenter: -Bethlehem Steel Corporation (7)

Catherine Quigg (13)

New England Nuclear (110)

-U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: Table 1,

Summary of Comments: One commenter requested confirmation of the averaging

provision for sealed sources. One commenter was concerned about concentrated

TRU waste or'"hdt spots" allowed by averaging and one-notdthe need to ' specifically allow averaging TRU over-the weight of the package. One suggested

averaging concentrations of certain nuclides over shipments or the site rather

'than packages. '

Analysis of Comments: Bethlehem Steel Corporation applyed the averaging

provision for sealed Co-60 and Cs-137 sources correctly and averaged the

activity over the volume of the package. However, the waste must also meet

the physical form and characteristics requirement of the 'waste class determined

by the averaging.

Quigg, who was concerned about averaging the concentration over the volume of

the container, is correct that areas of concentrated activity are permitted.

The commenter was specifically concerned about concentrations of transuranic

(TRU) nuclides. From a practical point of view,' most shipments with trace TRU

will generally be -fairly homogeneously distributed-and-incidental to the total

-activity. Averaging over the packages is physically -representative of the

waste itself in this case. Only occasional shipments from any generator should

involve heterogenous distribution. -Possibilities include some decontamination

and decommissioning waste from cleanup of mixed oxide'fuel research facilities

and waste from destructive metallurgical analysis .of an'occasional fuel rod.

TRU wastes are just not produced in significant amounts' where averaging would

permit disposal under the proposed or final classification scheme. Further,

when the exposure scenarios are examined, the waste must degrade to become

accessible in the important scenarios. Mixing with the package contents-and

B-95
surrounding fill and soil should occur as, the intruder disturbs the disposal

site. Hot spots are not important in migration pathways suchias groundwater

transport. Relying on such mixing for the occasional packade seems reasonable

and relief fo'r the shipper is justified. If frequent shipments'with'heterogenous

distribution were expected, more restrictive averaging requirements might have

been proposed. Future changes in waste streams (e.g., if reprocessing is resumed)

'can be reflected inchanges to the rule. Certainly if reprocessing is resumed

the Commission will examine'the wastes being generated.

Commenter 119 and others noted that the rule should clearly allow averaging

TRU over the weight of the package. Staff agrees.

New England Nuclear's suggestion to "accept inventory methods designating average

concentrations in waste shipments" was part of the commenter's arguments offered

in support of providing relief for assaying'individual containers for very low

concentrations and hard to measure nuclides which must be restricted because

of ground water scenarios (i.e., H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129). Changes to the

final rule to delete some nuclides (e.g., Cs-135) and to clarify that indirect

methods of determining activities partially address the commenter's concerns.

The commenter also emphasized that without some relief, licensees would

conservatively over-report the four nuclides H-3, C-14, Tc-99, and I-129 or

report that the waste meets the limits so that the values 'used to keep total

site inventories would not represent'activity actually present. This conservative

over-reporting could exhaust site inventory limits and lead to inefficient use

of the site. Staff agrees and plans to address this issue in the BTP on waste

classification. Keeping the concept of averaging over the waste volume or mass

is important for the rule but details are more readily addressed in guidance

documents'.

Rule Change:

Issue:

Commenters:

Provide flexibility in. the averaging language of the rule'.

ISSUE D-55-8.

Ensuring'waste generator compliance with Part 61 requirements

and impacts on volume reduction

Nevada Department of Human Resources (14)

Dow Chemical (17)

Sierra Club (37)

Union' Carbide (39)-

Stock Equipment Company (67)

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (79)

Power Authority of the State of New York (92)

State of-California (93)'

Health Physics Society (96)

Wiscbonsin'Electric Power Company (98)

State'of New'York, Department of Law (99)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

Carolina Power and Light (106)

North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission (109)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (113)

U.S.'-Department of the Interior (114)

U.S. Department of Energy (119) . .

Rule Citation: None specific.

Summary of'Commeints: Commenters 14, 17, 67, 79, 93, and 96 remarked on the

issue of ensuring compliance with the Part 61 rules once promulgated. One

B-96
"commenter (14), speaking from the viewpoint of a state regulator, noted that

the'record and history of packaging of radioactive waste by generators has not

indicated' adurable capability to package waste in conformance with DOT regulations. Given this assertion, and the commenter's''opinion that the'types"'and

quantities-of isotopes.in waste pa'ckages are at best edu6ated:guesses,'the

commenter doubted that waste generators will be able to properly classify or

even properly label the waste acc6rding to the proposed regulation. Another

commenter'(17)' spoke from the po'sition-of a' radwaste solidification media and

equipment'supplier. 'The commenter stated'that neither the Commission nor the

existing disposal facilities have'inspection and enforcement programs to assure

that the requirements-are being met'. 'In'the commenter's~opinion, standards

and technical criteria without in'spection a'nd enforcement.are useless and

unnecessary. ;

'Commenter-67 (another radwaste solidification media and'equipment 'supplier)

stated that "the key to any program is inspection and enforcement," and suggested

that "after the standards'are established, enforcement be immediately established

to -ensure "compliance." Like commenter 17,' commenter 67 thought that criteria

should beWbased upon ALARA and use the best available'technology.;

Commenters 79, 93, and 96 made somewhat more specific suggestions. Commenter 93

'suggested that the rules require programs for checking'the contents of waste

drums, either'at the site of origin or at the'disposal site'. Commenter'79

suggested that Section 61.12 of the draft rule ("Specific technical information")

include provisions "for the inspection-of waste forms torinsure thatlicense

requirements'are being met. 'These provisions should require-periodic inspection

-'of waste packages, administrative-procedures, or waste inspection and'preparationprocedures'submitted bythe-waste:generators utilizing the burial facility."

'Commenter'96 suggested that waste'generators warrenty'that packages being shipped

w'ill'meet the long-term 150-year criteria.- Disposal facility licensees would

also warrenty-that "to the-best of his knowledge'and efforts, the-packages as

tbu'ried will meet the same'criteria." Commenter 96 also-stated that "the form

of the quality assurance programs by both the generator, or"processor to meet

''these criteria may'need to be'spelled out in'more detail."

A number of commenters, including 37, 39, 98, 100, 106, 109, 113, and 119

argued that the waste classification scheme tends to discourage volume reduction.

The point was'made'for TRU nuclides (Issue D-55-3)"and all nuclides that since

v'-volunie'reduction increases concentrations, treated wastes may fall in a more

restrictive and thus more'costly class or become generally unacceptable for

near-surface disposal. -The commenters note'd that the Commission encourages

'volume reduction and referenced the policy statement on this issue'published

October'16 j'1981 :(46 FR 51100). Most of these commenters' supported volume

reduction'by implication.. The state of New York, DOI, and ASME explicitly

supported 'volume reduction.

Analysis-of Comment: Issue D-55-6 is-concerned with how waste generators will

demonstrate compliance with waste classification. This issue, however; is the

other side of this issue--how'can regulators,- through inspection and enforcement

programs, ensure that the requirements in the rule are being met?

The issue of inspection and enforcement to assure compliance with regulations

neither started with nor will end with 10 CFR 61. Inspection and enforcement

is obviously not something that can be ensured through rulemaking alone. One

B-97
of the problems~has been that in the past, there was often not much.attention

given to waste disposal. NRC has recognized the need for. more uniformity in

compliance~with.waste transportationl.regulations by, for example, incoporating

DOT transportation regulations into NRC's own regulations. Thus, compliance

with transportation regulations may be inspected against by NRC.

Similarly, prior to the development-of the Part 61 rule, waste generator compliance with license conditions at disposal facilities has been generally enforced

through provisions in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40,-and 70 (e.g., § 30.41 Transfer of

byproduct material) that provide that no person may transfer. licensed material

to another person unless that person is properly licensed to receive it. Setting

out specific requirements in,10 CFR 61,.however, will greatly enhance NRC's

ability to inspect against violations of site license conditions. In addition,

a quality control program is required of generating licensees in the new

§ 20.311 of 10 CFR 20 to.help ensure compliance by waste generators~and other

licensees with the Part 61 requirements. This quality control program can also

.be inspected.against. (See Issue M-2..) Adoption of uniform requirement for

quality control programs and waste form and classification by Agreement States

will greatly bolster the effectiveness of a national system of inspection and

enforcement.

In regard to suggestions by commenters 79, 93 and 96, the suggestions would

involve adding more prescriptive requirements-to the rule on the quality

control program the site operator must have. The proposed rule has a general

requirement for aquality control program.that must include waste receipt,

handling, and emplacement. The commenters raise valid issues that-should be

factored into additional guidance documents being.developed. Two important

related points are (1) the emphasis the proposed rule places on the generator's

responsibility for compliance and (2) the associated inspectable documentation

and certifications required. Ensuring compliance will be a collective effort

by NRC and Agreement State inspectors, once compatible State regulations are

in place. The site operator's program will no longer be the first line of

defense. Staff agrees with Commenter 79 that disposal site package inspection,

administrative procedures, and generator programs are parts of a compliance

program but prefers to leave flexibility in the mix and dependence on these

and other parts of the program.

With respect to the impact.of complying with Part 61 on volume reduction,

staff does not feel that.waste classification necessarily discourages.volume

reduction. While a higher classification of waste might result.in more stringent

requirements on waste form and disposal methods, there are economic.considerations that need to be considered by the waste generator. .The cost of processing,

shipping, and disposal of.a small volume of higher classification waste, needs

to be compared with the transportation and disposal of a larger volume of a

lower classification waste. There is no reason to believe that the balance

will always be against volume reduction. For wastes with concentrations that

would place them not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal .ifthey

were volume reduced, the provisions for specific Commission approval of the

.. disposal of such wastes provides a potential alternative for licensees

considering volume reduction.

Rule Change: None.

B-98
ISSUE D-55-9

Issue: Waste classification by total hazard

Commenter: American College of Nuclear Physicians (53)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

General Electric, Wilmington (89)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

.Township of Lower Alloways Creek (125).

Rule Citation: § 61.55

Summary of Comments:, These commenters were concerned with materials which may

be-present in low level radioactive waste.which may.be chemically toxic or

hazardous.' Some, but not all commenters,,suggested that NRC's waste classification system incorporate a'"total hazard "approach 'which'would consider.both

the radiological and chemical hazard of.'a substance.

For example, commenter 53 thought that the rule should make "provision for

handling of waste" which is both radioactive and requires special handling for

other reasons." Commenter 103 also throught that consideration should be

.,given to a definition of "toxic chemical/radioactive waste" which may-require

different handling and burial requirements," and recommended classification by

total hazard.

,Commenter 114 throught that any classification scheme should be based on total

hazard. As stated'by commenter.114, "it would seem inappropriate for a

particular waste to be declared as'Class A radiologically when it might contain

toxic'metals or organic compounds with potential harmful effects several o'ders

.of magnitude greater than those of.the radionuclides. Perhaps the rule should

either prohibit compounds with greater potential toxicity than the, radionuclides

,or,provide for additional classification options based on other-than-radiological

toxicity." Commente-r 68 suggested that "a general statement, at least, be'

included to the effect that releases of.chemically-toxic substances shall not

exceed any local or Federal sta'ndards.that exist."

On the' other hand, commenter 89 supported.the concept of not developing a

,.waste classification system based on total hazard. As stated by.this.commenter:

While concerns related to both the chemical and radiological components

of a waste-must be evaluated to determine the.proper disposal method, the

establishment of.a total hazard class'ificatioh system would be a redundant

-effort. .The U.S. Environmental Pr'tectio'n'Age'cy already addresses

.,,chemically-.related concerns th'rough the'comprehensive, regulations associated

with the -implementation of the' Resource Conservation'and Recovery Act

' (RCRA).

The proposed regulations properly.address'.necessary radiation protection

considerations-and provide adequate guidelines for judging'proper'treatment

or exclusion of nuclear'.of waste 'components. This avoids the need to

develop a very complex classification system that somehow interrelates

radiological and nonradiological concerns on a detailed basis.

B-99
The U.S. EPA stated:

Hazardous and toxic chemicals are frequently present in these nuclear

wastes. EPA is particularly concerned that these hazardous and toxic

non-radioactive chemicals and their health impact are not considered in

this proposed rule and EIS.

and

As a minimum, Part 61 regulations should indicate that these materials

must be handled in a manner compatible with RCRA requirements.

Valore, et al. (125) endorced the EPA concerns.

Analysis of Comments: The Commission has stated publically 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. However, unlike' the technical

methods for radiation, there is no reliable consistent system to relate a "dose"

and potential health effects to exposure to chemicals. Therefore, there is no

reliable consistent way to relate exposure to chemicals to exposure to radiation.

See DEIS response to Argonne National Laboratory, Comment number 11, Item 3

for details. Thus a "total hazard" approach was not adopted.

The nonradiological hazards of the waste are not ignored. The operating disposal

sites have general words on site licenses regarding chemical hazards not out

weighing radioactive hazards. The prohibition against cardboard and fiberboard

boxes was in part due to protection of workers from non-radiological hazards.

Paragraph 61.56(a)(8) requires that wastes containing biological, pathogenic,

or infectious material must be treated to reduce the potential hazard. - The

information requirements for shipping manifests in § 20.311(b) include specifying

the chemical forms to the extent practicable'.' This requirement will'provide a

means of generating a more definitive data base, on the chemical form of wastes

being shipped for disposal. Finally, we have not observed any situation where

migration of chemicals away from a nuclear disposal site has been a problem.

The DOE plans to support research into the development of a classification system

for hazardous waste that might be compatible with Part 61. In the meantime,

the staff will study the chemical toxicity of low-level waste, with special

emphasis on identifying any licensees who generate hazardous wastes subject to

requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and re-examine what could

be done, perhaps through processing, to minimize the hazard.

Furthermore, the Commission believes that thedtechnical 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 such

wastes may be present in low-level radioactive wastes. It is the Commission's

view that disposal of these combined wastes in accordance with the requirements

of Part 61 will adequately protect the 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

B-100
intends.to work closely.with the Environmental Protection Agency 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.

Rule Change: None. .

ISSUE D-55-10

Issue: Radionuclide inventory vs. concentration limits.

Commenters:. -Union of Concerned Scientists (36)

Bechtel (44)..

Duke Power Co. (48)

'American Nuclear Society.(87)

The'American Society-of Mechanical Engineers (107), (113)

New England Nuclear (110)

U.S.'Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: Table 1 of Section 61.55;,61.7(b)(2)

Summary of Comments: The basis for the comments by these commenters 'are the

statements in Table 1 that NRC intends to set maximum site inventories for.H-3,

C-14, Tc-99, and I-129 and in § 61.7(b)(2) that maximum disposal-site inventories

will be established. Several of the commenters requested the.basis or criteria

for setting the inventory limits. Commenters 44 and 87 thought that the criteria

,should take into account site conditions and locations (and also thought that

"the criteria should reflect the fact that' if a'site is'properly selected,'a

single large site may be more desirable than a series of smaller sites.").

Commenter 110 throught that "prescriptive requirements which limit site

inventory or which protect against excessive migration of radionuclides are

site specific and.should be incorporated in site licenses." This commenter

also thought that "10 CFR 61 should'specify that site-licenses will incorporate

these site specific prescriptive requirements." Commenter 107 suggested adding

criteria and questioned'the basis for site inventory limits. Commenter 48

questioned the need for inventory limits, stating that the 500 year intruder

barrier should provide the protection required (apparently. the commenter did

not take into account the groundw'ater'aspects). .Commenter 36, on the other

hand, thought that a maximum site inventory should.be determined for every

isotope. The reason was again.potentialintrusio6.' As proposed by conmenter

36, "adoption of a maximum site 'inventory for all'isotope's would provide some

protection in the event of inadvertent intrusion of a severity greater than

that specified or in the event of'other'circumstances which might lead to

,unanticipated releases of.radioactivity.".. DOE (commenter 115) suggested

clarifying which nuclides are intended in § 61.7(b)(2).

Analysis'of-Comments: It appears-that at'least'part of the comments on'this

issue are caused by confusion over why NRC'is differentiating'between waste

concentrations and inventories. Concentration limits for radionuclides' have

been established based upon a number.of considerations, including protection

of a potential inadvertent intruder, operational safety, ground water migration,

and long-term site.stability. The desire to have the ability to set maximum

site inventories for'some isotopes is to have additional control over radionuclides that are of concern from a ground water point of view. Iodine-129,

B-101
Tc-99, and C-14'are both mobile and'1ong-lived.' Tritium is of concern due to

its extreme mobil'ity and its presenke in waste in large quantities. There is

no reason to set maximum inventorie's'for all radionuclides'because they are of

less concern for ground water migration. Controlling the migration of the mobile

radionuclides will ensure control of the migration of the less mobile radionuclides. The basis for the establishment of inventory limits for some'radionuclides would be to help ensure that the performance objectives for ground

water migration are not exceeded. As suggested by commenters 44 and 110, any

inventory limits would. be site-specific in nature and would be established as

part of licensing a particular site.

Conversely, NRC staff believe that there is no'need to establish a site inventory

limit for every isotope to protect against potential inadvertent intrusion.

To begin with, inadvertent intruder exposures are mainly'controlled by the

concentration of a particular isotope, and to a lessor degree by the site

inventory. NRC has'also determined that'to control such potential exposure to

exceptable levels, concentrations limits for every isotope need not be specified. It is sufficient to control the disposal of atfew key isotopes. Staff

believes that only those isotopes which are of significant long-term toxicity

and/or are reasonably expected to be in waste in large quantities should be

listed in § 61.55.

Rule Changes:

1. Clarify the footnote to Table 1.

2. Clarify § 61.7(b)(2) to reference that the purpose of the limits is to

limit potential exposure.

ISSUE D-55-11

Issue: Cost and regulatory burden of classification requirements

Commenters: Nevada Department of Human Resources (14)

Sargent and'Lundy (24)

Union Carbide (39)

Arkansas Power and Light Company (52)

AmericanNuclear Society (87)

Florida Power (91)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

Rule Citation: Technical Requirements and Table 1.

Summar of Comments: The comments pertains to various site operation and waste

packaging requirements,-in addition to waste classification requirements,'which

the commenters believe would raise the cost of waste disposal. Some of the

scenarios that Commenter 14 discussed which he believes would result from the

rule and/or raise costs include:

o potential active maintenance costs would be assessed for Class A waste;

o the site operator would consider all other (besides Class A) waste as

Class C waste and bury it in a separate trench under 17 feet of earth;

B-102
o the site operator would have to accept the radioactive waste as

classified by the generator'because he cannot'open the packages for

inspection;

o -;additional bookkeeping would be required, as well as new methods of

disposal; ' '

o the-regulatory agency governing the site would either require waste

'-packages not labeled with'a waste classification to'be'opehned-by the

site operator at his expense','or have the'waste returned by the

operator at his expense; - -

o the requirement that Class B'waste be stabilized will require considerable (expensive) quality control on the part'of the generator.

For -resins solidified in cement, dependence'may'have to be'placed on

the container for prevention of deformation, an additional'expense.

Commenter 14 also believes that'the waste classification and other requirements

will increase regulatory burden and expenses. Two reasons are given for the

-commenter's concern:

(1) The'regulatory agency (in the-commenter's opinion) will need to,

monitor charges collected by the site operator for active maintenance

-because "if the money was not all used during the five years after

-site closure it should be turned over to-the-institution that will

have custody of the site for long-term care and'maintehnance"';-and

-'(2) -The regulatory agencies governing the generators would have'tto'increase

-:inspections'of the? actual waste packaging'operations to determine

'-that the packaged waste meets the requirements for different

classifications. 'The commenter'doubts that' regulatory agencies can -. do'more inspection in this-area than they are doing now'because of

budget limitations.

-Commenter'24 and others made very general statements that'the classification

'scheme would -increase costs 'of nuclear power and disposal costs in general.

r'Analysis of Comments: The issue of the'cost of implementation of waste

classification is strongly related to other issues 'such as Issue D-55-3'"'

(10 nCi/gm TRU limit) Issue' D-55-6 (compliance'with waste'classification), and

Issue D-55-9 (basis for'waste classification-nuinbers).'AlthoughCommenters 24,

87, -and 107 did not provided any clear basis for'their claims, from'the'context

of their responses it appears'that'much -of the concern was relate'd teo'the issue

of determining 'compliance with the'Waste'classification limits. These 6ommenters

als'o suggested that the "arbitrary" numbers in Table''I be replaced with those

'from NUREG/CR-1005. ''-' ' -

The comment that potential additional active maintenance costs would be assessed

'for Class A waste is an interesting one. Such an occurrence is possible, and

appears-to be reasonable from a technical point of view.' Class'A waste contains

waste for which 'structual stability'cannot be assured, and'such waste have been

demonstrated to principally contribute'to'subsidence'of disposal trenches and

subsequent maintenance.

B-103
The comment by Commenter-.14 that the site operator would treat all Class B and

Class C waste as Class C waste is not intended by the ruleand NRC staff believe

that this situation is unlikely to occur.

Regarding the comment that the site operator would have to accept waste as

classified by the waste generator, this is no different than current practice

today. Waste generators are already required by site operators to record on

Radioactive Shipping Records (RSR's),information such as radionuclide content,

presence of special nuclear material or source material, DOT transport class,

chemical content, and so forth. Disposal facility operators accept this

information as given. Limited opening of packages has occurred particularly

at the South Carolina site but such practices are not routine and require special

procedures and facilities. The rule does not require opening but does not

prohibit it either. Spot checks can be a part of the operator's quality control

program. Regarding the comment on regulatory agencies either opening unclassified

waste or returning it to the waste generator, again there are already procedures

at all waste sites to deal with waste shipments having improperly filled out

RSR's. This is no different than the situation today.

Additional bookkeeping will indeed have to be carried out by waste generators

and disposal facility operators, as will additional quality control. Increased

attention and costs now mean reduced attention and costs later.

The comment that additional costs will result from quality control programs

and use of high integrity containers is true. However, such costs are not

expected to be large.

In analyzing the comment on state regulatory burden, NRC staff reviewed comments

received on the draft rule and EIS from other state agencies (e.g., Commenters 4,

16, 38, 45, 47, 55, 65, 69, 79, 92, 93, 99, 109,-111, 112),: particularly those

from other states currently having operational disposal sites within their

boundaries (79, 112), to determine if others had similar concerns. No such

concerns were observed.

It is probably true that the waste classification and other requirements in

10 CFR 61 will increase NRC and State regulatory expense, if for no other reason

than the new regulations exist. Any new requirements mean additional criteria

to be complied with which means additional personnel hours to assure that the

criteria are complied with. The additional ccsts are justifiable, however.

There is a demand for the regulation. To a great extent, the waste form,

waste classification, and other requirements in the Part 61 regulation are

intended to reduce regulatory and other institutional costs-at later dates.

The rule trades somewhat higher short-term costs (i.e., costs while the disposal

facility is operating) for reducing the uncertain, potentially very high,

continuous long-term costs. Consider, for example, how much money and time

NRC, Kentucky, and other government agencies have spent with respect to the

Maxey Flats site.

NRC would expect that state regulatory agencies would monitor long-term care

costs as a normal part of land owner responsibility related to waste classification. The incremental burden is judged small., This is being accomplished

today. Costs of a reasonable inspection program should be included in the

financial planning by the operator and State.

B-104
': a r* -

Inspection of waste generators for compliance with waste classification is

more the responsibility of the Commission or the Agreement State regulating

the generator. Existing regulatory responsibilities'include inspection of the

packaging and shipment of radioactive waste. The incremental burden of reviewing

a licensee's program for'classifying these wastes should be small.

Rule Ch'ange: None

JISSUE D-55-12

iIssue: Waste classification - definitions clarifications,' and

miscellaneous other''comments

Cornmenters: Nevada Department of Human Resources

United Technologies - Packard (25)

Ohio EPA (38)

: - Bechtel (44)

'State of New Mexic'o (45)

Oswald U. Anders (73)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

* U.S. Ecology (101)

:American Society of Mechanical Engine

New England Nuclear (110)

(14)

eers (107)'

- Rule-Citation: 61.7(b), 61.55, and Table 1.

''Summary of Comment:

definitions on some

are listed below:

This group of commenters requested

part of waste classification.' Some

clarifications or

of the'points raised

o Commenter 14.;-In paragraph 61.7(b), clarify'what is' meant by Class A

waste decaying to acceptable levels during the period when the site

:is occupied. What are acceptable levels? (There could be no appreciable decay of uranium during the period the site is'occupanied.)

Does this mean that "receipt of Class A waste at the site would have

to'be stopped at some point in time before the site'is closed, if it

is to'decay to acceptable levels prior to site closure?"

o Commenter 25. Clarify that NRC is not mandating segregation of

radioactive waste by radionuclide. -

o 'Commenter 38.' Believes that-there is opportunity.for confusion since

Table 1 on page 38097 classifies waste by isotope whereas the classification on page 38085 is by point of origin.

o Commenters 44, 107.

be defined.

The term "significant gamma radiation" should . . I

O Commenter 45.

(a) Footnote 3 to Table 1 doesn't refer to any waste class but only

to Class C waste.

-B-105
(b) Suggests that 61.55(d) be, changed to read "Waste that has a

radioisotope concentration that exceeds the numerical values

shown in Column 3, Table 1., . ."

o Commenters 73, 100, 107 and 110. The commenters note that the preamble

to the draft rule states that the stability of the disposal site should

last long enough for the radioisotopes to decay to levels where they

are no longer of concern from a migration standpoint. The commenters

believe that standards should be given.

o Commenter 73. Raised the issue of the number of factors that should

be included in the classification scheme and suggested that a much

more complex computerized system be used.

Analysis of Comments:

o Commenter 14. The line in question is "Even though the Class A

segregated waste is unstable, it decays to acceptable levels during

the period when the site is occupied and active maintenance can control water infiltration." This line is conceded to be poorly worded.

Class A waste doesn't "decay to acceptable levels during the period

when the site is occupied." Class, A waste is such that even under

the conditions of extreme waste degradation, potential intruder impacts

at the end of the institutional control period will meet the intruder

performance objective. In addition, the concentrations in the waste

are low so that the likely radionuclide inventories in the Class A

waste will also be low. Hence the ground water performance objective

will be met even given the occurrence of increased water infiltration

(relative to Class B and Class C waste) into the waste. It-does not

mean that "receipt of Class A waste at the site would have to be

stopped at some point in time before the site is closed. .

o Commenter 25. NRC is indeed not mandating segregation of radioactive

waste by radionuclide.

o Commenter 38. The classification on page 38085 by point of origin

is only for illustration. It's only to give the reader an idea of

the types of waste which would be expected in one class or another.

o Commenter 44, 107. The commenters are correct. The term "significant

gamma radiation" is imprecise and should be eliminated. As discussed

under Issue D-55-10 there is no need to set concentration limits for

all nuclides.

o Commenter 45:

(a) The comment is good. Change footgote to read "Maximum concentration for Class C waste, uCi/cm " (or words to that effect).

B-106
(b) The suggestion is acceptable.

!, Commenters 73, 101, 107:

-,As noted in'response to'Commenter 14,,the bottom line for disposal and

decisionsabout'the 'site is the 'performance objectives. Decay and limits

on initial concentration must be'such that at the end of the institutional

control period potential intruder impacts will be acceptable. 'See Issue C-4

-for-a-discussion of numericallimits for the intruder. For migration,

-site'specific determinations'must~be made to determine ex'pected compliance

with the environmental performanceobjective. The 25 mr/yr is the--standard.

O Commenter 73. Commenter' 73's suggestion that a complex computerized

classification system that takes additional factors such as leachability

and biodegradability into account might be feasible for a single waste

stream where-such a range'of-factors is known or can be determined.

However, the diverse nature of low-level waste and the data available'

preclude such a complicated approach. Compliance would also be virtually

impossible,in view of the'thousands of waste generators who would have to

understand and use such a'system.'

Rule Changes: Make changes as discussed above.

ISSUE D-55-13

Issue: Stability and disposal requirements for Class A waste vs. -

Class B and C wastes

Commenters: Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources (16)

Dow'Chemical (17)

Bechtel (44)

; Arizona State Clearinghouse (47) -, American Nuclear Society (87)

Washington State Department of Ecology '(112)

Department of Energy .(119)'

Rule Citation: 61.52 and 61.55

Summary'of Comments: These group of commenters in-one way or another had some

-concerns orsuggestions regarding the classification'scheme'that sets 'out

additional wastestability requirements-for Class'B'and C waste streams. (The

issue of stability and the operational implementation of"the classification

-system is also addressedunder Issues'D-52-1 and 2.') For example, commenter 43

was unsure whether',the stability requiremenets for'Class B waste also applied

to Class C waste. ,Commenters 16 and 119'suggested'that-NRC should clarifywhether the requirementsin paragraph'4 - 10 of section'61.52(a)'applied-to

all classes of waste or' just Class B waste'.' Commenter 16 also suggested that

Class A meet all the requirements of (a) except (4).' Commenter 17'thought'

that the stability requirements should be'expanded to consider-operational

safety. That is, additional requirements on solidification should be imposed

(using best available technology) based on assuring transportation and waste

handling safety.

B-107
Commenters 44, 47, and 87 were not convinced that'Class A and Class B wastes

needed to be distinguished. Commenters 44 and 87 both suggested that Class A

and B waste be defined solely on the basis of stability rather than stability

and concentration so that only Class.C waste would have to be stable. There

would be no requirements to stabilize Class"B waste, but stable waste which

just happened to arrive at'the disposal facility would be disposed of in a

segregated manner from unstable waste.

Commenter 47 stated "if the NRC believes that specific characteristic's of.each

waste necessitates separate burial, this has not been'adequately demonstrated,

either by their own evidence or by history." Commenter 47 thought that Class A

and Class B waste shouldibe mixed together during disposal (possibly to reduce

intruder impacts). Commenter 47 spoke from the viewpoint of disposal in an

arid climate, and wanted'to know if-the physical'separation between waste

classes could be vertical rather than horizontal (Class C on the bottom,

followed by Class B and A).

Commenter 112 questioned whether unstable (Class A) and stable waste (Class B

and C) need to be segregated at disposal sites such as the Richland, Washington

disposal site, which are located in arid environments (the average precipitation

at Richland is about 6 inches/yr). The commenter thought that among the most

important concerns at an arid site are slumping and wind erosion and that

co-mingling of waste classes should.be allowed in an attempt to lower the

average concentration of the most hazardous waste. The commenter also thought

that implementation of the regulations would require a separate disposal unit

to handle only Class C waste.

Analysis of Comments: Some of the comments appear to come from a misunderstanding

of the rule. The waste characteristics that each class of waste must'imeet and

the emplacement and disposal requirements need to be more clearly stated. The

comments regarding vertical segregation and potential relief from segregation

requirements at arid sites may have'merit, although segregation would tend to

reduce the overall level of slumping at an arid site, which is a concern of

Commenter 112. Such proposals would be considered under § 61.54 "Alternative

requirements for design and operations."

As noted under Issue 0-56-7 when addressing the hazardous, biological, etc,

properties of.wastes, extensive treatment of Class A waste cannot be justified

at.this time. Stability for all waste is the most'desirable option when cost

* effectiveness is-not considered.. However,, development and implementation of

the technology by all licensees will require time and may never be cost effective

.or even reasonable for small operations., Medical.research, university research,

and small scale industrial.research would be significantly affected. The staff

.is-encouraging the treatment of.'wastes and also added'a provision to the rule

that if Class A wasteis stable',-it does'not have to be segregated. Thus a .. specific alternative would.not have to be approved under § 61.54 for stable

Class A waste.. Staff judges the requirements on Class B and C waste to be

justified and no relaxation should be considered.

Rule Change:

1. Change Section 61.52 so that the applicability of subparagraphs 4 - 10 is

clarified.

B-108
2. Regarding the stability requirements for Class B and C wastes, the rule

need not be changed. Reiterate the points in section 61.55 regarding the

minimum and stability requirements in the preamble to the final rule.

ISSUE D-55-14

Issue: Hold wastes for decay

Commenters: Advance Medical and Rese'arch Center, Inc. (5)

Northern Illinois University (27)

Sierra Club (37) - Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (38).

'R/A"Services, Inc.: (57)

Texas Department of Health (117)

Rule Citation: -§§61.'55 and 61.56, Table '1

Summary of Commenter: The commenters were concerned that the waste classification and characteristics requirements in §§61.55 and 61.56 precluded individual

'licensees from holding short lived isotopes for decay to background levels and

subsequent disPosal in the-ordinary trash. Two commenters"noted that hold for

decay should be used for most medical/academic wastes and one noted that

materials held for decay could be retrieved for reuse..

Analysis of Comments: The comments-reflect a need to clarify the.purpose, scope,

and applicability of the regulation. Part 61 and'associated changes would not

limit disposal options available to licensees except when transferring wastes

:containing licensed materials for'disposal at a land disposal facility... Options

such a's on-site burial, hold-for-decay, incineration, or disposal 6f materials

exempted from the provisions of Part 20 remain unchanged:

-The Nor'thern Illinois University expre!ssed oppositionto near-surface disposal

of wastes' and noted tha't''ost medical/academic wastes"can'be segregated and

held for decay instead of disposal in near-surface'facilities.- Staff agrees

,that much'of this wastes can be held and has encouraged licensees to adopt

this alternative.

Rule changes: None.

B-109
, ;ISSUE D-56-1

Issue: Use of absorbents

Commenters: Oswald Anders - 73

State of South Carolina 7 79

Rule Citation: 61.56(a)(3)

Section 61.56(a)(3) allows the use of absorbents for Class A wastes provided

that the absorbent is capable of absorbing twice the volume of liquid.

The State of South Carolina stated that the requirement should apply only to

institutionally generated, aqueous or biological waste forms and not to organic

materials.

Mr. Anders stated that absortion was an obsolete technique for immobilizing

liquid wastes and was unsatisfactory. He indicated that nuclides could be

easily leached from such waste forms.

The NRC staff disagrees that absorbents should only be used for aqueous wastes.

There are many organic waste forms which cannot be effectively solidified and

absorption is the only'effective technique for immobilization. The NRC staff,

however, recognizes that certain site specific conditions may restrict the

disposal of absorbed organics and agrees with the State of South Carolina that

such conditions n6ed to be considered in evaluating the environmental

acceptability of these wastes.

Since nuclear power plant waste generators currently solidify aqueous waste

streams, Section'61.56(a)(3) is not expected to' affect their operations. The

NRC staff also believes that nuclear power plant waste generators would

generally not use absorption since this technique would result in increased

waste volumes to be shipped.

Because the use of absorbents would be only applicable to Class A wastes, pathway evaluations indicate that their use would not result in public health

hazards due to leaching of radionuclides.

Because of the low activities of the Class A wastes and the current solidification of liquids at nuclear power plants, the NRC staff believes that it is

unnecessary to restrict the use of absorbtion to only institutional waste

generators.

Rule Change: None

ISSUE D-56-2

Issue: Chelating Agents

Commenters: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards - 10

Wisconsin Electric Power - 32

B-llO
Alabama Power - 33

Commonwealth Edison - 35

Union of Concerned Scientists - 36

Bechtel National - 44

Duke Power - 48

'Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group','- 81

American Nuclear Society - 87

Power Authority State'of New York - 92

Arkansas Power & Light Co. - 94

Health Physics Society - 96

Atomic Industrial Forum - 100

Carolina Power and Light - 106

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers'- 107

State of North Carolina 109

New England Nuclear - 110

U.S. Department of Energy - 119

Rule Citation: Table 1 o'f Section 61.55.'

Summary of Comments: The utilities, the utility groups, one professional

society and DOE stated that the requirement to obtain specific approval to

dispose of wastes containing greater'than 0.1 percent chelating agents 'was'too

restrictive. In addition, they stated that in'some cases'this could result in

utilities deciding'against performing decontamination operations which'could

reduce occupationial'exposures. Several utilities requested that'the basis'of

the 0.1 percent value be provided. 'The Union of concerned Scientists stated

that disposal of wastes with chelating agents over 0.1 percent should not be

permitted under any conditions. One utility stated that generic disposal

requirements should be specified rather than case-by-case evaluations. The

ACRS stated that the case-by-case evaluation concept was not clearly presented

in the'proposed rule. Several commenters also questioned packaging requirements

and whether the'0.1% criterion was by weight or volume.''Several recommended

,moving the requirements from the footnotes in Table 1.

Analysis of Comments: The proposed regulation 10 CFR 61 stated that disposal

of wastes containing greater than 0.1 percent chelating agents would not lie

permitted without specific'approval by the NRC. Since chelating agents' have

been' shown to increase the migration of certain nuclides at certain sites', the

NRC staff desired to evaluate the disposal of large quantities of wa'stes

containing high concentrations of chelating agents on a case-by-case basis.

'This evaluation would consist of a'review of the burial siite'conditions and

'the form of the wastes. A similar approach was used when'the NRC staff

reviewed 'the disposal of wastes which would'be generated in the'decontamination

operations at the Dresden-Uhit 1 Station. In this case the NRC mandated that,

in order to minimize any migration effects which might be exacerbated by

chelating agents, the Dresden decontamination wastes should be disposed of at

an arid disposal site. At an arid site leaching would be minimized due-to the

low precipitation rates.

-The 0;1 percent chelating'agent value is based o'n'the amount of iron in a

55-gal drum-which might normally be 'available to complex'with'unreacted

chelating agents if these chelating adents' leached;from the waste in an

uncomplexed form. If uncomplexed chelating'agents'complexed withiron from

the waste container, it would generally be unavailable to complex with other

B-1il
radionuclides in the nearby soils. Therefore, radionuclide migration would be

minimized.

Because the disposal of wastes containing chelating agents'is dependent on the

sit:e characteristics of the disposal facility and on the properties of the

waste form, the NRC staff has modified the chelating agent disposal requirements to reflect the site specific nature of the disposal of these wastes.

The Table 1 footnote that wastes containing greater than 0.1 percent chelating

agents would not be permitted unless specifically approved has been replaced

by more general requirements. However, in order that disposal of chelating

agent wastes are considered in licensing actions, Section 61.12(f) now requires

that license applications specifically address.methods for handling these

wastes. These methods would be developed based on the site conditions and on

the allowable waste forms. The manifesting requirements (Section 20.311(b)) now

require that waste generators identify wastes which contain greater 0.1 percent

by weight chelating agents. This will allow disposal site operators to identify,

segregate, and dispose of chelating agent wastes in accordance with individual

site license conditions.

The NRC staff believes that the above changes in 10 CFR 61 will not be overly

restrictive to utilities but will provide assurance that chelating agent

wastes will be properly disposed of. The NRC staff believes that the wastes

from decontamination processes which are currently available can be disposed

in an acceptable manner. In some cases,' though, these wastes may require

disposal at an arid site. The NRC staff does not believe that disposal of

chelating agent wastes will be or should be the limiting point for utility

decisions for performing decontamination operations to reduce occupational

exposures.

This modification to 10 CFR 61 would also eliminate the necessity for NRC

staff to perform case-by-case evalutions. Instead, specific license conditions

at each disposal site would provide the disposal requirements for chelating

agent wastes. While this change does not provide detailed generic requirements

for waste generators, it does provide flexibility fbr disposing of these wastes

based on the specific disposal site characteristics and the specific waste

form properties. The NRC staff believes that the revisions eliminate the

confusion regarding the case-by-case evaluations as presented in the ACRS

comment.

Several commenters requested specific guidance on-packaging chelating agents.

Since the disposal of chelating agent wastes are site dependent, there may be

many acceptable options for the disposal of these wastes. The NRC staff, plans

to address acceptable waste form options in a branch technical psoition (BTP).

This BTP would provide the basis for disposal site applicants and operators to

develop disposal parameters which would provide for the proper disposal of

these wastes.

Several commenters requested clarification on whether the 0.1 percent concentration value was to be determined on a percent volume or percent weight basis.

One commenter suggested using a percent volume basis. The calculation to

determine the 0.1 percent value was performed on'a weight basis. This point

is clarified in .the final rule.

B-112
Two commenters.stated that the chelating agent requirements should be moved

from the footnote section of Table 1 and placed on the body of the rule. The

revised requirements have been moved into the body.1of.the rule.

Rule Changes:

1. Add to § 61.12: A requirement for addressing wastes containing chelating

agents.

2. Add to 20.311(b) after,"The solidification agent must be, specified.":

Wastes containing more than 0.1% by weight chelating agents must be

identified and the weight of the, chelating agents estimated.

ISSUE D-56-3

Issue: Definitions of pyrophoric, hazardous and explosive

Commenters: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards- 1.0

New England 'Nuclear -' 110

Rule Citation: 61.56(a)(4), 61.56(a)(5), 61.56(a)(6)

Analysis of Comments: The intent of Sections 61.56(a)(4), 61.56(a)(5) and

61.56(a)(6 is to provide protection to workers during waste handling and,

disposal operations by prohibiting wastes which are explosive,- pyrophoric or

generate toxic fumes.

One commenter indicated that the.restrictions on wastes which are pyrophoric,

explosive, or generate toxic gases may be difficult to enforce without clear

definitions for, these terms.. Another commenter suggested new wording (add

1"normall") for Section 61.56(a)(5) to ensure that plastics are not'.excluded.

Staff agrees.

Definitions of the terms, "hazardous," ."pyrophoric" and "explosive"hhav'e been

added to Section 61.2. The definitions for,"pyrophoric". and ,!'explosive'" are

consistent with those in the transportation regulations 49 CFR 171.8,.49 CFR

173.50, 49 CFR 173.115, and 49 CFR 173.150: The term,_."toxic,", has been

deleted and "hazardous" substituted. A definition for "hazardous" has been

.- included in Section 61.2 to reference the Environmental Protection Agency;.

requirements in 40 CFR 261.

Rule Changes:

1. Proposed Definitions to add to § 61.2:

Pyrophoric: A pyrophoric liquid is any liquid that ignites spontaneously

in dryor moist air-at or below 1300F (54.50C). A pyrophoric solid is

any solid material, other than one classed as an explosive, which, under

conditions normally incident..to transportation is liable to cause-fires

*through friction, retained:heat.,from manufacturing, or processing, or

which can be ignited readily and when.ignited burns so vigorously and

persistently as to-create a serius 'transportation, handling, or disposal

hazard. Included in this class are spontaneously combustible and waterreactive materials.

B-113
Explosive: An explosive material is defined as any'chemical compound,

mixture, or device, which produces'a substantial'instantaneous release of

gas and heat spontaneously or-by contact with sparks or'flame.

"Hazardous waste" means those wastes designated as hazardous by

Environmental Protection Agency regulations in 40 CFR Part 261.

2. Amend § 61.56(a)(5) to read:

(5) Waste must not contain,-or be'normally capable of generating, quantities of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes harmful'to persons transporting,

transporting, handling, or disposing of the waste.

ISSUE D-56-4

Issue: Cardboard containers

Commenter: University 'of California, Los Angeles (8)

Sierra Club (37)

Ontario. Hydro (51)

Union Oil-Company of California (66)

Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: 61.56(a)(2)

Summary of Comments: Ontario hydro (51) questioned why wastes packaged i'n

cardboard or fibreboard boxes are prohibited. If the waste can be segregated

then these types of packaging should be acceptable.

University of California, Los Angeles thinks that prohibiting the use of cardboard or fiberboard boxes for low level radioactive waste is unnecessary. The

major reason for this conclusion was that cardboard boxes could be introduced

directly into an incinerator, while metal drums would have to be unpacked.

Union Oil Company of'California suggested Section 61.56(a)(2) should be deleted.

For certain low level' waste use of cardboard or fiberboard boxes may be suitable

for both shipping and disposal.

The Sierra Club'supported the prohibition against packaging wastes in cardboard

or fiberboard boxes.

The DOE noted that DOT regulations allow cardboard and fiberboard and DOE

wastes are safely handled in such containers and suggested deleting

paragraph 61.56(a)(2).

Analysis of Comments: The NRC staff after reviewing the comments regarding

the prohibition or cardboard and fibreboard containers still believe that such

a prohibition is needed. The DOE experience at DOE facilities has shown no

difficulty for DOE wastes. However, no extensive handling or shipping are

involved and greater administrative controls are-possible since DOE wastes are

typically buried on site and are generated by a few organizational groups

operating under common guidelines. Commercial sector wastes are shipped longer

distances and generated by thousands of organizations. Biodegradable packaging

has merit in enhancing decomposition of unstable wastes and accelerating the

B-114
compacting process and DOE should continue the practice where experience so

warrents.

Cardboard and fiberboard containers are found frequently reaching the'commercial

disposal sites in a ruptured condition. In addition, syringes used in research

and in hospitals have'sometimesspenetrated containers causing injury to disposal

site workers. This prohibition'is consistent with current license conditions

at the Hanford and Barnwell disposal sites.

The requirement to prohibit disposal of wastes in cardboard or fiberboard

containers would-not affect packaging prior to incineration. In this case

such packaging could be desirable. 'See rule change 6 under Issue M-1 also.

Rule Change: None

ISSUE D-56-5 '

Issue: Wastes in a gaseous form

Commenters: University of North Carolina - 30

Sierra Club --37

-Los'Alamos National Laboratory/Safeguards Systems Group - 43

Bechtel National - 44

-; Georgia Institute of Technology - 70

American Nuclear Society - .87

Atomic Industrial Forum - 100 - . . U.S. Ecology - 101

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers - 107 -"New England Nuclear --110

U.S. Department of Energy - 119

Rule Citation:' § 61.56(a)(5) and (a)(7)

Analysis of Comments: The NRC staff has provided requirements for the disposal

of wastes in gaseous forms in Sections 61.56(a)(5) and 61:56(a)(7). These

requirements are based on license conditions currently in use and are intended

to provide protection to disposal site workers and-to reduce airborne releases.

Several commenters indicated that'there was an inconsistency between Sec-'

tion 61.56(a)(5)'and 61.56(a)(7). 'That-is', Section'61.56(a)(5) specifies that

wastes shall not be capable of generating hazardous gases, vapors or fumes and

Section 61'56(a)(7) authorizes disposal of gases not to exceed 100 Ci per

container. Seve'ral commenters requested that NRC provide the basis for the

100 Ci limit.. Another commenter stated that'gases should be processed into

liquid or solid forms'which would provide-better long-term stability since it

would be impossible to assure' that containers-would last for the 150 yearstability period.- Other commenters'stated that wastes disposed of in a gaseous

form should be limited or prohibited and that the general population off-site

and downwind should be protected. 'Staff believes.that measures to protect

transporters and workers provides ample protection for off-site.

The intent of Section 61.56(a)(5) which specifies that wastes shall not be

capable of generating hazardous gases, vapors, or fumes is intended to prohibit

the disposal of wastes which are chemically reactive under ambient conditions

B-115
and produce hazardous gaseous reaction products. This section was not *intended

to prohibit the disposal of properly packaged gases such as H3 or Kr85, which

occasionally require disposal. Section 61.56(a)(5) has been reworded to

clarify the NRC staff's intent;

The 100 Ci limit is based on the license conditions for the disposal of gaseous

wastes now in effect at the Hanford and Barnwell disposal sites. These limits

have not resulted in unsafe environmental conditions at the disposal sites nor

have they resulted in overly restrictive situations for waste generators.

The NRC is currently evaluating the significant generators of H3 gas with the

intent to improve packaging designs. The objective of these evaluations are

to assure that package designs retain H3 until it has decayed to insignificant

levels. Since H3 has only a 12 year half-life the package design needs only

to retain the H3 for approximately 120 years to provide a 103 reduction in

radioactivity. The overall structural stability of the package will be oriented

to providing trench stability for Class B and C wastes for a 300 year period

consistent with the high integrity design concepts.

For Kr85 packages the release by airborne pathways of Kr85 is not as significant as for H3 since Kr85 is an inert gas which is,not concentrated in living

tissue. Therefore,.;complete retention of Kr85 in,,a waste package over the

period required for 10 half-lives of decay is not essential. The NRC staff

believes that by limiting the curie content in the waste packages designed for

long term stability that public health and safety can be protected.

If, in the future, large quantities of Kr85 are contemplated for disposal, the

NRC staff will reevaluate the requirements for the disposal of Kr85 gas in

order to assure that disposal is consistent with the disposal site performance

objectives. ..

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers suggestedmodifying 61.56(a)(7)

to make it less absolute. The Society recommended inserting "significantly"

before "exceed one atmosphere at 201C." The-requirement of 61.56(a)(7) is

consistent with the current license conditions at Barnwell and Hanford. The

NRC staff believes, thatiuse of the term,"significantly" will only increase

the difficulties in enforcing this requirement.

The DOE commented-that the maximum concentration for Kr-85 in a Class: B waste

would be 44 Ci/m3 or 440 Ci/m3 if contained in a metal. These are the same

concentrations as-for.Cs-137. The DOE commented that this-would eliminate

disposal in dry wells of Kr-85 immobilized by zeolite encapsulation by deposition on metals. The NRC staff disagrees that 10 CFR 61 elminates this disposal.

The regulation 10 CFR 61 appliesto near surface burial facilities and requirements for other alternative methods for disposal of low-level wastes would be

considered in separate rulemaking actions. At this time the health and safety

impacts of the disposal of immobilized Kr-85 in dry-wells could be considered.

Rule Change: Change 1 atmosphere to 1.5 atmospheres at 20°C.

B-116
ISSUE 0-56-6

Issue: Packaging standards

Commenter: Department of the Environment, London (19)

Union Oil Company of California (66)

Stock Equipment Company (67)-

General Electric (89)

*Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (95)

The American Society of.Mechfanical Engineers (107 and 113)

New England Nuclear (110)

The U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: Section.61.56(a)(1), (a)(7)

Summary of Comments: Paragraph 61.56(a)(1).requires that.the waste packages

presented for disposal comply with NRC and DOT transportation regulations'.'

This implies that the disposed package could be a Type A, or Type B Package

including all related shielding and other transportation-related requirements.

Two commenters (95,113) stated it is unlikely that this is NRC's intent but

the'wordin'g of the paragraph can be interpreted in this manner. They suggest

NRC should clarify and reword this requirement.

Two commenters (19 and 119) commented that Section 61.56 is not explicit with

respect to disposal of packaging materials. In particular.it is not-clear..

whether wastes should be packaged for disposal (thus prohibiting the-use'of

returnable shielded packages) or whether they only need to be packaged:for

transport and handling prior~to disposal.

Stock Equipment Company (67),suggested-that all waste containers be constructed

of materials that will not support combustion.

Union Oil (66), GE (89), and the ASME (107) suggested that disposal of bulk

or unpackaged wastes be permitted.

New England Nuclear (110) suggested that the activity.limits on containers

implied in § 61.56(a)(1) and specified in (a)(7) are overly restrictive. -

Analysis of Comments: The issue of waste packaging requirements as stated in

Section 61.56(a)(1) is confusing to the.waste generator, carrier, and receivers.

'NRC staff'has, therefore,' deleted this section because there is no.need to

restate-in 10 CFR 61 that the wast'e packages shipped forgdis'posal must-,comply

with NRC and DOT transportation regulations.' The Commission did not intend

that returnable or reusable shielding~must be disposed of.

Stock Equipment C6mpany (67).referenced a recent NRC guidance document, "Radio-

*logical Safety/Guidance for OnSite Contigency Storage Capacity" which requires

that low level dry waste storage be'in.'containers that do not.support combustion.

The Company suggests'.that the' requirement be'applied all wa'stes that are

transported and disposed of. The'hazard offires during handling and transportation is included in the determination'of the LSA, Type A, and Type B

quantity limits.' Since waste .packages.will meet the NRC and DOT transportation

requirements, NRC staff believes it is unnecessary to'further restrict packaging

materials.

B-117
Under the rule disposal of bulk or unpackaged waste is allowed provided that

the requirements for waste classification and waste characteristics are met.

The staff agrees that disposal of bulk wastes may be the most efficient use of

space or easiest way to minimize void spaces under certain circumstances and

that certain types of wastes may be shipped in bulk under DOT regulations.

The requirement for packaged wastes has been deleted.

New England Nuclear expressed the view that the container activity limits in

§ 61.56(a)(1) and (7) are excessively conservative. Paragraph (a)(1) imposes

DOT activity limits on containers by implication. Paragraph 61.56(a)(7) has

explicit activity limits on gaseous shipments. NEN raised the point that wastes

processed on site after transit and before disposal should be allowed to exceed

DOT limits. The staff agrees with this position. The staff intended that

Table 1 set limits on allowable disposal concentrations, not quantity restrictions for transportation. The gaseous limits'are addressed under issue D-56-5.

Rule Change: Delete § 61.56(a)(1).

ISSUE 0-56-7

Issue: 'Hazardous, biological, pathogenic and infectious waste treatment

Commenters: University of Texas Medical Branch (75)

University of Texas System Cancer Center (105)

Rule Citation: 61.56(a)(8); 61.56(b)

Summary of Comments: The Medical Branch objected to treatment of all biological

specimens under 61.56(a)(8) and noted that'if liquid scintillation fluids are

not allowed, Agreement State licensees in particular, will have a problem.

The Cancer Center suggested that liquid scintillation fluids be specifically

referenced and clearly exempted from stability requirements in 61.56(b)

Analysis of Comments: The NRC staff agree that treatment (e.g., incineration

of liquid scintillation wastes as recommended in NUREG-0656) of wastes is the

most desirable option in many instances. However, development and implementation

of the technology by all licensees will require time and may never be'cost

effective or even reasonable for small operations. Medical research, university

research, and small scale industrial research would be significantly affected.

The staff cannot justify this burden at this time but is encouraging the adoption

of alternative'volume reduction treatments. Absorbed liquid scintillation wastes

are acceptable under § 61.56 and are not routinely subject to the stability

requirements since activity levels fall in' Class A.

The requirement in § 61.56(a)(8) specifies that biological, pathogenic, or

infectious waste material be treated to reduce the non-radiologic hazards of

these wastes to.the extent practicable. The intent was not to require incineration'or similiar treatment of all biological materials. The requirement in,

(a)(8) is'intende'd as an objective. 'Specific license conditions or site specific

administrative' 'procedures would be expected to address *this 'issue in more'detail.

For example,'the'license issue'd by the State of Washington for the Richland

site requires' absorbents, lime, and double containment for animal'carcasses.

'Such packaging'would be a means of complying with'(a)(8). The rule also' permits

the'disposal of ab'sorbed liquid scintillation fluids as Clas's A wastes.' All

licensees, however, are encouraged to develop alternative methods of managing

B-118
these wastes. The Commission's volume reduction policy statement dated

October 16, 1981 also encourages all waste generators to reduce waste volumes

to the extent practicable.

Rule 'Changes: None..

ISSUE D-56-8

Issue: Waste stability requirements

Commenters: :University of California at Los Angeles - 8

Advisory'Committee on' Reactor Safeguards - 10

DOW Chemical - 17

Department of the Environment, London - 19

Sargent and Lundy - 24

Universityof North Carolina - 30

,."Alabama' Power - 33

Law Engineering Testing Co. - 34

Sierra Club - 37

Duke University - 48

Stock Equipment - 67

Argonne National Laboratory - 68

Oswald U. Anders - 73

Birmingham Audubon Society - 80

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group - 81

Middle South Services'- 84

Northeast Utilities - 85

American Nuclear Society - 87

Health Physics Society,- 96

Atomic Industrial Forum - 100

U.S. Ecology.- 101

American Institute of.Chemical Engineers - 102

Confe6ence'of Radiation'Control Program'"Directors

American Society of Mechanical Engineer's -.107'

New England Nuclear - 110

Tennessee Valley Authority - 116

U.S. Department of-Energy - 119

103

. I I '. Ruld'Citation: 61.56(b); 61.7(b)(2)

Analysis of Comments: The concept of waste stability is intended to-provide

long term assurance that the disposal'units will maintain their integrity

without'substantial and expensive' rem'edialm'aintenance efforts. A stable.

disposal'unit will also minimize the infiltration' of. water which could enhance

migration of radionuclides.

Several commenters indicated that the meaning of stability was unclear 'and:

requested further specific.guidance. IOne commenter indicated that structural

rather than chemical stability was'intended.

In order to clarify the term "'stability" a definition has been added in Sectionf61.2." The'NRC staff is'also preparing a Branch Technical Position (BTP)

on waste form which'will'prov'ide acceptable test methods and criteria to be

used'to qualify.stabile waste forms.

B-119
One commenter asked if trash would require stabilization. Trash, which

generally has low specific activities, would normally be a Class A waste.

However, some trash wastes may have activities which-exceed the Class A limits.

These wastes would be required to be stabilized or packaged in a container

providing stability if the potential for degradation exists.

One commenter stated that if the disposal facility was sited properly waste

stability would not be required. The AICE expressed the view that site

maintenance for 100 years would take care'of subsidence'and waste stability

was not justified. Anders objected to depending on steel drum waste packages

for stability and believed that waste form and efficient backfilling were the

key factors.

Siting requirements for a'disposal facility are'extremely important in assuring that radionuclide migration pathways are minimized. However, even at a

well selected site, waste degradation can cause subsidence which could result

in expensive remedial action programs. Such expensive maintenance could

rapidly deplete perpetual care funds established for remedial care, monitoring

and site surveillance. Therefore, trench stability is an important factor to

be considered in addition to site suitability.

Two commenters supported the concept of waste stability.

The 150 year stability time period was chosen based on the sum of the site

operating period, post closure observation period and'the institutional control period. It was intended that wastes remain recognizable and stable over

this period.

One commenter suggested that the 150 year stability requirement was overly

restrictive since void spaces between waste'packages'would be filled. This

commenter stated that voids were the cause of subsidence and suggested that

the elimination of voids would eliminate subsidence. The commenter also

stated additional processing would be required to meet this requirement

resulting in increased waste volumes. Two other commenters stated that waste

dispersion must be prevented and that this was only slightly affected by

slumping or deformation.

Two commenters including TVA stated that the stability requirement should only

be for 100 years. TVA based the comment on' 100 years of institutional control

and the decay during that time. One commenters asked what the basis of the

150 year stability requirement since some nuclides would not decay during that

period. Another commenter stated that Class A wastes should also have a'

stability requirement since ces'ium (Cs-137) and strontium (Sr-90) would also

be present in these wastes.'

One commenter stated that steel drums can not be expected to last beyond 30 to

60'years., The commenter stated that there was no basis for assuming that'

steel will not corrode in 150 years. Another commenter stated that high

integrity containers have not been tested for 150 years.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 150 year stability requirement with respect'to

the scenarios used to calculate the waste classification values. The scenario

used to calculate the Class A interface assumes that after the 100 year institutional control period (approximately 150 years since the facility began

B-120
operation), the wastes are unrecognizable. The intruder, therefore, fails to

recognize that he is performing construction, agricultural, or residential

activities on a waste disposal site.

For Class B wastes, it is assumed that after institutional control is lost, an

inadvertent intru'der'begins'construction activities. However'- due to the'

stability requirement, the waste is recognizable. The intruder realizes that

he has begun construction in an area where previous disposal activities have

taken place and he abandons'his effort. The Class B concentrations' are based

on'the intruder receiving 500 mrem in th' course of discovering the 'disposal

site.

The Class C intruder scenario assumes that the intruder barrier is effective

for 500 years. At 500 years all waste is unrecognizable and the intruder

performs the same activities as in the"Class A'waste scenarios. 'The difference

here, of course, is that the waste has undergone 400'additional years'of decay.

Looking at the above scenarios, the stable waste forms should bLe'distinctly

recognizable at 150 years for those wastes emplaced when the facility opens.

It will not be necessary for the carbon steel drums to-remain.- For solidified

wastes, though, the monolith should still remain intact. At 300 years the

wastes should continue to'maintain-its gross physical properties and also retain

a measure of its identity. High integrity containers are designed with a

lifetime goal of 300 years. This-lifetime also assures that a 10 half-life

decay period will be applied for CS-137 and Sr-90 (30 year half-life nuclides)

which are removed primarily in ion-exchange resin's. Ion-exchange resins are

a primary waste stream disposed of in high integrity containers.

Following the 300 year lifetime, waste degradation is expected to gradually

occur. Based on the ancient cement structures, it is expected that cement

products can exceed this lifetime. High density, high' molecular weight

polyethylene (used in the current high integrity containers) and polymer

solification agents are also expected to eiceed this lifetime, based on their

chemical resistance, radiation stability'and biodegradation properties.

The NRC staff has modified the waste stability'period from 150 to 300 years to

be consistent with the Class B and C waste'classification-scenarios.

' 1 s 'b' ,re!in,;e -e.lo.--t - th

The presence of Cs-137 and Sr-90ha' been'onsidered in the development of the

Class A limits for the waste classification system. 'The-fact that Cs-137 and

Sr-90 do not decay as fast as the shorter'half-live' nuclides, such as Co-60,

is the reason why the Class A limits for'-these two nuclides are lower.

The assertion that eliminating voids will provide stability is not complete

since chemical, radiologic, and biodegradation will also lead to trench,

subsidence. 'It is'ex'pected that if currently usIed solidification agents,,

cement, vinyl ester styrene', and'asphalt, are used with a'gdod process control

program that'the''necessary stability will be achieved. Therefore, volume

increases are not expected over current waste generation.'

The'scenarios used in the waste classification system'show'that waste stability

for Class B and C wastes is the most important factor.' A stable'waste implies

a non-dispersive waste. Therefore, the comments that dispersion is more

important than slumping and deformation'is only partially correct. Stability

B-121
will minimize the site maintenance requirements during the institutional

control period and the resultant burdens on the perpuetal care funds set up

for remedial activities.

Three commenters stated that there was a need to specify tests and criteria to

demonstrate the stability requirement.

The NRC staff is preparing a Branch Technical Position on Waste Form which

will provide acceptable tests and criteria to demonstrate waste stability.

One commenter asked if wastes would be allowed to degrade if a solidification

binder which did not degrade was used.

Wastes within a binder may'degrade so long as'the gross physical properties of

the monolith are not impaired.

Rule Changes:

1. Delete 150 years from 61.56(b).

2. Add a 300 year objective for Class Band C wastes to the "Concepts" section.

ISSUE D-56-9

Issue: Five percent deformation limit

Commenters: Alabama Power - 33

Union Carbide,- 39

Bechtel National -,44

Utility Nuclear Waste Management.Group - 81

Werner and Pfleiderer - 82, 124

General 'Electric -,,89

Power Authority of the State of New York - 92

Stone and'Webster - 95

Atomic Industrial Forum - 100

U.S. Ecology '- 101

Carolina Power and Light - 106

American Society of,Mechanical Engineers - 107, 113

State of North Carolina - 109

New England Nuclear - 110

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: 61.56(b)(1)

Analysis of Comments: The requirement that a stable waste form maintain its

physical dimensions within fivepercent was intended to ensure that degradation

of waste containers and waste forms would not lead to severe trench subsidence.

The five percent value was selected as a conservative deformation level which

would be expected to produce only minor subsidence effects. These minor

subsidence effects could be easily resolved by an inexpensive post closure

maintenance program at~the burial site.

Commenters indicated that the five percent deformation was overly restrictive

and impossible to achieve due to the impracticality of filling containers to

B-122
95 percent capacity. In order to prevent 'spills, container filling operations

are routinely terminated prior to reaching 95 percent capacity.

Commenters also noted that asphalt and polymetric solidification agents would

be incapable of meeting this requirement because of their viscoelastic creep

properties. Under static burial'site load conditions, asphalt and'polymetric

material.will flow'or creep over-time periods on the order of years until

internal pressures are equalized.' Werner and Pfleiderer suggested alternate

wording on stability and thermoplastics.

Commenters indicated that the five percent limit would force waste generators

into using high integrity containers. Use of high integrity containers would

be required because normal containers could not be filled to 95 percent capacity

and plastic solidification materials'would be-unacceptable due to creep.

One commenter indicated that the five percent tolerance limit should be restudied

with careful consideration given to the added expenses that would be entailed.

One commenter asked for a clarification on what was actually meant by the'term

"within 5 percent."

Union Carbide suggested that the 5% apply to volume rather than dimension'-

"since a 5% deflection in the diameter of a drum is inconsequential.".

The NRC staff believes that trench subsidence needs to be carefully controlled

in order to minimize water infiltration and major remedial'care operations.

In order to achieve this objective in a pragmatic way, the NRC staff-has

chosenlto delete the prescriptive requirement for a five percent dimensional

limit.<' The requirement that wastes remain structurally stable, however,

remains in place. In order to provide guidance'to waste generators on acceptable

waste forms the NRC staff is preparing a Branch Technical Position (BTP) which

defines acceptable test methods and criteria oriented to ensuring structural

stability.

In addition to the BTP, 10 CFR 61 Section 61.52(a)(4) and 61.52(a)(5) requires

that wastes be emplaced to maintain package integrity and that void spaces be

filled to reduce subsidence. The filling of void spaces will minimize the

creep effects in asphalt or polymeric solidified products since lateral stability

will be provided by the fill material. If there are no voids, there will be

no space for viscoelastic wastes to flow into.

The commenters concerns regarding the void spaces inherent in waste containers,

are addressed under that specific issue'.

Rule Change: Delete 5% limit from § 61.56(b)(1).

ISSUE D-56-10

Issue: Void spaces in waste containers

Commenters: Sargent and Lundy - 24 - Bechtel National - 44

American Nuclear'Society - 87

General'Electric--'89'

B-123
Health Physics Society - 96

American Society of Mechanical Engineers - 107

Rule Citation: 61.56(b)(3)

Analysis of Comments: The proposed regulation specifies that void spaces

within containers must be reduced to the extent practicable. The intent of

this requirement is to minimize subsidence effects following the degradation

of the container or waste product. In some cases waste containers are filled

to 50 to 75 percent of the container volume. Our objective is to fill containers

to 85 to 95 percent of container volume when it is practicable to do so.

Components such as pumps or;valves.will have large internal void spaces which

can not easily be eliminated. These components, however, would not be expected

to undergo substantial degradation over short-periods of time and will not

present severe trench subsidence problems.

Several commenters requested specific criteria on how this requirement would

be met and if filler materials were needed. Two commenters suggested deleting

the requirement since economics would drive waste generators to package the

maximum volume of waste into a container.

Because wastes can be of a very variable nature it is not possible or even

desirable to include specificcriteria for minimizing voids in a regulation.

Where it is possible NRC suggests filling voids with other waste materials.

The NRC staff will work with waste generators to suggest acceptable means for

eliminating voids., The NRC staff agrees that economics should force waste

generators to maximize the amounts of wastes packaged in a container, but also

believes that the requirement should remain as an incentive for those waste

generators who have yet to establish effective volume reduction programs to

minimize volumes of waste shipped for disposal.

Rule Changes: None

ISSUE D-56-11

Issue: Compressive load requirement

Commenters: Alabama Power - 33

Union Carbide - 39

Stock Equipment - 67.

General Electric - 89

Power Authority ofthe State of New York - 92

Atomic Industrial Forum - 100

U.S. Ecology - 101

Carolina Power and Light - 106

American Society of Mechanical Engineers - 107

North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission - 109

U.S. Department of Energy - 119

Rule Citation: 61.56(b)(1)

Analysis of

assure that

the load of

Comments: The 50 psi compressive load requirement is intended to

wastes requiring stability will not be crushed when subjected to

waste packages or overburden placed above them. The 50 psi value

B-124
is based on conservatively assuming maximum burial depths at the Hanford, WA

site (up to 45 feet) and waste or overburden density of 150 lb/ft3. Testing

performed on acceptable solidified waste specimens indicate that the 50 psi

compressive strength should be easily obtained.

Three'commenters indicated that the 50 psi-requirement was very rigorous and

suggested deleting the requirement. Two of these commenters suggested editorial

changes to incorporate their concerns.

Six commenters including Union Carbide and DOE suggested that the'50 psi load

requirement be deleted and replaced by a general requirement to reflect actual

disposal site conditions and operations.

One commenter''suggested restudying this requirement on a cost/benefit basis to

determine if it was necessary.

One commenter stated that some waste forms and containers would be unable to

meet the 50'psi criterion. Union Carbide stated that'few, if any, existing

waste containers can meet the stability requirements in the rule.

The NRC staff has deleted the prescriptivE

minimum compressive strength of 50 psi for

specification, however-will remain in thE

form'for solidified products as'suggested

the 50 psi compressive strength should be

and vinyl ester styrene solidified product

! requirement in 10 CFR 61 for a

-,Class B.and C wastes. This 50 psi

Branch Techfiical'Position on waste

guidance. NRC staff'believes that

easily obtained for' cement, asphalt,

Section 61.56(b)(1) is now consistentwith'the recommended'revision proposed

by the two commenters cited earlier.-

Rule Changes: Delete prescriptive 50'psi limit'from §;61156(b)(1).

ISSUE' D-56-12

Issue:

Commenl

High Integrity Container (HIC)

Lers: Dow Chemical (17) r .

Union Carbide (39) , Arkansas'Power and Light Company (52)'

Stock Equipment 'Company (67)

..-Argonne National'lLaboratory (68)

Werner and Pfleiderer Corporation (82)

Northeast Utilities '(85)

State of California (93)

Health Physics Society (96)

Rule Citation: § 61.56(b), (1) Disjiosal container'

;Summary 'of 'Comments:

on HIC.

Several commentersasked for more'clear design 'criteria

One laboratory (68) commented that'NRC's definition'in' the EIS is only a

, subjective term. The commenter also asked if NRC will provide a quantitative

Idefinition of "HIC" or'will this be left to State' 'authorities or 'the' private

sector. ' .. IB-125
One Commenter (82) requested the Commission to reexamine the design criteria

for HIC for highly dispersible forms.

The State of California (93) suggested that HIC's should be used for both high

and low concentration wastes to prevent the release of radionuclides into

ground water.

One comment from a Utility (85) stated the need to clarify whether the HIC

alone will meet the stability requirements.for Class C wastes (i.e., 500 year

stability requirement).

One industrial firm (67) stated that the HIC is subject to differing guidance

as to whether it should provide 150 or 300 year service and what the transportation application might require or whether the'life requirement can be credibly

proven.

Dow Chemical (i7) stated.that Section 61.56 fails to reflect the concepts of

ALARA and best.available technology (including whether the HIC has been te'sted

to show that they can be expected to provide stability in the disposal

environment for-at least 150 years).

The Health Physics Society noted that the implied requirement for this new'

type of container could' impact larger entities such as power plants and radiopharmaceutical companies.

In Section 61.56(b)(1), it states that "structural stability can be provided

by... placing the.,waste. in a disposal container or structure that provides

stability after disposal." Arkansas Power and. Light Company correctly

interpreted this to mean that the use of High Integrity Containers would be

an acceptable method of providing structural-stabi.lity. Union Carbide expressed

the view that few if any, existing containers can meet the requirement and the

option to rely on long term care should be retained.

Analysis of Comments: NRC staff is preparing a Branch Technical Position (BTP)

on waste form. This BTP provides HIC design criteria and is the basis for how

the staff would evaluate the acceptability of HIC designs.

The HIC design goal is to.provide integrity over the 300 year lifetime. It

will withstand various'conditions'such as corrosion, compaction load, thermal

load, radiation, biodegradation, etc..for 300 years. If a proposed HIC

container meets all the requirements of HIC design goals,. it would provide

an acceptable method for demonstrating st'ruct`ural, stability. The 300 year

design goal is now consistent with 10 CFR 61 scenarios. See Issue D-56-8.

Argonne National Laboratory's concern about the definition of a HIC is clarified by this design criteria in the BTP.

The State of California suggested thatHIC should be used for all low waste.

Basically, a HIC is designed for Class'B and C wastes which require stability.

Less hazardous Class A wastes are not required to be disposed of in HIC, but

could be to help provide greater-overall site stability.

The NRC staff beiieves that the use of HIC' s is consistent with the concept of

ALARA and the use of the best available technology. Occupational exposures in

B-126
using HIC's are expected to be similar to or less than waste solidification

either with mobile or installed systems. Fo1' those utilities without the

capability to effectively solidify resins, the use of the HIC could be

economically advantageous since experigive equipment retrofits would be

necessary to provide resin solidification capability.

While there has been no specific tes'ting'of HIC's for a 150 year period, there

is s'ubstantial test data for HIC materials regarding chemical resistance,'

biodegradability', radiation resistance',. and mechanical properties. The NRC

staff belives that these data'canwbe conservatively extrapolated to the 300 year

design goal to provide assurance that the HIC will properly function over the

long-term. Likewise, the NRC believes that test data can also be extrapolated

to assure that solidified products-can remain structurally stable over the

long-term.

The use of HIC's is also consistent with the requirements for transportation

provided in 10 CFR 71 and 49 CRF 171-179. 'HTC's currently approved for use by

the State of South Carolina for shipments to the Barnwell. site are fabricated

'from high-density, high-molecular weight polyethylene. Other containers fabricated of high-density, high-molecular weight polyethylene are commonly in use

for transporting hazardous chemicals. These polyethylene containers'meet the

applicable transportation requirements for transporting hazardous chemicals.

Likewise, the' use of polyethylene containers is not in violation of transportation regulations for radioactive materials..

The NRC staff and the State-of South Carolina are evaluating the use of HIC's

for highly despersive waste forms such as incinerator ash. This evaluation is

addressing the impacts of HIC handling accidents on worker safety. Solidification of'highly despersive wastes will be required where occupational exposures

from such accidents are unacceptable.

The'stability requirements for Class B and C wastes are identical. 'Therefore,

it is unnecessary for HIC's to be designed to remain completely' intact for

500 years. The 300'year design goal is discussed in more detail under

Issue D-56-8.

Rule Change: None

ISSUE D-56-13

Issue: Free standing liquids

Commenters: Dow Chemical Company - 17

Sargent and Lundy - 24

Stock Equipment - 67

State of South Carolina - 79

American Nuclear Society - 87

American Society of Mechanical Egineers - 107

New England Nuclear - 110

Rule Citation: 61.56(b)(2)

The proposed rule stated that liquid wastesor wastes containing liquids must

be converted into a formnwhich contains'as little free standing non-corrosive

liquid as is reasonably achievable, butin no case more than 1 percent of the

waste volume. .-

B-127
Stock equipment commented that all classes of wastes should exclude free liquids.

The State'of"Souith Carolina recommended'implementing the free liquid requirements

in their license conditions that is,'OA5 percent non-corrosive liquids in regular

waste containers-and 1 percent in high integrity containers.

Section 61.56 has been modified to incorporate as a minimum requirement that

solidified wastes must have less than 0.5 percent of the waste volume as free

liquids. This allowable free liquid volume is to account for potential condensation of water vapor sealed in the containers. The NRC staff believes.

that this requirement can be easily met using the solidifcation agents

currently in use.

For dewatered products, such as resins, it is very difficult to assure that

such products would meet a 0.5 percent free liquid requirement following

transport to a burial site. Therefore, for dewatered products 1 percent free

liquids will be allowed to account for settling during the transport period.

A requirement to dewater to less than 1 percent free liquids would only increase

worker exposures without providing commensurate'assurance that the more

restrictive free liquid requirement is being met.

Sargent and Lundy, ANS, and ASME suggested deleting the requirement for noncorrosive free liquids or explaining whether the intent was to minimize either

non-corrosive or radioactive liquids. New England Nuclear suggested defining

non-corrosive liquids using the same terms as used in the DEIS.

The intent of the non-corrosive liquid requirement was to minimize both corrosive and radioactive liquids. Past experience has shown that corrosive liquids

can result in container failure. These container failures result in higher

worker exposures from repackaging wastes and cleaning spills. The waste form

Branch Technical Position defines non-corrosive liquids as liquids having a pH

between 4 and 11. Liquids'outside of this pH range are corrosive to carbon

steel, the most common material used in waste containers.

Sargent and Lundy, ANS, and ASME asked if there was an intent to limit "clean"

liquids in the wastes.

The free liquid requirement applies to all liquids, corrosive and non-corrosive,

radioactive and non-radioactive. This requirement follows from our intent to

minimize the quantity of liquids which are in or percolate through the burial

trench.

Rule Changes:

1. Modify § 61.56(b)(2) to apply the 1% criterion to wastes in a disposal

container designed to assure stability and 0.5% for waste processed to a

stable form.

ISSUE D-56-14

Issue: Consistency with other NRC regulations and guides

commenters: Stock Equipment - 67

American Society of Mechanical Engineers - 113

B-128
Rule Citation: § 61.56

Both Stock'Equipment and.ASME.commented on the apparent inconsistencies between

the proposed 10 CFR 61'and the Effluent Treatment Systems Branch (ETSB) Technical Position 11-3.

The November 1975 version of ETSB.1173 specified that-all wet wastes from

Nuclear Power Plants should be solidified. At this time the concept.of using a

high integrity container for dewatered products had.not been-developed. ETSB

11-3 was revised in July 1981. This document still requires solidification of

evaporator and reverse osmosis (RO).concentrates, but allows the option of

either dewatering or solidifying resins-and filter-sludges. In addition, ETSB

11-3 states that specific burial site.requirements may dictate the type of

container.to be-used for these dewatered products.

The revisions to ETSB 11-3 are consistent with the proposed 10 CFR 61 in that:

(1) evaporator.bottoms and RO concentrates would require solidification in

,order to meet the-free liquid 'requirements and (2) resins and sludges can be

'either-solidified or dewatered dependent on the type of container used.

Stock Equipment also questioned the consistency with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and

10 CFR 61. Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 addresses the design objectives and conditions for implementing the ALARA criterion for power plant-effluents.. Again,

the NRC staff believes that Appendix I and 10 CFR 61 are consistent. The

waste form requirements of 10 CFR 61 can be met by the use of processing

equipment which will maintain effluent releases ALARA. As an example, the

high integrity container concept is expected, to meet or exceed the Appendix I

ALARA objectives at the power plant. In addition, the use of the high integrity container is expected to meet or exceed similar objectives for the disposal site.

Stock also stated that 10 CFR 61 should also be consistent with NUREG-0782

(The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in support of 10 CFR 61), the

waste form Branch Technical Position (BTP), 10 CFR 20.311, NRC Guidance for

storage facilities, and leach testing standards.

First, the NRC staff beieves that' the proposed 10 CFR 61-is consistent-with

'the DEIS. Second,- the'waste frrniBTP is being revised to provide acceptable

methods and criteria'for meetin'g the..waste form requirements in 10 CFR.61.

'Third, the NRC staff believes thatjthe storage guidance isaconsistent with

10 CFR 61 but also recognizes that'p'os'sibly more restrictive packaging measures

may be needed to assure the long-term integrity of containers in a storage

environment over those.measures.needed for disposal. Last, leach tests

standards'and criteria will be incorpo'rated into the waste form BTP.,

Rule Change: None

ISSUE D-56-15

Issue: Radiolytic decomposition of waste~form

Commenter: Los Alamos National Laboratory/ .

Safeguard Group'(43) .'' .

B-129
Rule Citation: 61.2

The commenter indicated that the Class C intruder waste class would include

some high specific'activity wastes generated in the Three Mile Island Unit 2

(TMI-2) cleanup. The commenter had reservations that such wastes should be

allowed for near-surface disposal.

The waste classification system is based on the pathway studies discussed in

the DEIS which supports 10-CFR 61 (NUREG-0782). The allowable nuclide concentrations are based'on those pathway studies.

'Some of the high specific activity wastes generated in the TMI-2 cleanup are

unacceptable for near surface disposal because their activities exceed the

Class C limits or because of radiolytic decomposition of the waste materials.

The Department of Energy has agreed to accept these problem wastes for research

and development and disposal purposes.

Based on the NRC staff experience with TMI-2 wastes, wastes which undergo

substantial radiolytic decomposition should be prohibited from disposal at

near-surface facilities. A Branch Technical position on waste form is being

developed which includes provisions to test waste forms to ensure that

stability will be maintained in a radiation environment.

Rule Change:' None

ISSUE D-56-16

Issue: Establishment of technical criteria and standards

Commenters: Dow Chemical - 17, 83

Stock Equipment - 67

Health Physics Society - 96

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers - 113

Rule Citation: 61.56

Summary of Comments: Two commenters stated the need for technical standards

and criteria for waste'form and requested that these standards and criteria be

prepared'imnimdiately.' The ASME suggested'that more comprehensive standards be

added to Part 61 to address'factor such as'leachability. One of the commenters

also requested that enforcement'programs must also be established to ensure

compliance.

The Health Physics Society suggested that it would be useful to have a separate

rulemakin6 action on the waste stability requirements.

Analysis of Comments: The NRC staff agrees that there is a need for additional

technical standards, criteria and guidance on waste form. In order to meet

this need, the NRC staff is preparing a Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Waste

Form which would provide acceptable test methods and criteria to demonstrate

waste stability.

The NRC staff, however, is not contemplating a-separate rulemaking action in

this area and cannot justify additional standards fo Part 61. Since there are

B-130
many different waste forms which require disposal, the NRC staff believes that

a BTP is the best approach to providing guidance while still allowing flexibility

to deal with unique or differing waste forms.

Rule Change: None

ISSUE D-56-17

Issue: Enforceability of and compliance with restrictions on waste

form

commenters: _ACRS (10)

, State of California (93)

'Health Physics Society'(96)

Rule Citation: § 61.56

Summary-of Comments: The ACRS expressed general concern'about the:enforceability

and implications of all'the'requirements in § 61.56. The State of:California

expressed concern''about'the lack of -a requirement to confirm compliance with

the"waste'form provisions. The HP'Society comments'reflected uncertainty about

generator and disposal facility operator roles and responsibilities for waste

form and packaging.

Analysis of Comments: The minimum requirements for waste'characteristics''

outlined, in 61.56(a) are a mixture' of prescriptive requirements and more general

objectives'. The requirement'banning cardboard packaging' for example is a

straightforward requirement that requires no interpretation and can'readily-be

confirmed."'Other requIirements such'as;reducing the hazard of biological'-material

to the extent practicable is more of an objective or statement of policy:-,

The,primary reliance for assuring waste'characteristics is the generator's'

quality control program required by'proposed § 20.311. The program'is

inspectable at the waste generator's facility and includes a certification that

wastes meet the requirements for acceptance at the disposal facility. "Disposal

facility operators will also conductpackage inspections to monitor shippers.

Rule Changes: None

ISSUE D-56-18

Issue: Proposed container design

Commenter: Robert Reynek - 2

Rule Citation: NA

Mr.' Reynek proposed a design for a'awaste container 'and h as suggested testing

-it. While thiscomment does not directly apply to the' proposed 10 CFR 61'

regulation, the proposed design could 'have-merit -if further developed. The

NRC, however, has no legislative responsibility for development of the nuclear

industry. The Atomic Energy Act has'given this function to the Department of

Energy.

B-131
ISSUE 0-56-19

Issue: Polymetric Solidification Agents

Commenter: Oswald U. Anders - 73

Rule Citation: 61.56

Summary of Comment: Anders recommended requiring solidification of all wastes

in plastic polymers and banning urea formaldehyde and absorbents.

Analysis of Comments: Anders points out that virtually all waste can be

immobilized in plastic matrices. Aqueous waste'can be directly incorporated.

Granular solids can also be directly incorporated. He recommends that all

wastes be so solidified to reduce leaching and deter intruders.

Adaption of Dr. Anders' recommendation would have the most impact on Class A

waste shippers. The stability requirements of 61.56(b) would accomplish his

goals for Class B and C wastes. Thousands of small'users generate Class A

wastes and typically will'not have treatment or solidification facilities.

Our pathway evaluations indicate that the use of polymetric binders are

unnecessary for Class A wastes. Likewise, absorbents are also adequate for

Class A wastes. For Class B and C wastes the NRC staff believes that cement

as well as asphalt and other polymetric materials are capable of meeting the

stability requirements in 10 CFR'61. 'Therefore,'-in order to allow waste

generators the flexibility to select'the o6ptimum solidification system for their

needs, the NRC staff has not specified the use of individual solidification

agents.

Urea formaldehyde is currently no longer used as a solidification agent and

is no longer acceptable for disposal at the three commercial disposal sites.

Rule Change: None

ISSUE 0-56-20

Issue: Solidification of Ion-Exchange Media and Wet Solids

Commenters: Catherine Quigg - 13

Dow Chemical - 17

Stock Equipment - 67

Argonne National Laboratory - 120

Rule Citation: 61.56(b)(1)

Summary of Comments: Dow Chemical stated that the disposal of ion exchange

media by dewatering is not within the concepts of ALARA and the use of,'the best

available technology. This comment would apply to Class A ion exchange media

and Class B and C media which are disposed of using high integrity containers.

Stock Equipment also supported this concern.

Catherine Quigg suggested that resins should be solidified.

B-132
In addition, Mrs. Quigg suggested that ion-exchange resins should not be allowed

to be disposed of as low-level wastes since resins can contain high specific

activities and contain nuclides like Cs-137 which have half-lives of 30 years.

Mr's.-.Quigg also suggested incinerating or vitrifying ion exchange media. Note

that Argonne National Laboratory (120) clarified aquote Mrs. Quigg attributed

to the commenter.

Analysis of Comments: The pathway evaluations include in the source term resins

which have been disposed of in a dewatered form. These evalutions consider

the dispersive nature and degradation of ion exchange resins. The results

indicate that the disposal of ion exchange resins in a solidified or dewatered

form is acceptable within the requirements of the waste classification system.

Of course, highly loaded organic resins which are subject to substantial radiolytic degradation would be unacceptable for disposal. The resin degradation

problem is being addressed in the NRC staff's Branch Technical Position on Waste

Form.

The NRC staff believes that for Class B and C wastes, which require stability,

that the high integrity container is an acceptable option for providing stability.

Since the high integrity container filling operations at the waste generator's

site would generally be less complex than solidification, it would be expected

that overall occupational exposures (including maintenance of equipment) would

be less than or the same as those solidification operations. This statement

would generally apply to solidification using either mobile or installed

solidification systems. Therefore, NRC staff believes that the ALARA concept

is fulfilled by the use of high integrity containers. Additional discussions

on high integrity containers are provided in Issue D-56-12.

The waste classification system in 10 CFR 61 determines the allowable concentrations for Cs-137 and for other long-lived nuclides important for disposal.

These levels have been determined based on the pathway scenarios discussed in

the DEIS which supports 10 CFR 61, NUREG-0782. These pathways include as a

source term ion exchange resins.

The incineration of organic resins and the vitrification of inorganic zeolites

are options which could be used to process ion exchange media. The incinerations of organic resins is being studied by the DOE and the commercial firms

which market incinerators. The DOE is also studying the vitrification of

zeolite ion exchange media both as a method for processing DOE generated

zeolites and for the zeolite wastes generated in the submerged demineralizer

system at Three Mile Island.

Rule Change: None

ISSUE D-56-21

Issue: Characteristics of volume reduced wastes

Commenter: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (10)

Rule Citation: General

Summary of Comment: ACRS pointed out that in the proposed rule, attention

s ould be directed to techniques both for reducing the volumes of wastes

B-133
generated and for assuring that the waste that are produced are in, or can be

converted to, a form amenable to safe disposal. -

Analysis of Comment: NRC is developing a comprehensive data base regarding

the acceptability for disposal of waste products from volume reduction techniques. Several research and technical assistance projects are being performed to determine the mechanical properties, leach resistance, radiation

stability, and biodegradability of products from current radwaste systems and

from advanced volume reduction techniques for low-level waste.

B-134
ISSUE D-57-1

Issue: Labeling

Commenters: Los Alamos National Laboratory (43)

Arizona State Clearinghouse (47)

American Nuclear Society (87)

; Arkansas Power and Light Company (94)

Health Physics Society (96)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: §61.57

Summary of Comments: The commenters suggested using color coding, different

wording to indicate class of wastes, consistency with DOT labeling, minimum

standards, and clarification of responsibilities. One commentor questioned

whether standard labels will be required. One commenter supported the need

and one 'made a general suggestion that more detail be included.

Analysis of Comments: Los Alamos National Laboratory suggested using color

coded labels in § 61.57. The staff considered using color coding for indicating

Class A, Class B, or Class C wastes to provide easier identification by operating

personnel. The drawbacks are the existing color code labeling requirements

under DOT regulations and NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and the large number

of potential generators and service and supply companies potentailly affected.

The staff did not-want to compromise DOT color codes and the dependence on them

in transit. Site operators may develop site specific administrative requirements on package design, weight, labeling, etc. to facilitate handling and

emplacement eventhough the rule doesn't have a specific requirement. Thus color

codes may be used but are not required. The Los Alamos suggestion was not

adopted.

The Arizona comment addressed the need for and potential confusion from the

use of "segregated," "stable" and "intruder" in § 61.57 and suggested use of

the general term "waste" instead. The suggestion was adopted.

Arkansas Power and Light Company made a general comment that "Differences

between DOT and NRC regulations regarding to labeling need to be resolved

prior to implementation to avoid confusion." No specific problems were

identified by the commenter. The DOT and NRC labeling requirements are related

to different activities: handling and disposal. The DOT rules treat all

radioactive materials the same and do not distinguish between materials to be

used and waste. Differences in labeling for the subset waste minimize the

size of the affected population and minimize the number of affected radioactive

shipments. The distinctive labeling is needed for ease of proper emplacement

at the sites and staff believed it should be retained and apply only to shipments

to disposal sites. No change to the requirements in the rule was adopted.

The DOE also recommended compatibility with DOT requirements.

B-135
The Health Physics Society questioned whether NRC plans to require standard

labels, warning signs, or other markings to supplement or replace current DOT

labels. The commenter agreed that clear classification marking would help site

operators. As noted earlier, no standard labels are intended and the labeling

is supplementary to DOT. The DOT labels would still be the prime indicator

for handling in transit or storage. The classification labeling would not come

into play until emplacement. The classification labeling is not necessarily

related to occupational hazard. For example large shipments of beta emitting

istopes could be Class C but not a significant external exposure hazard.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers suggested that § 61.57 "labeling

requirements should be expanded, clarified, and made more specific." The class

labeling is to provide additional assurances. The Class of each package must

also be shown in the manifest accompanying the shipment. Flexibility to use

printed labels or stencils, choice of colors, etc. to label the package with

the words "Class A waste" etc. seems the minimum burden and commensurate with

the role played only in emplacement for disposal.

The Department of Energy suggested clarifying responsibility for sorting and

labeling wastes and correctly noted that the shipper is responsible. The roles

of the generator, collector, processor, and facility operator are complex and

are addressed individually in § 20.311 of 10 CFR Part 20 and the discussion of

issues related to this section. A cross reference to labeling requirements in

§ 61.57 was added to § 20.311.

Rule Changes:

1. Amend § 61.57 to read:

Each package of waste must be clearly labeled to identify waste class in

accordance with § 61.55 and bear the words Class A waste, Class B waste,

or Class C waste.

2. Amend § 20.311(d)(2), (f)(4) to read: Label each package of waste to

identify whether it is Class A, B, or C in accordance with §§ 61.55 and

61.57 of Part 61 of this chapter.

B-136
ISSUE D-59-1

Issue: State responsibility after.license transfer

Commenters: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Ohio EPA (38)

Ontario Hydro (51)

Rule Citation: Supplementary Information;'also related to §.61.30, 61.31,

61.62 and 61.63.

Summary of Comments: Pennsylvania recommended the option be available to States

to turn ownership and responsibility for long-term custo'dy'over to the Federal

government. The Ohio EPA identified the lack of a' clear statement of State

responsibility after license transfer.' Ontario Hydro questioned state liability

for health problems arising from the site after the active institutional control.

Analysis of Comments: The Pennsylv'ania recommendation'that States have the

option to turn over responsibility for long-term custody of'low-level waste

sites to the Federal government'if they meet satisfactory criteria reflects

the approach in-place for mill 'tailings sites. After stabilization, mill tailings

sites are turned from.the private sector to the State, if the State wishes, or

to the Federal government if the'States'declines. This process for mill tailings

is provided for the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.- No

such authority exists for low-level wastes'so no change'to'the rule was made

to provide this option.

The Ohio EPA and Ontario Hydro concern is directed at the land owner State

responsibility beginning with transfer of the license under'§ 61.30. Under

the licensing scheme in the proposed rule,'the'State would be responsible .for

the site and disposed waste. Institutional care would be carried out under

license for-some prescribed.period, up to 100 years. If a commercial or private

.sector developer and operational.;licenseewas involved, the developer/operator's

responsibilities would normally end at-,transfer.. Thus, the state becomes the

* responsible party upon receipt of.thetransferred license. Although it "is

'impossible to have absolute.guarantees against problems arising after site

'closure, the requirements of Part 61.are.aimed at minimizing the' potential for

problems to the maximum extent practicable. It behooves the state,.as land

,owner, to maintain awareness of-the.operations and conditions at the facility,

either through some independent-oversight as landlord, or by participating with

NRC in the review of the initial'application as .provided in Subpart F"of Part 61.

'If'the State was developer, operator., and.land owner, the State would'be responsible for the site and wastes'at all.times.- The issue of liabilities is further

addressed under issue E-1 on financial assurances.

Rule 'Change: None ,' ' ' ; ' '

I- B-137
Issue:

Commenters:

ISSUE 0-59-2

100-year limit on the institutional control period;

activities during the control period

permitted

Marvin Lewis (3)'

Environmental Law Project (9)

Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Commonwealth Edison (35)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)

Duke Power Company (48)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

Oswald U. Anders (73)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Northeast Utilities (85)

American Nuclear Society (87)

Amy Hubbard (90)

Atomic, Industrial Forum (100)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107), (113)

New England Nuclear Corporation (110)

U.S. Department of Energy (119),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

Rule Citation: § 61.7 Concepts and § 61.59 Institutional Requirements

Summary of Comments: The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors,

Inc. concurred with and supported defining a period of'time for institutional

control and relating the classification'and'disposal''of waste to this time frame.

The Environmental Protection'Agency supported use of a 100-year time frame for

institutional controls. Marvin Lewis inquired as to the minimum time that

institutional control could be a surety. The Environmental Law Project philosophically questioned the continued production of wastes that will remain hazardous

longer than the assumed.period of government control.

The Birmingham Audubon Society commented similarly, stating that if the 100-year

limit was retained, waste remaining dangerous for longer periods should be

disposed of elsewhere, where' controls can be maintained for as long as the waste

remains' dangerous. Amy Hubbard offered a similar: comment stating that radioactive wastes remain dangerous for centuries and their. safe disposal is'dependent upon a stable social and financial structure for at least 500 years which

cannot be predicted, much less ensured. Commonwealth Edison expressed the view

that 100 years. was too long and difficult for a licensee to meet. Bechtel

National'commented that if a government institution would be available to_

maintain land ownership and records'as discussed in the statement of consideration, then that same institution could maintain a fence for more than 100,years.

This would reduce concern about the potential exposure to intruders. The same

comment was made by the American Nuclea-r'Society.

The Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group recommended that § 61.59 make it

clear that during the period of institutional control the land could be used

for other purposes not inconsistent with public health and safety and which

would not disturb the integrity of the site. The Atomic Industrial Forum,

American Society of Mechanical Engineers and Duke Power commented similarity

noting that limited use of the land may be desirable in the future and the

B-138
government land owner should have flexibility to .institute suitable control

options and site access depending on the'particular conditions existing at the

site."-Oswald Anders also.commented on that issue noting-that a proper-use of

inactive disposal site could be a golf course. The New England Nuclear . Corporation-also suggested changing the words "keep people off the site" to

"control access to the site" to allow maintenance, surveillance and other

appropriate-activities. Pennsylvania recommended more specificity on:.'

allowable site uses. -

Northeast Utilities commented that the institutional control period shall be

extended for as long as the governing body exists. Doing so would extend the

surveillance period and protect against site intrusion until the governing body

determines the'site could be reopened to the public. The Atomic Industrial.'

Forum commented that consensus of-opinion indicate that the institutional control period may reasonably range'from 100 to 300 years and 300 years-should be

selecte'd in the equations NRC used to determine prescriptive requirements.

New'England Nuclear also offered the same comment. The U.S. Department of

Energy stated that the duration of institutional control significantly. affects

thecost of.wa'ste disposal. Raising the period from 100 to -300 years-would

increase the Class A limit for several'.radionuclides. They-suggested th'at the

*NRC reexamine the basis for limiting institutional controls to.100 years noted

that such controls have existed in this country more than 100 years.

'Analysis of Comments: Four main points-are raised-in the comments and each

of the points is discussed further below:

-1. Everyone expressed support in one way or another for'defining a time frame

for institutional control related either to.the hazard duration of-the

waste, 'cost-or assurance of continued government stability.

-2. The disposallof waste remaining potentially hazardous after the end ,of

the assumed institutional control period should be disposed of by other

methods providing greater controls.

3.' Although one commenter strongly supported the 100-year.time frame, about

:-half suggested raising-the limit; most suggested from 100 to 300:years.

4. Part 61 should allow the government landowner flexibility in controlling ..site access.during'the institutional control period-to ensure all activities are properly carried out and to-allow for productive uses of.the'land

which would not affect site integrity.:- .

1and 2: The'approach NRC-has.followed.-in'defining requirements for safe disposal of.LLW is to establish controls for.each of the principal components of

a-"disposal system"' -the waste form and package, siteicharacteristics, facility

design and engineering,.and institutional-controls. . The comments supported

continued use of institutional controls and defining'a finite time'frame for

assumed reliance on such controls. Complete 'reliance is not placed on any one

component part (e.g., waste form) but-eachractsywithfthe others to collectively

ensure safe disposal over.thelong term..-Thus, Part 61 does not assume total

and complete reliance on institutional -controls-to.prevent disturbance of the

waste. '-Rather Part 61 assumes reliance on.-active institutional controls for a

limited time frame (100 years) afterwhich-theywaste~form, site characteristics,

facility design and operation and "passive" institutional controls, such as

records and continued government land ownership collectively continue to provide

B-139
the necessaryicontrols. The~classification system proposed. in Part 61 requires

that wastes whichiwill still present a significant potential. hazard~if disturbed

at the end of this: 100 year institutional-control-period must be placed into a

stable form or container such that theyiwill be recognizable-as waste and less

dispersable. Part-61 also requires that wastes:which continue to present

significant potential hazard at the end of 100-years must be disposed of with

further additional controls (e.g., deeper burial) which will further limit the

potential of their being disturbed. Thus, Part 61 does provide greater controls

for disposal of waste which would continue to present a potential hazard after

the end of the assumed 100-year institutional control period.

3: A remaining and basic question is how long reliance should be assumed for

active institutional controls. Based on-work performed by EPA; public. comments

on a preliminary draft of Part 61 and an, advance notice of proposed rulemaking;

and 4 regional workshops, a consensus of public opinion was developed-which

supported use of a time period of 100 years. Based on the analyses in the EIS,

NRC found no overly compelling reason to select one particular institutional

control period over another and the limit of 100 years for assumed reliance

was based primarily on public opinion. Use of a longer institutional control

period would allow higher concentrations of some radionuclides to be.disposed

of as Class A waste. Using a longer period would, however, increase the costs

for long term surveillance and monitoring of the site. In addition, the assumed

length of institutional controls and the dose limit used to control exposures

to an inadvertent- intruder are directly-related. Thus, increasing the length

of the institutional control period has to be examined in the context of comments that the dose limit established for protection of the inadvertent intruder

should also be raised. (See comments on § 61.42.) Based on consideration and

balancing of these two aspects NRC has decided not to increase the assumed

period of 100 years upon-which reliance can be placed on institutional controls.

Rather, NRC has reevaluated the calculations that establish the waste classification concentration'limits to eliminate unnecessarily conservative assumptions

with the result that the analysis is- more realistic and the limits for several

important nuclides have been raised. With this action,- the NRC believes that

most of the concerns of those who encouraged higher exposure limits, less

emphasis on protection of intruders and use of a longer institutional control

period will have been met. (See comments on § 61.42 under Issue C-4 for further

details and discussion.)

4: As stated in the EIS, NRC intended and would allow flexibility in control

of site access including productive uses of the land provided it did not result

in disturbance of the waste or affect long term site performance.

Rule Change: Based on the staff's analysis of comments, the institutional

requirements in § 61;59 have not been changed.- Section 61.7(b)(4), "Concepts,"

however, has been-modified to allow flexibility in controlling site access

including productive uses of the land during the active institutional control

period. It reads as follows:

(4) Institutional control-of access to the site is required for

up to 100 years.' This permits -the disposal-of Class A and Class B -

waste without special provisions for intrusion protection, since

these classes of waste contain types and quantities of radioisotopes

that will decay during the 100-year period and will present an

B-140
acceptable hazard to an intruder. 'The'government landowner administering the active institutional control program has flexibility

in controlling site access which may include allowing productive

uses of the land provided'the integrity and long-term performance

of the site are not affected.

.ISSUE D-59-3

Issue: Land ownership-miscellanebus

Commenter: Ontario Hydro (51)'''

Union Oil Company of California (66)'

Georgia Institute of-Technology (70)

Louise Gorenflo (71)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: V D of the Supplementary Information, § 61.59

Summary of Comments: Two commenters expressed support of the assurances

provided by government ownership and two questioned the need. One questioned

NRC authority to regulate federal ownership. One was concerned about the

applicant's rights and others questioned whether tribal ownership is permitted.

Analysis of Comments: Ontario Hydro acknowledged that government ownership of

land for disposal sites is "certainly an easy way of guaranteeing proper safe

use of the land." The commenter also questioned whether NRC could regulate a

site if the Federal government owns the land based on the commenter's understanding that one department of the Federal government could not regulate another. The NRC does have the authority to regulate most Federal agencies and routinely issues licenses to VA hospitals, the Departments of the Army,

Navy, and Air Force, the EPA, etc. The NRC does not have the authority to

regulate Department of Energy (DOE) low-level waste activities. If the DOE

will be the custodial agency and provide institutional control, no NRC license

would be involved for the institutional control period. Institutional control

by other agencies would be licensable. A private sector developer/operator

of a site located on land administered by DOE would be licensable. The U.S.

Ecology site at Hanford, Washington illustrates. The land is leased by the

Federal government to the State and subleased to the operator. The operator

is licensed by the State (Washington is an Agreement State) and the NRC.

Gorenflo suggested that quasi-public corporations develop all new sites and

assume long term care responsibilities instead of burdening resource limited

states. As discussed under Issue E-1, Part 61 provides financial assurances

and upfront financial planning to alleviate the resource burden of institutional

control. The staff views State or Federal ownership to be a necessary safeguard.

The State could fulfill its responsibilities in many ways including a State

authority or quasi-public corporation, but the responsibility should be with

the more certain established government.

The Birmingham Audubon Society indicated strong support for State or Federal

ownership. The staff agrees that this practice should be continued.

- B-141
The Union Oil Company of California suggested adding provisions to § 61.59 that

ownership revert-tothe applicant if the site is not used for disposal. The

Company cited several examples of occurrences that might prompt a change in

plans such as adverse public opinion or economics. The Company also felt that

the applicant should have the right of first refusal when a site used for disposal is determined safe for other uses. These issues were not addressed in

the rule primarily because of the variety of circumstances and roles that may

exist in the development of new sites. New sites may be proposed on land

already owned by the State or Federal government. These issues may be part of

the terms negotiated with the governments. The land value may be one incentive

for accepting the institutional committment andresponsibility. The rule as

proposed does not preclude the return to the applicant. The staff did not adopt

the suggestion in order to keep the proposed level of flexibility.

Rule Change: None

B-142
ISSUE E-1

r E Fa.c A

Issue: Subpart E -Financial Assurances _-,

Commenters: Marvin Lewis (3)

Environmental Law Project (9)

The SuretyAssociation ofAmerica (20)

Joseph H. White (21)

Commonwealth Edison,(35)-.

..Ohio EPA. (38)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)

Ontario Hydro (51),

National Association of Insurance Brokers, Inc. (54)

Union Oil Company (66)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Northeast Utilities.(85).

State of California.(93)

Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation (97)

State of New York (99)

U.S. Ecology (101)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

Kerr-McGee, Inc. (115)

Tennessee Valley Authority (116)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122) . ,

General Research Corporation (123)

Rule Citation: Subpart E - Financial Assurances

Summary of Comments: Approximately two dozen commentersresp'onded.to the

proposed financial assurance requirements for.closure and post-closure care.

In general, the commenters expressed support for the rule's establishment of

financial assurances for closure and for long term care of a LLW disposal site.

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. Several commenters

felt that the financial requirements should provide more.detail.

One of the major points raised by a variety of commenters including the State

of New York 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 bailout" of.poorly-run disposal sites. They felt the industry.should

bear these costs, and that the regulations .should be written to make'this'

explicit. Another commenter noted that the'experience,'of the State of 'Kentucky

with Maxey' Flats emphasized theimportance.of making contingency funds available

in the event that serious problems occur; They felt this issue should be

addressed in the rulemaking..One State further-noted that the rule failed to

mention who would be financiallyrespohsiblejif problems occur at the site that

cost more than were budgeted on an assumption of normal operation. These

B-143
questions covered a variety of different scenarios (i.e., Acts of God, licensee

negligance etc.).

With regard to contingencies, oneIcommenter also asked who would assume responsibility for a site and its accompanying waste when it was closed prematurely

by NRC, due to rule violation'.

Several commenters felt that the rule could resolve the issue of contingencies

by requiring insurance coverage, or specific language that licensees would be

required to indemnify well users in case of migration.

A variety of comments were received concerning the short term financial assurances required for closure and decommissioning. Several commenters supported

the rule's use of a variety of different options for'closure, noting that

flexibility was crucial if the proposed rule was to function in a reasonable

manner.

Other commenters expressed support for the rule's provision requiring that the

amount of surety liability change with changes in'cost estimates. One commenter

also was concerned that the financial, surety arrangements increase in value

over time to compensate for the effects of inflation.

Commenters expressed support for the variety of alternatives allowed to demonstrate short term financial responsibility. However, several commenters mentioned that no commercial market exists to provide surety bonds of the type

required in the rule.

Commenters were also divided about whether' the Commission should allow selfinsurance as a financial assurance for closure. Several commenters felt that

self-insurance would not satisfy the surety requirements, and they recommended

that licensees should be required to place specific funds in escrow to cover

costs of decontamination, closure and stabilization. Another commenter

suggested that self-insurance be based on an annual submittal of financial

reports, i.e., a financial test.

Commenters also expressed support for the need to have a long-term care fund

established at the time a license is issued. Some commenters wanted the'rule

to explicitly require&'the licensee to set'aside funds for long term care..

(However, the Commission currently lacks the authority to require a licensee

to establish a fund to provide for long term care of the site after the-license

is terminated.-)'Y With'regard to this'lack of authority,

one person suggested that the Commission ask Congress for authority to require

financial assurances for licensees for the active institutional control period.

Two commenters addressed the "Superfund" law. White questioned'the intent of

the statement in the preamble to the rule that some of the requirements'in the

superfund legislation may be duplicative. EPA addressed'this issue, identified

releases from Part 61 facilities not in compliance with the license as

reportable to EPA and indic'ated'that EPA and NRC should work together to

minimize duplicative reporting requirements.

Analysis of Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the financial

requirements in the rule. The Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation

stated that such strong assurances are necessary to "discharge our responsibility

B-144
to future generations, and to assure that the public will.not bear costs which

should be borne by the users of the facility. The State of California also

supported the need for financial requirements, noting that."such strong assurances

are necessary to.discharge-our responsibility to future generations, and to

assure that the public will. not bear costs which should be borne by the users

of the facility."

Chem-Nuclear, Inc. expressed support for the rule's requirement that an applicant assure funding for site closure and post-closure. They felt this should

minimize the potential for operator default or abandonment.

Kerr-McGee disputed the Commission's authority to require financial assurances

for closure and for long term care. They asserted that the only authority,

possessed by NRC to require financial assurances stems from the Uranium Mill

Jailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. The Commission staff believes the

better legal view to be that Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act,- gives the

Commission the authority to promulgate whatever regulations may be necessary

and desirable to promote the common defense.and security-or to protect health

or to minimize danger to life or property. If short term financial assurances

or other forms of financial sureties are necessary and desirable to achieve

the goal .of.' safe closure of a radioactive waste burial.site,,then such requirements are authorized by the Atomic energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Other commenters also expressed concernthat the regulations should be more

detailed. The State of California noted that'the,.financial arrangements did

not appear totbe sufficiently comprehensive, and an individual, felt that this

section of the rule lacked sufficient detail. U.S. Ecology recommended that

definitive criteria be set for financial assurances in order to ascertain

* whether or not underwriters will accept the risk and default provisions set

forth in the regulations.. The Commission staff has prepared a draft Technical

Position.on the.Funding Arrangements for Closure andfor-Long Term Care of- a

LLWDisposal'Site that provides more definitive criteria for evaluating all

* financial.assurances, including surety bonds. The draft-has been circulated

for review, and the Surety trade association will be asked.to, provide comments.

Commonwealth Edison and other commenters.also wanted more detail in the rules,

-noting that-it contained no details with respect to the amount of financial

assurance that each disposal site licensee is required to obtain., The'staff

considered this regulatory approach to be Ill-advised fortwo.reasons. -First,

'the -amount of.funds necessary for.' closure and forlong-term-care is site

* specific, and will vary depending on ,the particular site conditions at the time

of closure. Therefore, a specificdollar amount in the -rule would not be

*applicable..to all site conditions. Second, a .rule with specific dollar.amounts

would become outdated with.changes in inflation., Instead, specific cost esti-

..mates for closure will be determined in the' licensee's Closure and Stabilization Plan. . .. . -

One of the major points raised by a variety of commenters was that the.proposed

regulation-failed to address.financial'r'esponsibility for.unanticipated contingencies.at a LLW disposal.site. .The Environmental Law Institute expressed

concern that the regulations setthe stage for a."tax-payer funded bailout" of

.poorly-run',disposal sites.. They felt the industry 'should bear these costs,

.and that'the regulations should bewritten'to make.sure this is done. Another

commenter noted that the experience ofthe State of Kentucky with Maxey.Flats

B-145
emphasized the' importance of making contingency funds available in the event

that serious problems occur. They felt this issue should: be addressed in the

rulemaking. 'The State'of'California further noted that the'rule failed to

mention who would be financially responsible if'problems occur at the site

that cost more than were budgeted on an assumption'of' normal operation. The

State of California was also concerned that State taxpayers rather than waste

generators would eventually pay the excessive costs of site maintenance and

repair.

These questions cover such a variety of different scenarios (i.e., Acts of God,

licensee negligance, etc.) that it is not 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-closure

period, when th'eoriginal license 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' toone 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 ar'e a matter to be worked out between the site, owner (i-.e., the

State or Federal Government) and the licensee in'their lease or other legally

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 ge'nerators- for the institutional' control period. The

rights and responsibilities of the state and the licensee would be determined

at such a time.

With regard to contingencies, the Ohio EPA and Ontario Hydro asked who would

assume responsibility for a site and its accompanying waste when it was closed

prematurely by NRC,'due to rule violation, or when the licensee defaults.

Responsibility for asite closed'pre6maturelay by the NRC would depend'on the

situation. Site 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. However, in the event that it would become

necessary to close'the site for health and safety reasons, the proposed rule

provides that'the licensee continues to be responsible until the license i's

terminated. In the event that the licensee's financial condition deteriorated

so that he was unable to maintain the site to protectthe health and safety,

then the Commission would probably require the site owner (either the st'ate or

federal government) to'assume responsibility at the site. However, regardless

of who assumed responsibility of a prematurely closed site, the rules require

that a licensee have available at'all times during the site life, sufficient

financial gurantees to ensure''that sufficient funds are available for site'

closure and decommissioning.' These funds would be available to properly maintain the site if the original licensee were unable to do so.

Several commenters felt that the rule could resolve the issue of contingencies

by requiring insurance coverage, or specific language that licensees would be

required to indemnify well users in case of migration. The staff agrees that

there i's a n'eed for licensees to provide financial responsibility for liability

coverage for'off-site bodily injury and property damage and thinks the"public

health and safety and the environment would'be protected'from unanticipated

contingencies by s'uch coverage, as well as assisting the'State in establishing

B-146
- . . - - f - .

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 facilities in order to-protect theIpublic 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 this coverage would be in excess-of the risk at a low-level waste facility.

Therefore,-a third party liability requirement is not established in this

regulation' The Commission should strongly encourage licensees to continue to

carry, third party liability insurance coverage through the conventional

'insurance market.

The State of New York was also concerned that the post-closure-maintenance,

leachate collection and treatment, cover repair and other likely costs will be

underefstimated by applicants and accepted by both site owners and the USNRC

due to the pressing need for waste disposal site availability. The staff

thinks the license review process will provide a basis for all concerned

parties to'review the licensee's estimates of costs'for closure and postclosure care. All parties would have the opportunity to express their view on

the'adequacy of the licensee's estimates of costs required for closure and

post-closure care.

The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors also recommended that

the Commission consider guidelines on methods for determining financial needs

for long-term care. General Research Corporation also felt that the contents

of the'agreements were unclear and that the criteria to be used in evaluating

these agreements were not indicated. The Staff has prepared a draft Branch

Technical Position on Funding Alternatives for Closure, Postclosure, and 'Long

Term Care that provides guidance on various alternatives States might wish to

consider in'developing'financial arrangements for long term care. Additionally,

'the draft Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0782) accompanying the proposed

rulemaking discusses possible financial arrangements for long-term care.-

Several commenters expressed-opinions on the types of short term financial

assurances allowed by the rule. In general, the National Association of'

Insurance'Brokers felt that flexibility was crucial if the propos'ed rule was

to function in a'reasonable'manner.' The proposed rule does allow several'

types'of-short term financial'assurances; additionally licensees may proposed

other financial assurancesTfor' closure to the Commission for review.

Other commenters expressed-support for the-rule's provision that the amount of

surety liability should change with changes in cost estimates. The State of

California was concerned that 'the financial surety-arrangements increase in

value over time to compensate for-the effects of inflation. The Don't Waste

Washington Legal Defense Foundation noted that Subpart E should be amended to

state more clearly that the-Commission will review the'applicant/licensee's

financial assurances periodically, 'and that the burden of proving adequate

financial qualification is on the applicant/licensee. As proposed, the rule

would allow the Commission to periodicaly assess the amount of funds collected

for both closure and post-closure care of the site. If necessary, the staff

could require the financial assurances'to be increased to account for inflation

and unforeseen problems and costs. 'The State of California also was concerned

B-147
that the short term financial arrangments were not instruments that increase

in value over time to compensate for the effects of inflation. As proposed,

the rules would, allow the Commission to-periodically assess the amount of funds

collected for both closure and post-closure care of the site. If necessary,

the staff could require the financial assurance to be increased to account for

inflation and unforeseen problems and costs.

Northeast Utilities suggested that the "pay as you go" funding arrangements

for closure should be permitted, instead of surety bonding for an entire site.

However, the staff considers that this method of funding does not provide an

adequate degree of coverage in the event of premature site closure.

Several commenters mentioned that no commercial market exists to provide surety

bonds of the type required in the rule. In developing the rule, the Commission

staff is aware that surety bonds of the type proposed in the rule may currently

be unavailable. However, the staff included this alternative in the rule in

the event that this type of coverage becomes available in the insurance market

at a later time.

One commenter noted that insurance could be a viable short term financial

assurance against premature site closure. Although not specifically mentioned,

the proposed regulations do not exclude the use of insurance for providing

financial assurances for closure. If this type of coverage becomes available

at a later date, the staff will consider this type of funding assurance if a

licensee proposes its use.

Commenters also were divided about whether the Commission should allow selfinsurance as a financial assurance for closure. The State of California and

The Don't Waste Washington Legal Foundation felt that self-insurance would not

satisfy the surety requirements, and the Birmingham Audubon Society also

recommended that licensees should be required to place specific funds in escrow

to cover costs of decontamination, closure and stabilization. However, Union

Oil felt that self-insurance based on an annual submittal of financial reports,

i.e., a financial test should be permitted.

Kerr-McGee also felt that prohibiting self-insurance was arbitrary and unsupported. The staff 'rejected the use of stand alone "self-insurance" based-on

the staff's lack of confidence in this method to provide adequate assurances.

Further, State officials have informally expresed 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 staff will evaluate the use of financial

tests proposed by licensees on a case by case basis.

Commenters also expressed support for the need to have a long-term care fund

established at the time a license is issued. Commenters suggested that

licensees should be required to place in escrow funds necessary to cover costs

of institutional safeguards for the duration of those safeguards. One suggested that monies should be collected from a tax or fee structure imposed on

the licensee that was similar to the cubic meter surcharge imposed on waste

disposed of at the site.

The State of California also suggested that a sinking fund would be a preferable vehicle for funding for the institutional control period. The Tennessee

B- 148
I

Valley Authority felt that it would be preferable to have the licensee turnover

the site and any required money at the time the license is transferred to the

Government. The Commission currently lacks the authority to require a'licensee

to establish a fund to provide for long term care of the site after the license

is terminated. Instead, the Commission can only require a licensee to provide

evidence of entering into a lease or other binding arrangement with the siteowner indicating'that the two parties have'established financial responsibility

for long term care between themselves. The proposed regulations do not therefore require a licensee to establish or tie up funds for the long term care

period, so the'licensee is not required to turn over any required money at the

time of the license transfer.

With regard to this lack-of authority, the State of California.suggested that

the'Commission ask Congress for authority to require financial assurances for

licensees for the active institutional control period. The Commission has

raised this issue before Congress several times; for example,. see the testimony of Joseph Hendrie before the House Committee on Science and Technology,

November 7, 1979; and Statement of Jdhn-Ahearne, before the House Subcommittee

on Energy and Power, July 25, 1980. Additionally, NRC staff provided comments

on November 6, 1981 to Congressman Udall's Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs supporting the provision in H.R. 3809 that provided the Commission'

with this type of enabling authority.

The General Research Corporation outlined several areas where more prescriptive

requirements and clarification should be considered. "While many of the observations and comments have merit, they represent a level of detail the staff prefers to relegate to Branch Technical Positions and eventually regulatory guides.

With respect to the superfund issue, the EPA comment is self-explanatory and

states:

NRC solicited comments on possible-duplicative requirements for effluent

releases and broker activities under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). This "Superfund"

law exempts from notification "any. release of source, special nuclear,'or

byproduct material... .in compIiance with a legally enforceable license,

permit, regulation, or order-issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of

1954" (CERCLA Section 101(10)(K)). . Radioactive releases from nuclear

waste disposal facilities which are not in compliance with an NRC license,

permit, regulation, or order fall within the reporting requirements of

CERLA. Furthermore, as part of the notification regulations under CERCLA,

EPA is planning to develop a'notification scheme for releases of radioactive

materials not licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Uranium

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. 'EPA wishes to minimizeduplicative reporting requirements for releases 'reported to other agencies.

EPA intends to work with NRC to minimize duplicative reporting requirements

to the extent possible.

NRC staff agree that duplication should be minimized and will work with EPA to

eliminate potential overlapping regulatory requirements.

B-149
- -

Rule Changes:

1. Amend,§ 61.62(e) to read:

(e) The term of the surety mechanism must be open ended unless it can be

demonstrated that another arrangement would provide an equivalent

'level of assurance. This assurance could be provided with a surety

mechanism which is-written for a specified period of time (e.g., five

years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the party who

issues the-surety notifies the Commission, the beneficiary (site

owner) and the principal (the licensee) not less than 90 days prior

to the renewal date of its intention not to renew. In such a situation the licensee must submit a replacement surety within 30 day after

notification of cancellation. If the licensee fails to provide a

replacement surety acceptable to the Commission, the Commission will

collect on the original surety.

ISSUE E-2

Issue: Optional financial report

Commenters: State of New Mexico (4)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: § 61.80(g)

Comment: Delete words "if any".

Analysis of Comment: The commenters suggested that licensees should be required

to furnish an annual financial report. Deleting the "if any" flexibility would

require the licensee to generate a new report even if such reports were normally

generated every'two years or were delayed, for example. The optional filing

was provided to minimize the burden on the licensee.. Section 61.62(c) requires

the Commission to review the adequacy of surety mechanism for closure funding

annually. Information on financial status will be important to this review

and the Commission agrees with the commenters concerns. Section 61.80(g) was

modified to require a annual certified financial statement and permit the annual

report to meet the requirement. All companies must evaluate finances at least

annually for tax purposes so the change should not be a burden.

Rule Change: Amend 61.80(g) to read: Each licensee authorized to dispose of

radioactive waste received from other persons shall file a copy of its financial

report or a certified financial statement annually with the Commission in order

to update the information base for determining financial qualifications.

B-150
ISSUE F-1

Issue: State and tribal participation

Commenters: State of New Mexico (4) & (45)

Chem-Nuclear System Inc.-(41)

American College of Nuclear Physician (53)-

Department of Planning-and Economic Development Hawai

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

,,Yakima Indian Nation (74)

Georgia Yuan (77)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

State of California (93)

Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation (97)

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

Department of Energy (119)

i (65)

Rule Citations: Subpart F - Participation by State Governments and Indian

Tribes (§§ 61.70 - 61.73)

Summary of Comments:

Five commenters recommended replacing "may" with "shall" in § 61.71 so that

the function is an obligation. Two commenters were concerned with relying on

Federal Reqister notices to inform States and tribes. Two commenters requested

clarifiication of Agreement States' role in § 61.70. Three commenters were

concerned with limiting participation to those truly involved or affected.

One commenter noted that the rule gives ample opportunity for expression of

State concerns and three commenters believed additional provisions should be

made. One commenter suggested reconsidering the notice of intent. Two felt a

better public participation program is needed. One suggested a requirement to

comply with state laws. One suggested additional uses of "shall." One suggested Burau of Indian Affairs involvement.

Analysis of comments:

The commenters are correct that making Commission staff available is an

optional function in § 61.71 as proposed. ,Staff. was concerned about possible

budget restraints, especially on travel funds, when making the function

optional. 'Changing to "shall" obligatesonly staff time not travel so the

suggested change was adopted. ;

The reference to notice in the Federal Register in § 61.72(a) was' used to

establish a date-to begin countingTthe,120 days. It was not meant to be the

requirement for notification. Notification of States and'tribes is covered by

proposed revised §,2.101(b). Direct notification is required.

Agreement State participation under.Subpart F is not specifically addressed.

Since Commission-licensing would:be in non-Agreement States, the most likely

affected States are non-Agreement. However, location near a State border or

B-151
other circumstances might lead to participation by more than one state. Thus,

no restrictions based on Agreement status was intended and the language in the

rule does not impose any restrictions.

The concern that participation be limited to those truely involved was considered

by the staff in developing the decision criteria in §61.73'and true involvement

will be considered in the review of proposals.

Georgia Institute of Technology comments focused on the apparent potential for

conflict between State, Federal, andrtribal laws and questioned which would

prevail or is a'case-by-case determination required! Overlaping authorities

and multiple permitting and licensing are an everyday fact of life. The potential exists for conflict but the constantly changing nature of the requirements

and the variety of requirements and authorities preclude any generic statement

on this issue. The commenter also questioned the meaning of "relevant tribal

law" in § 61.72. Such questions are resolved on a case-by-case basis. No

change to the rule was adopted.

Georgia Yuan addressed State and Tribal participation as part of the overall

political context and noted that the traditional licensing process that uses

formal hearings to resolve issues important to the public and local governments

is not a satisfactory solution to gaining public acceptance of sites. She outlined the following weaknesses in the procedures for State and Tribal participation proposed in Subpart F: lack of decision making power, lack of guarenteed

influence over decisions, lack of standards for approving participation, and

no guarenteed pre-application involvement. She suggested reconsidering the

requirement for a notice of intent 3-6 months prior to submitting an application and requiring documentation of early public input and participation.

Yuan addressed, in very general terms, the construction of a successful public

participation program. The following goals were suggested:

1. identification of public opposition or support and its causes;

2 identification of local or State preferences for locations within

the State or region for radioactive waste disposal;

3. identification of preferences for State or Federal ownership after

disposal operations have ceased; and

4. identification of the need to compensate the local population for

increased risks resulting from waste disposal.

She encouraged educational opportunities and local citizen involvement not just

States and Tribes. She identified NRC use of public opinion and input as a

key issue. Her bottom line was "The Commission must seek a more interactive

relationship'with a broad spectrum of the public before it can begin to define

the public interest and rely on it in its licensing decisions."

Yuan's dissatisfaction with the hearing process and public input into regulatory decisions is a generic one - not limited to LLW disposal. Waste disposal

is noted as an area of particular concern to the public. While the Commission

acknowledges the concerns and problems and that informed public input is'particularly important in LLW disposal, it does not believe that the Part 61

B-152
rulemaking in the proper forum for resolving this generic problem. The.EIS

scoping process will be used to address many of Yuan's concerns. State-compacting

and landlord activities afford additional potential avenues of expression 'since

States will face the same criticisms and must address public input-into their

decisions. The LLW Policy Act is particularly important in this reguard and

will establish the siting arena-where early input is so very-important.

The State of California expressed general concern about the "!tenor" of Subpart F. The State recommended that the Subpart be completely revised to reduce

the adversary tenor and facilitate: collegially between the-Federal government

and the States. The State also believed that the 120 day-time limit may be

too short for States.;-Staff-,disagrees based on State and'compact responsibilities under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy-Act of 1980. Replacing

"may" with "shall" in § 61.71 was specifically recommended and was adopted

as noted earlier. No specific suggestions for addressing the "tenor" were

offered. Fundihg of participation by local governments was suggested as one

step in providing a means for local governments to have a voice in whether

and how a disposal site is established in their locale. ,As~noted in Issue F-2,

the Commission cannot fund intervenors and cannot commit to funding in a rule.

Funding must be congressionally approved through the budget process. One State

agency stressed the importance of § 61.72 and State participation in the

decision process.

The Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation "believes that the states

have and will continue to assert strong leadership roles in management of*

radioactive waste." The foundation expressed the view that State concurrence

should be required for all licensing actions (i.e., issuance, amendment, renewal,

termination). Editorial changes to reflect state concurrence and-the compliance

with state laws that are consistent with the requirements'of the Commission

were suggested. Changing "may"- to "shall" and similarly stronger statements

were suggested for §§ 61.7(c)(1), 61.71,' and 61.73. The changes to require

'state concurrence and-Commission findings on compliance with state laws were

not adopted. -- -

The Commission agrees that state leadership is essential and that the LLW

Policy-Act is a key factor. The Commission expects to work'closely with the

States and does not believe that Part-61;should be amended to.reflect Policy

Act responsibilities or to put the agency in the position of enforcing State

'laws or determining compliance with State laws. The Policy Act should give

the States adequate voiceiwithout explicit concurrence provision in the rule.

The suggested uses of shall were adopted-or clarifying language adopted.

The U.S. Department of the Interior suggested coordination and participation

by-the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA):when sites are to-be located on'Indian

reservations. AreaBIA-directors andthe BIA Office of Trust Responsibilities

should be specifically involved. -The Department's.comments were'based on potential sites-being located onIndian reservation.' Such location is not provided

for -in the rule. -Only, State or Federal ownership is allowed.- The"Federal

ownership was not intended-to include Indian reservation where the trust'-

responsibilities would come into play. Tribal land 'ownership and custodial

responsibilities was an alternative considered but not adopted;. The Department's comment is a good one for assuring involvement of key people to deal

with concerns of affected tribes. Disposal sites m'ight be located 'or' lands

where residual tribal rights exist or whetre transportation access involves the

reservation. Being host to the site is n'ot a prerequisite for participation

B-153
under Subpart F. Reference-to BIA was added to thealist'of'peopleito notify

when an application is tendered in 2:101(b) to foster early BIA involvement.

Rule Changes:

1. §61.71 State and Tribal government consultation.

Upon request!of a State or tribal governing body,the Director shall

make available'Commission staff 'to discuss with representatives of

the State or tribal governing bodyinformation submitted by the

applicant, applicable Commission regulations,- licensing procedures,

potential schedules, and the type and scope of'State activities in the

license review permitted by law.

2. Change last sentence of 61.71 to read: In addition, staff shall be

made...

3. Change 61.73(a) to read: "...the Director shall arrange..."

4. Add to 2.101(b)(1)(i): "The Commission will also inform the U.S. Bureau

of Indian Affiars when tribes are notified."

ISSUE F-2

Issue: Local government government role and rights

Commenters: Township of Lower Alloways Creek, New Jersey (88)

State of California (93)

Rule Citations: §§ 2.101(b)(1)(i), 61.59, 61.50-73, 61.80

Summary of Comments: The township raised the following issues: advance notice

to local governments that an application will be filed, include nearby nuclear

activities in the site EIS, the need for additional assurances to local government on landlord performance, receipt of disposal records during operations,

involvement 'in closure amendments, compensation for property devaluation, and

annual public seminars: California raised the issue of funding local

participation.

Analysis of Comments: Early working drafts of proposed Part 61 includedia provision for applicants to file a notice of intent to file an' application 3'months

before filing. Local officials would have been notified of the applicant's

intent. The requirement'was not included in proposed Part 61 because it added

an administrative burden on the applicant, early state input would probably be

involved without it because of LLW Policy Act activities, and a tendering step

ior other means could'accomplish the objective of early notice. Section 2.101(b)

requires notification of local officials at the tendered step but the officials

will likely be involved much sooner. States and tribes may submit proposals

for participation under Subpart F of Part'61.' The State and tribal plans for

'local pirticifation is a required item in proposals. Local'governments should

be involved'in the State efforts'at'an early'stage in the Policy Act compact

activities and-the 'applicant should also work closely with local officials to

identify key"concerns and reflect those concerns'in the environmental report

and application.' The notice of intent concept was not adopted in the final

B-154
rule since staff believes ample opportunity exists for local officials to be

heard and, if not, case-by-case considerations are possible. Local officials

can also pass ordinances requiring notification separate from Part 61 if local

ordinances and zoning activities do not already provide an opportunity for

input.

The township's suggestion that the environmental impact statement (EIS) for a

specific site should include consideration of the impacts of other nuclear

activities in the area was noted by staff. However, PartJ.61 does-not address

the required content of an EIS so no rule change is involved.

The township expressed the view that local governments need additional assurances.that the State or federal government will fulfill obligations-as landlord

and long term care custodian for site security and environmental monitoring,

The commenter suggested that the State or Federal government enter into a contract with the local community for corrective measures in the event of contamination problems and post bonds. It is beyond the Commission's authority to

,require-such contracts and bonds so the suggestion was not adopted.

The township also suggested approval rights for local governments for long term

care funding arrangements. The Commission can certainly consider local views

in its review but cannot delegate its decision responsibilities. In some cases,

there may be no local community or government and each long term funding

arrangement may be unique. For these reasons, no provision for local government approval was added to § 61.63 which addresses financial assurances for

institutional or long term care.

On the issue of providing disposal records to local officials during operations,

the township expressed scepticism about making arrangements with the State and

believes records would reduce public concern. Under proposed 61.80(e), records

are to be transferred at license termination to local officials, among others.

Thus under the proposed rules, local officials might not receive disposal

records until after a hundred years of custodial care. The disposal facility

operator is required to keep and report data on disposed wastes all during

operation. Annual reports on disposal are required by § 61.80(h). All local

officials may not want the burden of receiving, filing, and storing shipping

records. Therefore, since the annual reports are on file with the NRC, local

officials who wish may request copies of the annual reports.

The township wanted assurances that local officials would be notified of applications for closure and that hearings would be offered. Section 61.25 specifically provides for 30 days notice of hearings for closure amendments. Proposed

§ 2.104(e) requires notice to local officials for Part 61 licenses but not

amendments. A requirement to notice State and local officials was added to

§ 61.25 in response to the commenter's concerns.

The township's suggestion that compensation for loss of property values or tax

bases be provided is beyond the Commission's authority and could not be adopted.

The Township's suggestion that disposal facility operators hold annual educational seminars is a good one for operators to foster good neighbor relationships. Staff has reservations about mandatory seminars since there may be no

local community or no interest by the local community and public relations

efforts are normally beyond Commission requirements. Chem-Nuclear System, Inc.

B-155
conducts orientation tours and works closely with local officials in Barnwell,

S.C. No State or Federal prodding was necessary to foster this relationship -

it is good business practice. e

The State of California points out that NRC retains sole authority to issue

the license for a Part 61 facility and references-state and tribal participation in § 61.70-61.73. The state expressed the view that local jurisdictions

should have a voice in the decisions and that the Commission should consider

funding such participation. The reference to local jurisdiction is not clear

and is probably to State and tribal jurisdictions when considered in context.

At any rate, the Commission lacks authority to fund intervenors in cases

whether local,,;State, or Tribal. The participation provisions in Subpart F

assisting the Commission in'its reviews may or may not involve funding. The

Commission cannot commit to funding in a rulemaking.

Rule Change: Add to § 61.25 "The'Commission shall provide a copy of the notice

of opportunity for hearings in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to State and

local officials or tribal governing body specified in § 2.104(e) of Part-2 of

this chapter."

B-156
ISSUE G-1

-Issue: Subpart G records, reports, tests, and inspections . .1 . I .. . I

Comirrenters:'' Exxon Nuclear Company,(15)

-Joseph H. White III (21)

.American Nuclear Society (87)

State of California (93)

"Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

Conference of Radiation- Control Program Direct'

Caroline Power and Light Company (106)

-American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

New England Nuclear (110)

U.S. DOE (119)

U.S. EPA (122)

ors, Inc; (103)

Rule Citations: , ., I§§ 61.80, 61.82 I I

Summary of Comments: One commenter suggested that any release-to unrestricted

areas be immediately reported to and investigated by NRC.: One suggested dupli-

-cate sets of records. -One emphasized use of existing -forms and documents.

One suggested a resident NRC inspector-sand two, state. participation: in inspections. One suggested specifying record recipient and one suggested a requirement to maintain records during institutional control and require the operator

to transfer records to the landlord at license -transfer'. Several.suggested

that'§ 61.82(a) be modified to clearly preclude inspection of wastes after

disposal. :

Analysis of Comments: -Mr. White addressed paragraph (h) of §-61.80 which

requires annual reports by each Part 61 licensee. He suggested that any

release,-to unrestricted areas be -immediately 'reported to-and .investigated by

NRC.,!The listed required contents include in :(2)(i),' "specification of the

quantity of each of the-principal-radionuclides released to unrestricted areas

-in-liquid and in airborne effluents during the preceding year."' The intent

-was-to-require licensees to'report releases-made pursuant to § 20.106 of.<

Part 20and any specific requirements in the license. The report would be of

-a summary nature and the reporting requirement would not relieve the licensee

from reporting-incidents as required'by!20.403, excessive levels as required

by-20.405, or exceeding action levels in operating procedures. 7

As a practical matter, only minimal ~effluent .releases:are expected from disposal facility operation. (Effluents -are releases from stacks, pipes, filter

exhausts etc.) The exhaust from the ventilation systemof-a storage building

is one example.. A second is slightly contaminated precipitation which collects

inoperational trenches and might be pumped out and released. Action levels

for these effluents will be established in-the licensee's operating procedures.

The action levels and releases are subject to ALARA evaluation also. It is

unrealistic to assume that these'releases will be zero. They may not be at

detectable-levels but-they will not be zero. The commenter's suggestion is

not realistic and would place an undue hardship on both the licensee and the

NRC and was not adopted. - i

B-157
The State of California expressed support of NRC opportunity for inspection as

provided for in proposed § 61.82. The State also requested an explicit provision "that host states enjoy a similar right." The host State will most

likely be landowner and long-term custodian to provide institutional control.

Both of these functions provide a means for assuring State inspection rights

separate from any explicit provision in the rule. -The lease can address the

issue. The agreement to assume responsibility for institutional control-can

also address the issue. An additional mechanism is licensing NARM (naturally

occurring and accelerator-produced materials) by the host States. The Commission lacks authority to license these materials and if the State has a licensing program for the materials, it can issue a license for disposal of these

materials. Its licensing program should include inspection rights. For the

improbable case of Federal landownership and operation, the issue can be

addressed on a case-by-case basis through memoranda of understanding between

the parties. Since options exist for the States, no change to the rule was

adopted.

The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors suggested a requirement

for maintenance of a duplicate set of vital records in § 61.80. The duplicate

set should be at an alternate location in case of fire or other loss of the

primary records. While the Commission shares the Conference's concern that

records are important to both the operator and the custodian, for evaluating

monitoring data; closure, remedial actions, etc,,it feels that a requirement

for duplicating all records and storing them elsewhere is not warrented. No

such requirement exists for other records in any of the Commission's regulations at this time.

Carolina Power and Light Company encouraged the use of existing forms and documents where possible to minimize the administrative burden. Such use is certainly

the Commission's intent in § 61.80 and in the proposed new manifest system in

§ 20.311. The commenter did not suggest any changes to the rule or mention

any specific requirements. Staff agrees with the thrust of the comment.

New England Nuclear recommended two additional safeguards concerning inspections. One was to assign a full-time NRC inspector to each site during the

operational phase. -A second was to encourage active monitoring and review of

site records by State authorities. Section 61.82 allows Commission inspection

but does not require it or require it at any frequency. The staff agrees that

inspection is an important safeguard. The Commission participated in'the fulltime inspector program the States of S.C., Washington, and Nevada instituted

in 1979 when lack of compliance with DOT shipping requirements was found to be

significant. In effect, the inspectors were an independent quality control

program on incoming shipments. Such independent quality control on incoming

shipments and on all aspects of site operation may not be necessary-at all times.

Flexibility to adjust priorities should be maintained. The requirement for

licensees to bear the expense of inspections under 10 CFR Part 170 is also a

factor. The need for thorough inspections and careful quality controls by the

licensee and confirmation by NRC are acknowledged but no committment on inspection policy was added to the rule.

The second New England Nuclear recommendation to encourage active monitoring

and review of site records by state authorities is a good one. It can be

accomplished through memoranda of understanding with States or technical',

assistance arrangements. If the State is landowner, access to and monitoring

B-158
records will probably be a part of that responsibility. Such monitoring and

review can be one condition of the certification to assume institutional control. No change to the rule is necessary to implement this suggestion. The

Departmentof Energy (DOE) suggested specifying to whom the records will be

transferred in § 61.80(b). The suggestion was adopted.

The U.S. EPA suggested that in view the importance on the nature of the hazard

of disposed waste that a requirement be added to the rule to require transfer

of such records at license transfer to the site owner. The rule has two

requirements that address this point: (1) § 61.30(a)(3) on license transfer

requires transfer of "necessary records for care: and (2) § 61.80 requires

maintenance maintenance of all records unless disposition is authorized and

transfer of records on disposed waste to a variety of officials after institutional control as part of license termination. These provisions collectively

provide the "positive" requirement suggested by EPA and no further change -is

needed.

The staff agrees with the commenters who were concerned that the wording in

§ 61.82(a) implied that wastes would be inspected after disposal and the rule

was-modified to clarify that such is not the intent.

Rule Changes:

1. - Add to 61.80(b) after transferred: "to the officials specified in paragraph (e) of this section."-

2. -Insert "not yet disposed of" after "inspect radioactive-waste" in 61.82(a).

B-159
ISSUE Part 2 - 1

Issue: Part 2 - General

Commenters: Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. (15)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)-

Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (95)

Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (100)

Rule Citations: §§ 2.103, 2.101(b)

Summary of Comments: The three issues raised were the applicability of revised

§ 2.103 to Part 61 licensees, notification of chief executives for alternative

sites, and preparation of value impact statements.

Analysis of Comments: Exxon Nuclear Company and the Atomic Industrial Forum

questioned whether revised'§ 2.103(a) applied to disposal facilities licensed

pursuant to Part 61 and recommended wording be included in the paragraph similar

to that in revised § 2.104(e). Paragraph 2.103(a) deals with two issues. One

is the authority to act on applications and issue the license. The first sentence provides this authority and applies to all licenses under any part of

10 CFR including Part 61 when effective. The second issue and sentence deals

with who to notify of the action of issuing a license. The current version of

2.103(a) lists facilities, commercial disposal of wastes from other persons,

and high-level waste repositories as categories of licensees requiring notification of State, Indian Tribe, and local officials. The proposed revision was

to delete the reference to commercial disposal. The commenter is correct that

the notification provision does not apply to Part 61 licensees. The requirement to notify officials of license issuance was moved to the proposed new

paragraph 2.106(d). Section 2.106 is entitled Notice of issuance so the move

was logical editorially. The proposed 2.106(d) also requires notice for major

amendments and is therefore more comprehensive than the present requirement in

§ 2.103. Proposed 2.106(d) also reflects 2.104(e) wording as suggested by the

the commenter. No change to the proposed rule is required. A cross reference

was added to § 2.103 to clarify the matter.

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. questioned whether the requirement in proposed

§ 2.101(b) to notify the chief executivies of locations for alternative sites

is consistent with the requirements of Part 51 and proposed Part 61. Specifically, the commenter questions whether specific alternatives sites must be

identified in the application. If specific sites do not have to be identified,

Part 2 should be amended to delete the requirement to notify the officials.

The staff's views on alternative sites are articulated in the draft branch

technical position in the site selection discussion on pages 9 and 10 of

NUREG-0902. The position states that to meet NEPA, there should be comparison

between the preferred site and two or three viable alternative sites. It also

indicates that the major portion of detailed site characterization efforts are

expected to be performed at the preferred site. Thus alternatives will probably

be identified and the notification requirement was retained.

B-160
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation referenced proposed § 2.764(e) which

would require Commission approval before the Director of NMSS could issue a

license or amendments pursuant to Part 61 and indicated that issuance of the

license or amendments should be-justified by preparation of value/impact statements. The comment is basically a procedural one -indicating a specific method

of documenting Commission evaluation. Under the existing provisions of 10 CFR

Part 51 and *under proposed editorial'ch'anges-to Part 51, preparation of an

environmental impact'statement is required for the initial'license. .(See 10 CFR

51.5(a)(6).) A'value/impact statement'would duplicate this effort already,(

required in the proce'ss. Further; major-.ar'endments that'involve "actions which

may significantly affect the health and safety of the public"-would involve'

environmental appraisals (EA) and-probably-supplements to-the initial-EIS-or a

new EIS because of the "significant affect." :Amendment's are actions where preparation of EISs is optional (See 51.5(b)(4)(iii)). The EIS, EIS supplement,

or EA would include economics - evaluation of costs and benefits - which is

the point of the value/impact statement - and would be more comprehensive in

scope. The Commission-can request supplemental evaluation on a-case-by-case

basis without imposing another administrative burden on all licensing actions.

Thus the commenter's suggestion was not reflected in the final rule.

Rule Changes:

1. Add to § 2.103(a) Note: For notice of issuance requirements for licenses

issues pursuant to Part 61 of this chapter, see paragraph 2.106(d) of this

part."

ISSUE Part 2-2

Issue: Issuing licenses

Commenters: Isham, Lincoln and Beale for Commonwealth Edison (18)

State of California (93)

Rule Citation: §§ 2.764, 61.3, and 61.7

Summary of Comments: One commenter suggested the option of immediately issuing

licenses when the hearing board directs and one expressed reservations about

not waiting for all appeals to be resolved.

Analysis of Comments: Isham, Lincoln, and Beale noted the need for "prompt

establishment of a Midwest low level waste facility" and expressed concern that

proposed language and discussion did not clearly provide the authority to issue

a license while administrative and judicial appeals are resolved. The commenter

expressed the view that the rule should allow licenses to be effective upon

final review by the Commissioners, at the latest.

The existing provisions of § 2.764 do not apply to materials licensees such as

disposal facility licensees, since mandatory hearings, construction permits,

and operating licenses are not involved. The proposed change to 2.764 to

address Part 61 licensing actions reflects Commissioners' desire to review

all significant Part 61 licensing actions'prior to issuance. The proposed

change to § 2.764 has been moved to form a new § 2.765 to avoid amending

provisions not applying to materials licensees.

B-161
The Commission agrees with the commenter' that the' option to issue the license

without waiting for resolution of all appeals should exist.-,No changes to the

rule or related amendments are necessary to- assure this option, however. The

Commission doesn't have-to wait forecourt appeals under existing or amended

rules. Who issues the license does not affect this option.

The State of California was concerned that the'proposed modifications to

§ 2.764(a)(b) and (e) would render state's appeals ineffectual and cited the

State's experience in Commission reactor licensing cases. The Commission's.

intent is to-weigh thelissues and decide whether the license should be

immediately effective or not. The option to act before resolution of all

appeals does not mean that valid concerns would be ignored or that action will

be taken before resolution of appeals.

Rule Change:

Move the proposed change to § 2.764 to form a new §2.765.

B-162
ISSUE M-1

Issue: General comments on § 20.311

fCommenters:

, i .

The Procter.and Gamble Company.(6)

University of California,-LA (8)

United Technologies/Packard (25).

Howard University (49).

Union Oil Company ofCalifornia (66)'

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

University of Texas Medical Branch (75)

General Electric (89)

Stone and Webster.Engineering Corp. (95)

Health Physics Society (96)

Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

New England Nuclear (110)

Tennessee Valley Authority (116)

Texas Department of Health (117)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

(107) & (113)

Rule Citation: §20.311

Summary of Comments: Two commenters addressed chemical form.. One addressed

exempting:Class7AF-wastes. One requestedclarification of most of the information requirements in § 20.311(b). One:commenter.suggested adding dates activities are specified and two suggested.adding radiation.levels.. Two suggested

reducing the 60,day disposalfacility report period. One.,requested clarification of Class A waste form requirements. One addressed duplication of manifest

transfer requirements when waste collectors are involved.- Two were concerned

about delays until forwarded copies are received. The Health Physics Society

raised several.points-for clarification.,-, Two encouraged compatibility with

existing systems.. One commenter addressed the required.number of copies.and

two addressed the-inspectability of the system. -One suggested relief from

classification as A, B or C when transferring.to processors: One addressed

the logistics of prior notification. Two suggested placing the system in

10 CFR Part 71..

Analysis of Comments: The Proctor and Gamble Company comments were primarily

focusedon-exempting Class A wastes-from most of the manifest requirements as

discussed and rejected under Issue 1-4. Specifically, the.Company.recommended

that 20.311(e)(8),¶(f)(1),(h)(1),,and (h)(2) apply-only'to Class B and C

wastes. The Company also recommended-inserting "general" before "chemical form"

,in 20.311(b) which lists required information in manifests-to provide.additional

relief and.flexibility. TheiUniversity of California'was also concerned -about

chemical form and recommendeda.500Sgram cutoff for specifying chemical form as

discussedand.rejected under-Issue M-4.<> Some relief was provided by inserting

"principal" without quantifying what '"principal" means.

B-163
United Technologies/Packard suggested that the meaning of the information

requirements in § 20.311(b) be clarified (i.e., person generating the waste,

type of waste, waste volume and mass, radionuclide identity and concentration,

and total activity). The definition from the Environmental Protection Agency's

rules in 40 CFR 260.10(a)(26) was suggested for guidance to clarify that the

individual who generated the waste was not intended. The use of person was in

the same sense as defined in § 61.2 and is the licensee. The purpose of

identifying the generator was twofold: 1) to provide a source of information

about the waste if questions or problem arise and 2) to enable development of

a representative data base showing factors such as actual generators, type of

licensee, and state where generated rather than data skewed by large volumes

from brokers or waste collectors. Packard suggested "physical description"

instead of "type of waste" to clarify intent. This suggestion was adopted.

Packard questioned whether drum size (e.g., 55 gallons) was adequate specification of volume. Drum size is acceptable. Disposal charges are usually

based on volume and no-burden is involved in specifying volume. Packard

indicated that the weight of the drum or package might be difficult to determine without large scales. Weight would likely be estimated for handling or

freight charges but staff agrees that it might be-difficult and that the information is not essential so mass was deleted. The difficulties in specifying

radionuclide identity, concentration, and total activity are addressed elsewhere.

Howard University suggested that the specification of activity be as of the

generation date. Such specification would be useful for evaluating radioactive

decay of short-lived nuclides during storage at the site of generation, and

during collection and transport to the disposal site. The suggestion was not

adopted. The decay before shipment should be taken into account by the generator

preparing the manifest. Howard also recommended reducing the 60 day time period

in 20.311(g)(5) forreports by disposal facility generators when shipments'do

not arrive within 60 days after advance manifests are received.' This suggestion

was not adopted since the facility operator -reports are a backup system for

checking to see that shippers, i.e., waste generators or waste collectors'have

conducted required investigations. Shippers must investigate within 20 days.

Georgia Institute of Technology made a similar point.'

Union Oil Company-suggested that § 20.311(d) be clarified to indicate which

sections of § 61.56 are applicable'to Class A wastes. Section 61.56 is being

restructured to clarify which requirements are applicable to which class of

waste alleviating-the need to clarify § 20.311(d).

The University of Texas Medical Branch expressed the view that paragraphs 20.311(d)(1) and (2) duplicate the requirements of (e)(3) and (4).

Paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) deal with generators preparing and labeling the.!

wastes and (e)(3) and (4) deal with collectors forwarding and including

manifests. The commenter appears-to be objecting to filling out a manifest

when the collector is going to fill one out for sending the waste to the

disposal site - a duplication of effort. The uncertainty about roles when the

collector picks up the shipments at the site of generation also appears'to be

part of the issue. The commenter is correct that some duplication of effort

is involved. However, the duplication serves at least two purposes:

(1) emphasizing the waste generator's responsibilities'for providing correct

information on waste content and (2) documenting the responsibility through

the certification required. Thus, the requirement was retained.

B-164
General Electric and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers expressed

similar views on the'need'.to forward acopy of the~manifest. The commenters

were'concerned that shipments must be delayed until the advance copies are

received.- 'Such receipt was'fnot intended. The intent was to ship and inde-.

pendently foriward a copy at the'same time. The wording in 20.311(d)(5) to

forward "at the time'of shipment" was Intended to make this point. When a

shipment is picked up f..6.b. the'generator's facility, the manifest can be,

transferred at that time., In addition,,the society recommended adding the

"radiation'level" to the manifest.

Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation'also suggested .that radiation levels

be includedlin the required content of,,manifests in § 20.311(b). The DOT

'regulations have specific requirements for radiation'levels and transport

indices in shipping papers-and labeling. -No exemption from these requirements

is'given by the rule and in view of the complexity and potential for modification of the'DOT regulations,.the requirements were not repeated and.the suggestion was not adopted.'

The Health Physics Society'expressed concern about the long term generator

",liability implied by the certifications co'ncerning waste characteristics in

20.311(c) as required of generators in (d)(1) and waste processors in (f)(3).

This issue is discussed under § 61.56 of the rule and issue M-2 on quality

assurance. The society, also raised -several questions'about the discussion of

the 'system'in the Supplementary 'Information. The intent-and implications of

the reference to improving the credibility 'of decisionmakers was one question.

The'improved data base w'ill be helpful to licensing 'agencies, State and compact

groups, and disposed facility operators in that actual data on shipments will

be available not gestimates or extrapolation from surveys.. The staff cannot

quantify the incremental cost of manifest system or the value of more informed

decision. Incremental costs of the sy'stem are small since existihg practices

cover most of therequirements. The'system does require generators to comply

with'slightly modified DOT requirements as observed by the Society. The rule

was changed to''emphasize that one set of papers may'be used for NRC and DOT

requirements in response., The society's question about the meaning of inspectable is addressed in the following discussion of New'England Nuclear's comments.

The Atomic Industrial Forum urged that manifest requirements be compatible with

existing requirements to minimize duplication., The U.S. EPA noted that the

NRC manifest system and EPA hazardou's'waste manifest. system as a minimum must

be'compatible and encouraged future`coordination., Staff concurs.

Minor conforming changes to the information required on the NRC manifest in

§ 20.311(b) were made to reflect the joint EPA/DOT proposed Uniform Hazardous

Waste''Manifest (47, FR 9336,' March'4, 1982).!' For example, 'use of the transporter's EPA hazardous waste identification 'number was added as an option.-

Use of a single form'and/or use`of'this-joint standard'form was highlighted in

the Supplementary Information'position'of the final ruleand the rule itself.

U.S. Ecology observed that the requirements'of § 20.311 can apparently be met

with 3 copies of the manifest but that 5 copes have,,provenuseful in everyday

practice. Staff preferred to let the parties involved determine the number of

copies needed for other purposes and did not specify numbers of copies.

B-165
New-England Nuclear recommended that a procedure be developed to'integrate

enforcement agencies into'the control or supervision of the manifest system.

A requirement'for the site operator to return a receipted copy of the manifest

to the generator and to' require the generator'to maintain files of shipment

manifests and backrouted receipts was suggested, as'a possible procedure.

Inspectors could review the filesduring routine inspections, of the generators.

The Commission agrees that such a procedure has, merit and that the proposed

language did not indicate how to generate 'inspectable r'ecords. The intent in

the proposed rule was to rely on existing requirements' in Parts 30, 40, and 70

(see §§ 30.51(c), 40.61(c)(3) and 70.51(b)(5)) formaintaining records of

transfer of materials. These requirements could be met by keeping copies of

the manifests.' Ho'wever, retained copies, receipted copies or documentation of

receipt by telephone acknowledgement would not be required. 'The commenter

rightly points out that the proposed system does'not guarantee inspectable

records at the generator's facility and should,since the generator has' prime

responsibility and the rule was changed accordingly:. The system does provide

an inspectable cross check by having the disposal facility operator report when

a shipment has not arrived within 60 days after the,advance manifest was

received. The Commission can thus compare reported investigation to lists from

facility operators and investigate any discrepancies. To'guarantee inspectable

records at the generator's facility § 20.311(d)(7), (3)(5) and (f)(8),were

changed to require the manifest or equivalent documentation such as a computor

printout containing the same information and a binding acknowledgement as a

specific way to meet existing recordkeeping requirements. Thus the new language

would require maintenance of records for the same time'periods but would exclude

recordkeeping options such as log entries only.

Parts 50, 60 and 72 contain no specific provision's on maintaining records of

transfers of materials. Each is noted below:

Part 50 - No specific transfer or records of transfer requirements. All transfers done under Part 30, 40, or 70 possession licenses.

Part 60 - No specific transfer or records of transfer requirements. Only

licensee will be DOE should be little or no waste to a Part 61

facility.

Part 72 - No specific transfer or records of transfer requirements except safeguards reports in 72.54 for'spent fuel. Will beless than 10 licensees. Should only be a small amount of waste's from water treatment

systems that would ever be consigned to, a Part 61 facility.

The Texas Department' of Health expressed theview that generatorsvshipping to

intermediate processors should not'have to,package and classify wates as

,Class A, B, or C. The concern was the'unnecessary expense of Class B or C

packaging. Staff agrees and Class B and C packaging requirements were not

intended to apply to transfers to intermediate processors where the waste was

to be treated or repackaged. The wording was revised to clarify this point.

The Tennessee Valley Authority noted that copies of the manifest forwardedat

the time of shipment to the'intended'receipient (as required of 20.311(d)(5)

for example) by mail would probably not reach the recepient before the waste

shipment. It would not be prior notice. The commenter's observation is true,

but the purpose of forwarding a copy was to provide a means of cross checking

B-166
on shipments. The disposal facility operator is required to check the independently forwarded copies against shipments received and report any mismatches.

Prior notification was not the prime purpose.' Any State or facility operator

requirements for prior notification are in addition to the manifest system.

However, the manifest can be used for prior notice if desired. The-Authority

also suggested use of DOT forms and placing the requirements in 10 CFR Parts 61

or 71 not Part 20. The manifest includes-additional information not included

in DOT papers so this suggestion was snot adopted. The manifest should suffice

as DOT papers so only one set is required'and no duplication should result.

The requirement was placed'in Part 20"with other waste'disposal requirements

since it applies to all licensees transferring wastes.and Part 61 applies only

to disposal facility licensees and not in Part-71'since Part 71 deals with

packaging requirements that apply to all radioactive'shipments not just waste

shipments. The Health Physics Society also suggested considering adding the

requirement to Part 71.

Rule Changes:

1. Change "type of waste" to "physical description of waste" in § 20.311(b),

add "principal" before "chemical form", and delete "mass".

2. Add to 20.311(b): "The manifest-required by this paragraph may be the

shipping papers used to'meet Department of Transportation regulations, or

requirements of the receiver, provided all the required informationis

included."'

3. 'Amend 20'311 (d)(7) to read:

(7) Retain a copy of the manifest and documentation of acknowledgment

of receipt as the record of transfer of licensed materials as

required by Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter.

4.' Amehd'20.311(e)(5) to read:

,(5)' Retain a copy of the manifest and documentation of'acknowledgment

of'r'eceipt as the record of transfer of licensed material as

! required by Parts 30, 40,.ard'70 of this chapter.

5. Amend 20.311(f)(8) to read:

(5) Retain copies of original and new manifests and documentation of

acknowledgment of receipt as .the record'of transfer of'licensed

materials as required by Parts 30, 40, and 70 of this chapter.'

6. Amend § 20.311(d)' to read: Any-generating licensee-who transfers radioactive waste to a land disposal facility or a licensed waste collector

shall'comply with the requirements of subparagraphs' (1) through (8).' Any

generating licensee who transfers waste to a licensed waste process6r who

treats or repackages waste shall comply with the requirements of subparagraph (4)'through (8) '

B-167
ISSUE M-2

Issue: The quality assurance requirements in §20.311

Commenters: The Proctor and Gamble Company (6)

Exxon Nuclear Company (15)

Dow Chemical (17)

United Technologies/Packard (25)

NASA, JFK Space Center (26)

Los Alamos National Laboratory (43)

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

University of Texas Medical Branch (75)

Northeast Utilities (85)

Health Physics Society (96)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

The University of Texas System Cancer Center (105)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (113)

Rule Citation: § 26.311(d)(3), (f)(5)

Summary of Comments: One commenter recommended exemption of certain low concentration wastes from the quality assurance (QA) requirements. One commenter

suggested that the requirement be clarified to allow minimal programs for

licensees handling minimal amounts of wastes. The resource burden on small

operations for Q/A was noted by three commenters. Five commenters also

suggested more specificity on requirements. Two commenters suggested the use

of "quality control" instead of "quality assurance." One was concerned about

management's personal involvement. One was concerned about a separate program

being required. One suggested shifting part of the burden on waste form quality

control to suppliers.

Analysis of Comments: The proposed requirement for a quality assurance program

to assure compliance with §§ 61.55 and 61.56 was intentionally stated in general

terms in recognition of the broad spectrum of waste generators-who would have

to comply. Flexibility to tailor the program to types.and amounts of waste

was intended. Since it is important that all wastes be properly classified,

no exemptions for wastes were provided. The quality assurance program applies

only to wastes being transferred for dispoal at a land disposal facility.

Wastes being disposed of by other methods or without regard to its radioactive

content (e.g., under the provisions of § 20.306) are not covered.

The references to resource burdens were very general and few in number considering the number of licensees potentially affected and to whom copies of the rule

were sent. More specific guidance on what should be included in the program

is planned for the regulatory guide on waste classification. In view of the

diverse waste generator population and range of programs expected, guidance

documents would seem more appropriate than prescriptive requirements in the

regulation.

The suggested word change from "quality assurance"Jto "quality control" was

based on the accepted use of the terms in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50. In

the introduction to Appendix B, quality assurance includes the concept of performing satisfactorily in servce while quality control is described as controlling the quality to predetermined requirements. The generator was not

B-168
expected to evaluate disposalsite performance. The waste characteristics and

classification requirements are the predetermined requirements. Therefore the

*suggestion was, adopted..

The Proctor and Gamble Company, recommended modifying § 20.311(d) to replace

"the program must include management audits". with "audit results must be.

reported to management." The proposed change would change the requirement so

that management would not have to personally conduct theaudits. .The Commission's concern is.to make sure the audits are reviewed and corrective measures

taken when necessary not just reported and filed.''Therefore-, wording-to address

this concern has been added to require management ,to evaluate audits, but not

necessarily conduct them.

Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. was concerned that the language in § 20.311(d)(3)

and (f)(5) implied that a separate quality assurance program he instituted. A

separate program was not intended.

The Georgia Institute of Technology suggested that a provision be added for

certain blanket authorization based on supplier information on waste form.

The Institute suggested that such blanket authorization would help shift part

of the burden.forcompliance with § 61.56 on waste form to suppliers. The

staff agrees with the concept that suppliers can develop generic information

on products and plans to review topical.reports on waste forms and containers.

However, how such products,and packaging is used influences the validity of

product evaluations. The generator will still need to be sure proper procedures are followed and that his waste falls within the range of parameters

evaluated for the product. Data supplied by supplier and evaluated by the

Commission can be included as a key part ofthe generator's program but cannot

be substituted for it. Thus, the suggestion was not adopted.

Rule Changes:

1. Change "quality assurance" to "quality control" in.20.311(D)(3) and (f)(5).

2. 'For 20.311(d)(3) insert evaluation after management in "the program must

include management audits." ,, -

-ISSUE _M-'3

Issue:, .Burden on small entities.

(See Issue D-55-11 on cost of classification, and Issue M-4

on manifest aburden also.)

Commenters: Wisconsin Electric (32) '

Health Physics 'Society (96)

Rule Citation: General . . . .

Summary of Comment: Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany expressed the' view that

the rule would greatly increase 'disposal c'osts' for small entities without

commensurate'health andrsafety benefits. The Health"Physics Society noted that

the rule will impact small, entities but'much of the -impact will be positive.

B-169
Analysis of Comments: The basis for the Wisconsin Electric comment appears to

be the perceived costs of the manifest tracking system (Issue M-4) and' increased

costs to site-operators that willbe'passed on to the small'entity.' The commenter

also appeared to base his concerns on a misunderstanding about the'scope and

applicability of the rule based on a reference to "currently permitted to dispose

of radioactive wastes into sanitary sewage systems." The proposed rule does

not negate such existing options as discussed under-Issue A-1.

Wisconsin Electric

to the commenter.'

is not.a small entity and the comment was not based on costs

No specific data or cost estimates are offered.

No rule changes were proposed based on the comments.

ISSUE M-4

Issue: Manifest system a burden

Commenters: The Procter and Gamble Company (6)

University of California, LA (8)

D. M. Mathews (23)

' United Technologies/Packard (25)

Nuclear Diagnostic Laboratories Inc. (29) & (108)

Wisconsin Electric (32)

Union Carbide Corporation (39)

American College of Nuclear Physicians (53)

Department of the Army (63)

Georgia Institute of'Techn'ology,(70)

Health Physics Society (96)

Conference of Radiation ControF'Program Directors (103)

University of Texas System Cancer Center (105)

Rule Citation: § 20.311

Summary of Comments: Two 'commenters were concerned about specifying chemical

form. Four commenters objected to shipper responsibility for tracking shipments. Thrd'e comrmenters'indicated that the system is a paperwork burden and

three a general burden. Three supported the system and one' indicated no problems in complying. Two objected to forwarding a copy of the manifest and one

was concerned about the implications of generator certifications.

Analysis of Comments: Procter and Gamble expressed the view that the manifest

system is an unjustified burden for Class A wastes.' Procter and Gamble noted

the difficulty in specifying chemical form and the industrial security risk

for pharmaceutical firms. The University of California, LA noted the large

variety and possible unknown species of chemical forms from research and

hospital wastes and recommended a 500 gram lower cutoff.' Only chemical forms

exceeding the value would have to be specifed. The staff considered exempting

Class A waste and the de minimus chemical content concept. The rule as'proposed required indication of chemical form " as completely as practicable."

It did not have an'attsolute requirement. Thus, the problems with unknowh'odr

hundreds of trace chemical'forms would be covered 'as *not practicable. Staff

was not able to support'an across the board de minimus quantity of 500 grams

for specifying chemical form as either adequate or too high. Such a requi'rement is very prescriptive and would impose a potential or implied compliance

B-170
burden to quantitatively demonstrate analysis of every component greater than

the.500 grams. Class A wastes probably represent more than half the volume of

waste currently being shipped. Information on such'a large portion of the waste

is'needed to complete the picture. Class A wastes also probably represent'the

greatest hazard from non-radiological properties so detailed information isuseful for managing'accidents or incidents',in handling'the waste.'-Thus exemption from chemical form specification was not adopted but'some relief was provided

as noted in'Issue M-1. ''In addition', a significant percentage'of wastes. are

Class 'A wastes which the staff believes should not be precluded from tracking

and reporting on lost shipments.

Objections to the waste generator'being 'responsible for tracking waste ship-',

ments were raised by D. M. Mathews, the American'College ofNuclear Physicians,

and the University of Texas System'Cancer-Center.' Mathews expressed the view

that th6ewiste generator would be'unfairly penalized for the truckers' or site

operators' mistakes by'having to conduct an investigation and file a report on

missing-shipments. The Nuclear Physicians and Cancer Center objected to not

being able to transfer responsibility for'wastes to brokers or licensed waste

collectors and thus transfer the burden of accounting for, shipments. Wisconsin

Electric expressed similiar views on carrier reponsibility. The Commission's

intent in' drafting § 20.311 was to allow the waste collector to acknowledge

receipt of the waste to the generator and assume responsibility for tracking

the wastes.; Clarifying language is 'added to § 20.311(d)(8), to emphasize

investigation 'only if acknowledgement of recept is not received. The generator

is responsible for the information provided'about the waste and cannot be:

relieved of this responsibility.

Nuclear Diagnostic Laboratories (a waste collector),' Wisconsin Electric' and

United Technlogies/Packard were concerned about thepaperwork burden. Nuclear

Diagnostics''major concern stems from the requirement in § 20.311(e)(2) for

'making copies of the individual manifests prepared by waste generators part of

the new manifest the collector must prepare. Consolidated shipments may include

wastes from a hundred or more waste generators so that the papers'could be a

physical burden. The company indicates that an information retrieval system

'is in place and requests relief from the requirement of physically incuding

generator manifests with the new manifest. The Commission agrees that such

relief-is warrented and such relief was added to § 20.'311(e)(2)'1 Nuclear.

Diagnostics was 'also concerned about'the apparently needless requirement to'

forward a copy of the manifest (per § 20.311(d)(5)) to the waste'collector.'who

picks up the waste at the generator's facility. Tranfer of a copy with the

shipment should be adequate. The Commission agrees and provided an exemption

in § 20.311(d)(5) for direct transfers to collectors. However, the generator

is still responsible for accounting for all waste transferred and making sure

that all waste are acknowledged'(e.g.', per 20.311(d)(7)(8)). The University

of Texas System Cancer Center expressed similiar views.

Wisconsin Electric's concerns about paperwork associated 'with the manifest system

were expressed on behalf of "small 'entity" licensees" ' No analyses or data were

included in support of the claimed burden. United Technologies/Packard and

Georgia Institute of Technology concerns were a general caution.

The Proctor and Gamble Company'and University of Texas System Cancer Center

expressed the view that the manifest system is a general burden. Proctor and

Gamble suggested exempting Class A wastes as discussed above. The Cancer

B-171
Center's concerns were primarily concerned with the collector or contractor/

generator roles. Proposed changes to 20.311(d)(5) and (8) provide some clarification and relief for collectors of prepackaged wastes., However, the generator is respons'ible for, contracted services and no relief from certifications

by the generator was given.. The generator can certify based on employee

(authorized user) or contractor information but the responsiblity remains with

the licensee who packages the waste. If the waste collector repackages or treats

the waste, 20.311(f) applies and the waste is the processor's responsibility

and the Cancer Center's comments do not apply.

Union Carbide Corporation, the Health Physics Society, and the Conference of

Radiation Control Program Directors gave general support to the system. Union

Carbide noted that documentation has already, become a significant part of the

cost of waste disposal. 'The Health Physics Society noted that the required

information and processing is good business as well as good health physics.

The Society recommended that the system should be consistent with requirements

for shipment of other radioactive shipments and hazardous materials in general.

To make the system generic to all radioactive shipments, amendment of Part 71

was recommended. This suggestion to modify Part 71 was not adopted for two

reasons. One, the information requested in § 20.311 includes information

needed for disposal' only. Second, the user of radioactive materials is likely

to track shipments he needs without regulatory prodding. Wastes are by definition, materials of no further value to the user and incintive to track shipments

was needed. The Commission agrees that consistency with other record systems

and requirements is desirable. The Conference stated, "We strongly support

the proposed amended requirements to Part 20 for the certification and use of

shipping manifests to track waste shipments."

The Department of the Army indicated that current practices cover most 'of the

requirements in the manifest system and that the additional information requirements will be added to documents and forms when required. No problems or burdens

were indicated.

In summary, only seven commenters voiced problem or burden or a result of the

manifest system and four objected to shippers tracking the shipments. 'These

few comments must be viewed in the context'of the'20,000 licensees (both NRC

and Agreement State) who were notified of the proposed rule in a mailing that

focused their attention on the system and provided a copy of the Federal Register

notice with the specific requirements.

Rule Changes:

1. Add to § 20.311(d)(8) a reference to acknowledgement of receipt.

2. Add to § 20.311(e)(2): The waste collector may prepare a new manifest

without attaching the generator manifests, provided the new manifest contains for each package the information specified in paragraph (b) of this

section.

3. Add to 20.311(d)(5): or deliver to a collector at the time the waste is

collected; obtaining acknowledgement of receipt in the form of a signed

copy of the manifest from the collector.

B-172
ISSUE GEN-1

Issue: Absoluteness of Criteria

Commenters: State of New Mexico (4)

Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. (15)

Department of the Environment, London (19)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)

Duke Power Company (48)

Paul F. Hadala and Don C. Banks (76)

Birmingham Audubon Society (80)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Middle South Services, Inc. (84)

Northeast Utilities (85)

American Nuclear Society (87) .-Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)(113)

State of North Carolina (109)

New England Nuclear (110)

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

Tennessee Valley Authority (116)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citations: Various - see summary.

Summary of Comments: Most of the commenters were expressing concern with the

use of absolute'terms in the rule such as "eliminate" and "prevent." One was

concerned about lack of absoluteness of "reasonable assurance." One was

concerned about subjective interpretations.

The specific citations and commenters are as follows:

Suggested

Citations Part 61 Term Replacements Commenters

1. 61.51(a)(6) eliminate minimize Dept of the Envir. London (19

Bechtel (44)

Duke Power (48)

Hadala and Banks (76)

IUWMG (81)

Middle South Services (84)

ANS (87)

Mechanical Engineers (107)

NC (109)

NEN (110).

Interior (114)

Tennessee Valley Auth (116)

DOE (119)

B-173
Suggested

Citations Part 61 Term Replacements Commenters

2. 61.13(d);

61.23(b) ,(c),(d) ,(e);

61.30(a)(2);

61.40; 61.51(a)(2);

61.54

resonable assurance conclusive

showing

Birmingham

Audubon Society (80)

3. 61.62(a) assurances proof Birmingham

Audubon Society (80)

4. 61.51(a)(4) prevent minimize Bechtel (44)

UWMG(81)

ANS (87)

AIF (100)

Mechanical Engineers (107)

NC (109)

NEN (110)

Interior (114)

TVA (116)

5. 61.7(b)(2)

6. 61.7(b)(1)

eliminated or

prevention

delete

minimize

NE Utilities (85)

AIF (100)

NEN (110)

Bechtel (44)

ANS (87)

AIF (100)

NEN(110)

7. 61.52(a)(1) no interaction no significant

interaction

AIF (100)

Exxon (15)

8. Supplementary

Information

pg. 38084 col 1

eliminate minimize U.S. Ecology (101)

9. 61.50(a)(4)

10. 61.52(a)(6)

11. 61.52(a)(9)

significant

a few percent

adequate

none

none

approved

NC (109)

NC (109)

NC (109)

12. 61.40 reasonable assurance

exists that

delete

minimize

NEN ( 110 )

NM (4)

13. 61.62(a) eliminate DOE (119)

14. 61.80(h)(2) report any different report any

significantly

different

Exxon (15)

B-174
Suggested

Citations Part 61 Term Replacements Commenters

15. 61.2 "disposal" isolation disposal in Bechtel (44)

an approved- ANS (87)

facility

Analysis of Comments:

Hadala and Banks most succinctly discussed the implications of paragraph 61.51(a)(6) which states:

(6) The disposal site must be designed to eliminate the contact of water

with waste during storage, the contact of standing water with waste during

disposal, and the contact of percolating or standing water with wastes after

disposal.

The commenters show that a literal interpretation of this requirement would

preclude ever issuing a license since infiltration can never be eliminated and

all soils have some water content. "Minimize" was suggested as an alternative

for eliminate. To emphasize that the goal should be a real target the words

"minimize to the extent practicable" were used in the final rule.

The Birmingham Aubudon Society suggested the wording changes without comment.

The concern seems to be the need for stronger findings but less than guarentees.

"Reasonable assurance" is a licensing standard used throughout the agency and

reflects the findings staff expects to make. The changes were not adopted.

The Issue B-1 also.

The Utility Waste Management Group expressed concern that-literal interpretation

of 61.51(a)(4) and (6) leads to requirements that are difficult if not impossible

to meet by any existing technology. Similar views were expressed for the

citations shown in the chart by New Mexico, Exxon, Bechtel, Duke Power, Middle

South Sources, Northeast Utilities, the Ameican Nuclear Society, the Atomic

Industrial Forum, U.S. Ecology, the American Society'of Mechanical Engineers,

North Carolina, New England Nuclear, U.2S. Department of;the Interior, Tennessee

Valley Authority, and the Department of'Energy;! Staff-generally agreed with

the comments on the absoluteness of the-wording identified and modified the

language to address the concerns. See Issue D-51-1 also.

The State of North Carolina recomme`nde'd that the entire rule be carefully

reviewed for the use of the terms such'as significant, prevent, eliminate, few,

and adequate. The State was concerned about absoluteness, subjective interpretation, and ranges of opinions. '

New England Nuclear made specific recommendations noted above and a general

comment that absolute statements should be replaced by "achieveable practical

ones."

B-175
Rule Changes:

Citation

1. 61.51(a)(6)

2. 61.13(d); 61.23(b),(c),

(d),(e); 61.30(a)(2);

61.40; 61.51(a)(2);

61.54

3. 61.62(a)

4. 61.51(a)(4)

5. 61.7(b)(2)

6. 61.52(a)(1)

7. 61.52(a)(1)

8. Supplementary Information

9. 61.50(a)(4)

10. 61.52(a)(6)

Adopted changeminimize to the extent practicable"

none

none

"minimize to the extent practicable"

deleted "eliminated or"

reworded so "prevention" not used

reworded so "no interaction" not used

Section not included in final notice

used "known"

revised to reflect wording in 10 CFR

20.105 so few percent not used

"approved" used as suggested

no change adopted

inserted,"to the extent practicable"

to modify "eliminate"

inserted "significantly" as suggested

added "inhabited by man and his food

chains" to emphasize isolate from

man not absolutely isolate

11. 61.52(a)(9)

12. 61.40

13. 61.62(a)

14. 61.80(h)(2)

15. 61.2

ISSUE GEN-2

Issue: Additional regulatory guidance needed

Commenter: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (16)

Dow Chemical (17)

Ohio EPA (38)

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (41)

Union OilCompany of California (66)

Stock Equipment Company (67)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

University of Arizona (78)

SouthCarolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control (79)

Northeast Utilities (85)

State of California (93)

State of New York (99)

U.S. Ecology (101)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (103)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107), (113)

U.S. Department of the Interior (114)

U.S. Department of Energy (119)

Rule Citation: None.

Summary of Comments:

urgency of additional

These commenters made suggestions on the kinds and

regulatory guidance that the commenters felt was needed.

B-176
Commenter 67 suggested guidance on onsite contingency storage capacity and

leachability test standards and criteria. Commenters 38, 66 and 85 urged that

the waste''classification regulatory guidance be issued as soon as'possible.

Commenter 16 suggested the following list:

o Waste stability; --

o Specific assumptions to use for'determining whether the intruder - scenario meets the-performance objectives;

o Guidelines and assumptions for setting maximum disposal site inventory

limits consistent with the performance objectives;

o Concentration limits for naturally occurring and other isotopes

(especially Radium) not specifically addressed in Table 1;

o Specific guidance for the information that is requested in a license

application as outlined in Subpart B;

o Definite standards for the conditions that are required to be met

for post-closure license transfer and termination of the license.

Dow'Chemical (17) listed properties in addition tolfree liquids that should be

included in the NRC Branch Technical'Position on waste'form.'

Commenter 68 throught the model which.NRC would use to evaluate compliance with

the groundwater migration performance objective be made-available. --Commenter

78'suggested interagency-agreement on a glossary of terms pertainingito waste

management.' Cbmmenter'79 supported'and recommended 'development and issuance

of regulatory guides which incorporate standards for waste form packaging' high

integrity containers, test methods,- and-approval guidelines and processes.'

;Commenter'79 offered their assistance in developing'these needed guidelines.

Commenter 93 suggested that guidance on the types of records,'reports,!'tests,

and inspections needed to show compliance with Subpart D should be provided.

Commenter'99 suggested guidance or requirements regarding soil horizon'

characteristics as well as guidance for engineering features which'effectively

respond to leachate management, subsidence control, and aqueous and aeoline

erosion.

Commenters 101 and 114 requested a'statement (guidance).on what criteria should

be used to define th& requiremeint in 60.50(a) that a-site should be "capable

of being modeled." Commenter 107 requested criteria on developing maximum site

inventories, including the isotopes, maximum permissible inventory,'and inventory

limiting site characteristics.' DOE and'ASME emphasized the need 'for future

regulatory guides to include'quality assurance. Commenter 103 suggested -i6

areas where additional guidance should be developed and covered a range of

topics from siting to operational health physics.

Analysis of Comments: Agreed, additional regulatory guidance in a number of

areas should be made available as soon as practical. Of the above, guidance

on waste classification and waste stability is probably the most important.

Guidance for license applications and site closure are already being addressed.

Guidance on waste classification and waste form including stability have been

drafted. Technical positions on site design and operation and financial

B-177
assurances have also been drafted. A Technical position document has' been

published for site suitability selection, and'characterizatidn,(NUREG-0902).

Maximum site inventories and disposal of radium need to be considered in

guidance being developed. Commenters addressed the issue of radionuclide

inventories vs. concentration (Issue D-55-10), and disposal of radium

(Issue D-55-4). Formal and separate guides to address these two issues are

not needed. Guidance on determining whether the intruder scenario meets the

performance objective is not necessary since compliance with'the classification

scheme provides the mechanism for meeting the objective. The other topics

suggested will be considered as additional guidance is developed.

Suggested Rule Change: None.

ISSUE GEN-3

Issue: Exempt waste in storage

Commenter: Union Carbide Corporation (39)

Rule Citation: Packaging and labeling requirements

Summary of Comment: Union Carbide suggested exempting wastes in storage prior

to the effective data of the regulation from theepackaging and labeling

requirements.

Analysis of Comment:1 Union Carbide described its practice of storing packaged

wastes in a shielded facility for up to one year to allow decay of short-lived

nuclides and reduce exposures when wastes are shipped. Such reduction of

exposures is in the spirit of ALARA.- The-commenter suggests that if these

stored wastes must be repackaged, treated,',or relabeled, the exposures involved

would not be in the spirit of ALARA and these stored wastes should be exempted

from new requirements.

While staff agrees that, Union Carbide may have a valid point, the circumstances

are very individual. Case-by-case exemptions can be used to provide relief if

necessary. A short term detail' on implementation is inappropriate for a rule.

Union Carbides point has broader implications, that is should certain parts of

the rule be implemented in phases or steps. Application to existing sites was

briefly addressed in Issue A-1. For the manifest system and-waste Classes to

work on a national scale, the 26 Agreement. States must adopt conforming rules

to make them regulatory requirements. Practical implementation can be achieved

for data requirements and waste Class by amendments to the three existing site

licenses. 'The effective dates for the rule will have to be established by

working closely with State officials.

Rule Changes: Effective date(s) coordinated with States.

B-178
ISSUE GEN-4

Issue: Development of new sites

Commenters: Joseph H. White III (21)

Louise Gorenflo (71)

Oswald U. Anders (73)

Rule Citation: None

Summary of Comments: Joseph H. White III questioned the number and location

of new sites expected and the time-line for establishing new sites..

Louise Gorenflo was concerned about the lack of requirements for socio-economic

impacts of new sites in the rule. Oswald U. Anders questioned whether the

requirements in the rule would eliminate private enterprise developement of

new sites and Gorenflo suggested that private enterprise not be allowed to

develop new sites.

Analysis of Comments: The Commission does not know or control the number or

location of new sites that may be proposed. Under the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Act of 1980 (PL-96-573), Congress established a national policy

that States-are'responsible for providing disposal capacity for wastes generated

in th'eir State'with certain exceptions and that low-level wastes can'be most

safety and efficiently managed on a regional basis. The Act'authorized States

to enter into regional compacts to meet this responsibility. Currently, seven

compact groups are in various stages of development. The National Governor's

''Association identified 6,potential regional breakdowns. In the DOE[congressionally

mandated response to the Policy act'(DOE/NE-0015), 5-7 regional disposal sites

were estimated to be able to handle 'wastes''through the year 2000.. Three''sites

are currently operating.

Timing of any new sites is also uncertain at this time. The Policy Act'provides

that compacts can exclude out of compact wastes in January 1986. 'Sta'ff estimates

of the time to license a site is up to two years after submittal of an application. Submittal would be preceeded by 2-3 years of site selection,'-site

evaluation, data collection, and preparation of the application.

Dr. Anders expressed the view that the financial, procedural, and institutional

requirements would, as a practical matter, eliminate persons in the private

sector from developing new sites. He felt that the government would, have to.

assume responsibility by default because of the regulatory burden'.-The-proposed

rule represented an attempt to provide adequate assurances to potential landowners

and custodial agencies so that they would be willing to assume the role outlined

for them. It attempted to define and clarify existing understandings about

roles.' The ''ommercial firms prese'ntly operating sites did not share Dr. Anders'

view in their 'comments. No comments were received from other potential

commercial-operators. Eliminating commercial development was certainly not

the Commission's intent. '

Louise Gorenflo expressed concern over'the lack of land use and socio-economic

considerations in the rule. The experience of her rural county that was

considered for a new LLW facility was relayed. She indicated that certain

rural'land uses 'such as tourism and second home development'are not compatible

with LLW siting. Land adjacent to existing nuclear facilities was suggested.

.B-179
Land use and socio-economic factors are normally considered in the draft and

final EISs. Since Part 61 does not address the EIS requirements but defers to

10 CFR Part 51, no changes to the rulewere made based on the comment. The

proposed procedures require an EIS and her concerns would be addressed'as part

of that effort.

Rule Changes: None.

ISSUE GEN-5

Issue: De facto disposal sites

Commenter: Alfonso Scarpa (50)

Rule Citation: None.

Summary of Comment: The commenter was concerned that nuclear facilities

become de facto disposal sites.

Analysis of Comment: Mr. Scarpa expressed concern that facilities where'

radioactive materials are used and stored become contaminated and cannot be

totally decontaminated. The technology doesn't exit. The residual activity

means that these'sites are in fact disposal sites. He also made the point

that when activity from clean up efforts are consolidated at a disposal site

you then have two sites.

Mr. Scarpa offered no solution or suggested rule changes to address his concern.

Limits for residual activities in decontamination and decommissioning are the

subject of a separate policy development effort and are beyond the scope of

proposed Part 61. Residual levels not requiring'institutional control or

licensing should result from this separate effort. Consolidating wastes that

require institutional control to minimize the institutional burden seems to

make sense and is the thrust of Part 61.

Rule Changes: None.

ISSUE GEN-6

Issue: Need for GEIS

Commenter: Joel Jaffer (46)

Rule Citation: General

Summary of Comment: The commenter believed LLW disposal is hazardous enough

to require preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS).

Analysis of Comment: A comprehensive draft impact statement (DEIS) (NUREG-0782,

Volumes 1-4) was prepared in support of the proposed rule. The commenter did

not indicate knowledge of or problems with this document. The draft should

address the commenter's concerns that extensive analyses were part of the

decision process for the rule. The DEIS is not a generic statement on low

level wastes, however., It is a decision document for the rule. A final EIS

for Part 61 has also been prepared.

B-180
Rule Change: None.

i .. ISSUE GEN-7

Issue: Extend the comment period ..

Commenters: U.S.- Environmental Pro'tdcion'Agency. (11)

PA.Department of Envir'dmenrta Resources (16)

Dow Chemical (17)' .. Kerr-McGee' Corp (22) ,

-.- U.S.. Department ofEnergy(28)

-. ,. Sierra Club (37)."

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (no number)

Yakima Indians (74)'

Rule Citation: Expiration date for comments

Summary of Comments: Proposed Part 61 was published for comment on July '24,

1981. The comment period was set to expire October 22, 1981. The draft

environmental impact statement (NUREG-0782) was not announced until October 22,

1981. Additional time to prepare comments'and review the DEIS.was requested.

One commenter requested consideration of late comments.'

Analysis of Comments:' The requests for additional time-were reasonable and

the comment.period was extended until January 14, 1982-to coincide with the

90 day comment p'eriod on the DEIS (46'FR 51776 October 22; 1981). The Yakima

-request to-submit late comments was acknowledged by letter dated January 25,

1982. Staff indicated that'Yakima comments would be considered as fully as

possible and if the rule has been finalized when comments are received, they

will be considered in future modifications.

ISSUE GEN-8

Issue: Data base on wastes

_Commenter: Advisory Committee'on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) (10)'

Rule.Citation: None. . '

Summary.of Comment: The commenter calls'.for compilation of detailed inventories

on the quantities and specific radionuclide concentrations in the low-level

radioactive wastes buried in existing'disposal sites. The commenter states

that although this'effort may requi're the6development of instrumentation' to

identify and assess radionuclide concentrations in waste packages, such data

are essential if the NRC staff is to have a clear understanding of current

practices. The commenter further believed that such information is essential

if NRC staff are to be able to.ascertain the impact of various regulatory

actions , particularly the influence-of-the establishment of "de minimus"

concentrations for selected radionuclides in specified types of wastes.

Finally, the commenter felt'that 'such'information is also essential in''.order

to assess the impact of various restrictions on the types of wastes acceptable

for disposal in a given site.

B-181
IAnalysis of Comment: The comment is a straight forward recommendation for the

NRC staff to improve their data base on waste characteristics. As noted by

the commenter, NRC staff are already working to compile such an improved data

base. For example, NRC staff have completed contracts to acquire propriatory

disposal facility shipment manifests for the years 1978, 1979, and 1980.

Shipment manifests for the years 1981'arid 1982 will also be acquired. This

analysis has indicated that significant percentages of low level wastes by

volume and activity'are'not identifiable from' the records'as being generated

by a particular waste generator.' Such wastes are only identified by the shipment

broker. This observation led in part to the requirement in § 20.311 that the

original waste generators shipping waste to disposal facilities be specifically

identified in the shipment manifests. Other analyses of 1978 and 1979 shipment

manifests has led to estimates of the volume-percent distribution of gross

activity concentrations in LWR process waste streams. Such estimates have been

incorporated into the analysis for the Final EIS.

In addition to the above, NRC staff have ongoing a number of other contractual

efforts to improve their data base on waste characteristics. These include

the following efforts:

o a contract with Science Applications, Inc. to perform sampling and

radiochemical analysis of LWR power plant waste;

o an ongoing contract with Brookhaven National Laboratory to analyze

characteristics and potential improved packaging of some specific

high activity fuel cycle and nonfuel cycle waste streams, and

o a contract-with Pacific Northwest Labo'ratory under NRC's Office of

Research to more completely characterize wastes generated from

decommissioning of LWR power plants.

Further information on waste characteristics is expected to be gained as part

of further analysis of specific waste streams for possible disposal by less

restrictive means (i.e., "de minimis" waste streams").

In summary, although NRC staff believe that the current data base on waste

characteristics is sufficient at this time to arrive at regulatory decisions

regarding near-surface waste disposal, improvements to this data base are

warrented. NRC staff has an ongoing program to acquire such improvements.

Some of this additional data has already been used in finalization of the

draft Part 61 rule. Additional data' acquired will be used to determine

potential additional technical requirements, develop additional regulatory

guidance, and develop improved procedures to analyze waste disposal and license

.new and existing disposal facilities.

Suggested Rule Change: None.

ISSUE GEN-9

Issue: Hearing transcripts to incorporate for the record

Commenter: Themis Klotz (42)

Rule Citation: None.

B-182
Summary of Comment: The commenter expressed general concern about nuclear

matters and requested that the record of two hearings be incorporated into the

record.

Analysis of Comment: The hearings referenced by the commenter were 1) Oceanography

Subcommittee, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, held in Faneuil Hall, Boston, Massachusetts, September 21, 1981 and

2) Falmouth, Massachusetts Board of Health, held at the Town Hall on October 15,

1981.

The Oceanography Subcommittee hearings had not been printed as of February 25,

1982. Subcommittee staff indicated on February 25, that the hearings were at

the printers and should be available in about a month. The' transcript is

available for inspection in House Annex 2, Room 550. The hearings included

past ocean disposal of radioactive wastes in Boston Harbor and beyond. Ocean

disposal is beyond the scope of proposed Part 61 and'permit authority lies

with the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the request to place the

record of the hearing into the'record without comment is noted.

The Falmouth Board of Health hearings referenced did not address radioactive

wastes according to Dr. Jones who was chairman of the Board when these hearing

were held. The issue was related to hazardous waste and was prompted by an

incident involving pesticide spraying of a highway right-of-way. The relevancy

of these hearings is unclear but the commenter's request is noted.

B-183
ISSUE ED-1

Issue: Editorial Comments

Commenters:

Summary of Comn

clarifying lanc

numbering error

State of Nevada (14)

Pennsylvania (16)

Dow Chemical (17)

Department of the Enviornment, London (19)

Joseph H. White III (21)

Law Engineering (34)

Union of Concerned Scientist (36)

Union Carbide (39)

Bechtel National, Inc. (44)

Arizona State Clearinghouse (47)

Union Oil Company of California (66)

Argonne National Laboratory (68)

South Dakota (69)

Georgia Institute of Technology (70)

The University of Texas Medical Branch (75)

Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (81)

Northeast Utilities (85)

American Nuclear Society (87)

General Electric (89)

Arkansas Power and Light Company (94)

Health Physics Society (96)

Atomic Industrial Forum (100)

U.S. Ecology (101)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors

Carolina Power and Light Company (106)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (107)

NC Department of Human Resources (119)

New England Nuclear (NELRAD) (110)

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (113)

Kerr-McGee (115)

Tennessee Valley Authority (116)

Texas Department of Health (117)

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (118)

Department of Energy (119)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (122)

(103)

and (113)

ients:

3uage,

IS.

The commenters made a variety of recommendations for

definitions, etc. and identified typographical and

Analysis of Comments: The comments were each considered and adopted where

consistent with the intent of the rule.

B-184
e, 3, /5

HOMeST'AKE MINING COMPANY

50 CALUPOmtNIA SISKt1 ' 3ts 'L005

SAN RqANCISCO. CALIVORNIA *.$Ca C_ "c.no

,, ,,pR 2t, July 3o, 198i

(4G FPZ EG I

Secretary of the Conm'sslon

-r. S. Yuclear Requlatory CCtirnrssion

washinqgon, a.C. 20535

Attns Cocket'r.g aid Se. iie 3Braneh

Genrtle meni

,i_ ;

. t'~4a 

t~2, 20,1l 30 0,sot),

0/.7t O)} 10.3j 7 (q(6 PK 38081) /-7j-1

~ -u A . /

I The preosed rule Published by ?t .e nclnar

*gulat.ory Ccrmijssior-In the ?aed~ral- Registor on

<Jly 24"t1981, ad!dinqag Ao new 7ate61 to 10 CrR; should

A (j. tv~sed to more clearl.*, gxEuIide -Ianium mil-'

IlIn'Ags ande oti.er wAste lmnerarted in iev nuclear

!Ulcycle !rC= the dqfitto 14s f fon

t Sec f1.2. .on -.

Thank.you ver( much.-

Jchn mcImutn.

-As3:!3tVa Counsel

_ O'".

H Y 0

;; 6ef, oeS < 4.2

I¢- tv-n . el2! tr ~ ,

0$!C02aO 3 3:O

. 49ice C 24914 0

38

2 1 Plo730

2 46PR38081 PDR

B-185
..| 1: : wt . .

, .

-7 el 4, W i'O 77L,- 7,;so / i8~~-W144t/ .v

* tW 5<vg ~ ve~ S~ja 0Xet ;,2e19. 820

\t %>iS o - / r ED ;?--;LEP 2 ID q2 i. <. 5 Z AWG 65r OR> x f i- U:EO R~tE P~ s ,>

D# ? 54-,r ^Fc61,Fom

-; v 77, -- seeZ.'

gs ~ ~ ~ ~ AW7; Xt .-z 2 isJU 7yrs G#J 7- f<

o"17 " rhzs, ti3r nN

r aw £ i t~5 "Os /ofre-4dpt ,4< /pexlgA-

/5Z 5, :f5 , 7 *ee- ADO'q

, ;S ?4t, <'crc-, s D w /r # 7 'rc4D li M :7s

C-a > .. . /s-, 4a

tRICE C2

5epteamcer Ill, 19sai

CW G S. G.u~U P2.D

- r ia -i I "I".' .or. ae .9 ....-- _ I * ^ .1 St rotary of tne Czomission OS9/

U.S. isuclear Regulatory Coramission (,, WI

Washington, D.C. 205Xo _

Attention: :ocxeting and Service 3rmcnri ?G t= NUL rRI w1 o 'ear Mr. Whlk: C 6 3c

.he f'oliowing are r -commendaticns and c met~s from :he S5:3:e of New Mexico regarding the arocosed rulemaking for 10 CF1 6 for land ats~osal of radicactive wastes which was puolish-ed in the Federal Rec'ster on July 24, 1981.

Pace

C-_3 LM

8ac4

)-50- 3

oat8

R_\

tvvcE3

Coluwn Line ,iecanmendattonS and C:=xzlnts

27 Rec: cend wording read "learlst ;ubl iv or 3H1vate existing cr future zotential crrnlng

Water su,.oiy.'

1 25 Recotnannd mallo'n 3f ort-sent text after

"'urface ia-arl and sucst':u:'ion of --he

following: 'The :o;-n:1al .'or flocaina

Should -e low4.n su n a ir~

3 Zsa .'he Summary ;f the prccosea rsjis stat#

1: oculd :e - e. C:nmmsslon's inten : l-na all fu- '~s'oula :e 2XD~o~czad

siy .1ta:-.t :.e :y-slns s- :lr- l.' ~rearl;'s i.4uld 4..;gn1z* na- ir.

Arewwe~nz -Sates .- ;uia:'sns -.ust ,e on.- -rul;a-&c :.y 'zcal iuthcrtits.

3 ,2i';:StateS ' ....t.ne rteul-l:ons i~n -Mls :ar:. ;:ol. --: ai ;arsvns !n t.-a _n': S:&azas., ,in lacci:cral scal.;se Ircull. :e Weds -o zJIls sen:nc to -is: I...i--:ats eFre :n-e orannss!'cn

B!3Q'z0!25 31Cs::

: 16FI35Ce: PCR

B-186
AdVANCE MEdiCAI & RESEARCh CENTER, INC.

Mr. Samuel 1270 CORIS ROAO * PONTIAC. MIC);IGAN *8057 * 3t:-173-912 J. Chilk

September l:, 1981

Page -2-

Pace Column Line Reconmendations and Ccmments

t38098 2 33 Recommend the word 'eliminate4d be replaced by

\ Zminimized.'- Elimination of cngcing active.

maintenance may be the goal but It orobably will not Xe met. This fact Is recognized in

61.63(a) Dy the words 'ny recuired raintenance."

:38099 1 47 Recommend the word 'may' be rePlac;ed-by 'shall., F-.. I nThis function Should be In cbligaticn of : Director.

38100 1 15 - Recomnend deletion of words 'if any,' lIcensees

should be required to furnish an annual financial

g - 2) - -report.. -

u for prmv id he opportunity for cmment cn tue proosed rule.

CGorge S. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Secretary

G551:t~b w

1981 7

(9' FR ~ September 1S,

Secretary of the Commission. / 67..

U.S. N:uclear Regulatory C6mnission / S c4 S C li a'

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Sranch %: 47

To Whom ItMay Concern: ,-

This letter is in regard to proposed regultio&c.I' afi disposal of low

level radloactive-waste.

As per Section 61.S4. Table I states that with any isotope with a half-life

of less than 5 years, the minimu requirements for all classes of waste must

be followed as per Section 61.56.

Most medical diagnostic laboratories perform in vitro t-sting in which the

isotope used is of short half-life of about 60 days (I1 ). These isotopes ar packaged in kit for. of about 10 uCl/1G0 tube kits. Instead of stating

that the instructions In Section 61.56 be followed, can't there be an alternative measure? As an alternate with isotopes of short half-life, make a

ate ory whereby t-ey are set aside and allowed to decay to the background

level. The waste is then monitored with a Survey Meter and if no counts

above background, tnen dispose of this waste with the usual solid waste.

If all solid radioactive waste is to be disposed of as per Section 61.56,

there would be tremendous volume of waste that would fill the disposal site

rapidly and needlessly. Much of the 1125 Isotope waste will decay after seve- ral half-lives down to acceptable level and this isotope along with FeE9

,

CoS7 and 1131 and some other isotopes of short half-lives used in a blinical

setting should be ;1 en another-classification.

Sincerely,

John Pappas Associate Director

JP/dg

9109220269 .109f5

PDR PR 2 46FR2SCS1 POR

B-187
TKIt *OCTtI 4 C-lU COMPANY

* - THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

CINCIN-T14. o-e -Sl'

IvOtyukit *tCp..C~k CthTtl

(ji) Sepber 14, 1981

,73,'7/00

C6j FR3fOI) /

r s! Secretary or the L4Jsu.n

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission

Washingtcn, D.C. 2055D

Attention: Docketing and Service Eranch

F#g A OT-,>0CTI -F R~L-OAC-J- WA~S1'

NIuclear Regulatory aai40n

Pag 2

September 14, 1981

5'" "c Con:: "s ^ee^-~'r

|he term "chesioal form" is mot clear. lt wculd aot always be poss'ble or

useful to specify an exact chemical species (for exampla with research wastes

from a biological research or medical facility) or to list the many species

.'ra multiple experiments. Further, this requirement could represent a serious

secturty problem if the exact identity of research Chemicals bad to be listed

4_ /on a pu blc ercst. It ahould be sufficient for waste disposal purpoae to

list the 2er- chemical form (i.e., complex organic acid, animal carcass).

Wie recmmend the word 'enenral" be inserted before the words "temical form" at

the end of the secced sent nce of this paragrapn.

2

This wording is not entirely clear. It could be interpreted tW require that a

personal auit be conducted by an-aement as a part of a quality assurance

prog*ra-to assure compliance with SS61.55 and 61.56. 'Se believe it is intended

- to require (and it is certainly sufficient to require) that audits be done and

results be repcrted to manageWent. Ox specif'c proposed rewording is:

Concuct a quality assurance ;rograz to assuxe compliance

with Wj61.55 and 61.56 of this chapter; audit results t

be reported to management.

There is a serious coverreport'ng system described by these porticrn for Class A

wastes. The difficulty Ls that these are wr:iten to cover nore serious

concerns associated with shipments of ClaO s C wastes and yet are applied with

eqal rigcr to Class A ship;ents. In particular tle one weec ackc6 wledgent

requirement for recei7er of ship=e.ts and the requirements for the snippers to

investigate ard file reports an all shipments missing for 20 days is

M-I Overreaction -ith Class A shipcents. This overburden will be. laid princ'pally

on researn faciit:es, hospitals and academ-a. -

We urge that shipments qua!ifyng as Class A wastes be exemptec from the

aockowledan * tracing and reporting timing re~qurements and that it simply be

stated that these ac:tvities ceed to be done and documented. Certainly

reporting to the Cciss ic Inspection and frcrcemenc Regional Cffice should

not be reqaired, but the records should s l be maintained by the ship;-er and

be availale for the rora &RC inspection.

We recommend that the foliowIrg wcrding be adopted:

Dear Sir:

This is to provi4e the comtents of the Procter & Gamble Cocpany upon toe

proposed regulat:cns covering specific licensing requirements for land disposal

of radioactive waste published in toe 7edrs ?Recs-t on Friday,

July 24, 1981, pages 32081-16104. While Procter & Gamble ls not directly

involved In such disposal cperation, we do utilize sall aeounu of

radioactive materials for research purposes requ''ing eventual disposal. he

sub.ecc proposal does contain some provisions that pertain to waste generatcrs,

even those 'nvolvlng only a11l amounts of research materials. ilus, Procter &

Gamble Is potentially affected.

In general, we agree with the "-'% ica's proposal and 6rste classification

system. Our prin-cipal concern wi'th the proposal Is toe manifest system. Te

problem is the C aission has failed to carry through its waste classification

system Into toe anifest system. As a result, the manifest system is

appropriate and sef'.l for Class C wastes but is too burdensome and of little

/ value 'or lass A wastes. Certainly the timing and reporting Specifics are

M * Overldll f:r the a11 stipments of Class A *astes trat cc=only or-gsiate from

research laboratories and medical fac:lties. Such overrequiremer.t are in

d'-ect conflict with the Governent's stated goal of eliin:ing/avog

unneessary re-ulatory burdens.

We would urge that C-ass A wastes be exempted comletely from t-e manifest

system of these proposed regulations or at least tne overly rigid tmr.g and

reporting aspects cf this oar.iest system. In the remainder :f these c Ueot,

we address specific concerns of the proposal and provide revised worc'n;.

B-188
!

rI' otoCITIR a G~LI CO."*NY

muclear Fegulatory C=issiRo

Page 3

September 1U. 1981

Bet/ehera Seel Corporafion'

September I,, .Mf

¢ i ' *...

I 9 September 14, 19t l

A.L -*~ A6

20 311(e)(1)

20.311(f)(1)

20.311(h)(1)

2311(h)(2)

Aclkowledge receipt of the waste fM the generator; within One

week for Class 3 and C wastes.

Acknowledge rece4it cf the waste fron the generator; within one

week ror Class B and C wastes.

Be investigated by the shipper i. the shipper has not received

r.otif4caticst of receipt; within 20 days after tre?-sfer for

Class 3 and C wastes.

Be traced and for, Class B 2nd C wastes be reported. Mhe

investigation sha21 include tracing the shipment and for Class B

and C wastes t' '-; a report uith the nearest Cc=4itsion

1nspection and Ltfercement Pe5ional Office listed in Appendix D

of this part. Fach licensee uho conducts a trace Mnvestigation

or a Class or C waste shall fle a written report with the

nearest Cciss3on' s Begi.cr.al Office within 2 weeks of the

cccpletion of this Investigatiot.

-Secretary of tCe'Cormislontla

U. S. Nudear Regulatory Commitsio A z t

Washington, DC 20555 ;-*

Actention: Docketing and Service Brarch

Gentlement .~e~

Ret Proposed Rulemaking on Land Disposal of Low Level

Radioactive Waste, 10 CFR Par: 61, published in rme

Federal Retister, VoL t6, No. 12, Friday, 3uly 2t,

- 1. oates 3SCSI3S105:

4enietneen Steel Corporation would like clarificatlon on certain points of the Dro~od5Ae rulc

We usge the C=:ission to exeapt Class A wastes trom the proposed marifest

syaten cr at least th4e tisr.g and reportirg aspects of the system so that tt is

=re appropriate for the -sall risks and anounts of research wastes involved

2rnd avoids trl.ecessary regulatory perJOk a-d roporting.

Very truly yours,

Dr. Prald T. ibooker, Associate Cirector

Researa!h & Develottent

Regulatory Services Division

.71 J Please Indicate :te conditions required so permit sealed sources conrtaning

relatively long lived hard gamma emitters such as cobalt 60 or cesium 137,

*t be Classifled as Class A - Segregated Waste or Class 5 - Stale aste.

The language in the "Suoplementary rnformatien' accompanying the

proposed rulemaking seems to imply that sealed sources would have to be

classified as Class C - intmuder Waste.

2. The notes below Table I, on page 38C97, a-pear to indicate that by

enclosirg a 2^0 rrllicurte. cesium 137 sealed source, having a capsule

volume of 6 crn, In aa 55 S2llon drurm, it is pernissIble to average the 250

milicunies cver the ff gallons to obtain a concentration ot:

2M0.=00 .nlc-ocure5 . 1.Z uCitcm3

whlct meets the limit-s for Class A - Segregited *Vaste; as cpoosed to

2sC.000 mic-oc.rles , 33.333 uCi;-n 3

which exceeds even the limits !or Class C - Intruder Wavte and would be

prohibited in a low level waste dirsosal site. 's out rn.erprematon of o ;s

Oint correc:?

'I' ID

SIC92MC221 SIC"I4

2D PRb~S9 PDA

B-189
Bethlehem S/eel Corporation

-2-

UNIVERSM OF CAUFORNL'. LOS ANCELES UCLA

.Ui"U - 0.tls * W1I5 L""Gew 2 W*(JMeI 5 0.9DECO 5*3F F8A.C0CO Ia &~. - ,- U7 s

coDM?4LNf" SAIrM OUArI4NT

OTC1 Of ALSLAACK & OCCUATIONAL SAEEOT LOS &NCflU CAUFOLNA OW1 D-5-VLclssiie~asClass ca Our interpretation as given in item (2) is correct and Sealed Sources Can be A or Clas B, we feel that the Proposed rule is reasonable. W ol

aprcaeyour commients and Clarification in that -re-gar-C - ewol

Sincerely yours,

A. r. MoI i , r., ScD.

Manager of Envkonmen al Heath

cc: R.Dale Smlth, Chief

Low Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20355

17, 1981

Secretary of the Comrission C. c * 5

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comtission n c;,: .t/

Washington, D.C. 20555 -. , - *

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch -A.

.ear Sirs:

Re: Proposed Rulemaking on Land Oisposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

In general, we think that the croposed amendments to the various parts of Title

10 Code of Feceral Regulations dealing with land disposal of rao10active waste are beneficial and desirable. However, we want to conmen: specifically on several

proposed changes as follows:

Part 20.311 (b): Compliance with the recuirenient that the shipment manifest contain

the cnemical form of the waste Is virtually impossible for research and hospital wastes. 1-I 1 In some cases the chemical form may literally be unknown and in all cases the variety of cnemical compounds that could be in the waste from one laboratory will be very large.

Pernaps tnis requirement could ce rewritten to apply only to pure material

Present in 5uantities greater than a Specified mirnlimu. That Is, containers of known crepcunds ex:eeding scee specified ;uan:ity (iay 500 ;ms.) would ce identfieC, 'ut

aste con:aririazed wi:r some chemicai would no: be identified.

Part 11..O (a) ';) ie a3preciate the ccn:ern for avoiding areas where tectonic

I orocasses (faulting. etc.) could affec: :ne size integrity. However. tne ortsent wcrolng would prcoacly Take ': difficult or Impossible to locate a site in California.

yet rea;'stica:7y there Is no :3ocelling scientific reason rc: :: bury low level

;-~o-•S radIoactive waste - even where sore f!r::ing ^as cr -ay occur. In view of ITTof the o:her restrictins 7_verning site selection anC recuirerents :n waste packaging, it seems h'ghly unlike y :nat even mal or ;rounC faulting wcu% release -ad!oaczlve

terlal to :re ocouled human environment.

B-190
N. Il , -

Se:retary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission

Septenmer 1?, 1981

Page 2

A/ We hope that this section can be reworded to minimize the restriction on the

-p-5bb Zextstence of faulting and seismic activity In the area of the disposal site.

Part 61.56 (Il: Ue th1ink that orohibitino the use of cardboard or fiberboard boSes

*or low levet radioactive waste is unnecessary and may be short-sichted. It seems

to us that one of the most oromising methods for disposal of this type of waste is

1nenerat10n. _rardord boxes could be Introduced directiX into an incinepratr.

me;- tal dr'.mi wOuld have to b- unnar. . -

I h sin hi could be modified by ylatinr certain limits on the total

ouatlt ofact~i~ethat can be placed tnacrbadbox - rather than totaiiy orchibit1ng such containers.

Part 61.56 (b) (l)::This section would also orohibit eardboard boxes 4nd mossibly o metaLdrums., Aain for low level wast, we feel ths- th*1 *rn, **.Mrx hu1yytt I re ent s unnecessary. h. t-1a 1elif if C.1-itad a .ing n 1 Nrer-t d

Jtrittep-i,. * id M"vide 1 deeute rnntslnL'est for low level waste. Struetural

P-g 61- Atapil1tv of the primOary container is relatively insignificant - particularly over

a time span of several hunereo years.

Incidentally, incineration is again at attractive alternative as it processes e waste into a more stable forn (ashes).

Thank you for your consideration-of these comments.

- -Very Truly Yours,

Walter F. Wegst

Di rector

Resear:h and Occuoational Safety

Certified Health Physicist

WrPAml

ENVURONMEW(AL LAW PROJEC(/j 0'Oe

Scbool of,064-A A f 8i Z | unioit ONorth C&OUn : d 5

Chapel l=C 27514

Tel: 919/962-3780, 968-9534

Comments on proposed rules for Land Disposal of Low-Level 'Jasze,

46 P.R. 38081 (1981).

The Environsental Law Project is concerned about the proposed regulations for several reasons. These are:

tl) pre-emption of state laws, particularly with regard to

siting;

(2) possibility of transfer of license with inadequate safeguards;

(3) the fact that hearings must be requested, and are otherwise not required; end

(4) the limited time that licensees are required to monitor

sites after closure.

1. Pre-emntion of state law: As we: read the Atomic Znergy Act,

articularly sections 42 U.S.C.A. t2021(c) and (j), it is our

understanding that the Co'oistiorn still reserves the power to

anvrove and license a disposal facility without and even In

direct contradiction of, the benefit of state law. See Pacific

Levtl Soewdct40n v. State inerrr Resources Conservation ard

Develornent Connission, 472 F.Supp. 191, 199 (D.C. S.Cal. 1979-,

which reaffirms the general pre-emptive powers of the Conmission. _5pecially in light of ?.L. 96-573, which makes it the re_

soensibility of the states to ;rovide disposal capacity, it

is 'our contention. that some form of final approval must be

vested with a local, preferably state, government. Specific

; -rlxw e to this effect in the regulations wcu'd resolve this

lsternt ambiglrt7 In favor of more responsibility for :hose governrntts whIch Congress intended to have prilary res-o.nsibIlity

for locating disposal sites. -

(2. Poessbil'ty of transfer: The license of an operati:g disposal

sit3 =01anparentl7 bi transferred under the prp-;ose! reguiat-

!- ,=orn; although we would presume that the sane requ'reets for

B-191
?age 2

financial security, etc., would be necessarily met before the

oc=;ission gave its consent, it would be much =ore comfortirg

to have it spelled out in black and White In the final rule.

That is, that transferees will be subject to all licensing restrictions that original licensees are subject to, which must

be shown prior to granting approval of the tra.-sfer. This would

also be useful in generating evide-ce c. record in case or

ture problems with the new operator.

3. eerings: Hearings may be requested by interested parties

subject to the procedures in 10 C.P.2. §2. 10'. Our experience

with this procedure, and the nature of the activity contemplated

under this rule, make it imperative that public hearings be a

routine part of the licensing process. The hearrngs should be

conducted where the site is proposed, not in Washington or ar.y_

where else that night be at the Commissicn's or appllcant's co..-

venlence. Therefore, the rule should be amended to require public hearings, as well as the rormal Adversary type hearings, at

or suitably near the troposed site. Applicant or the Commission

would be required to publicize these hearings at least two months

in adv!.nce, to give residents an opportunity to make satisfactory

Lnvestigaticns of their own. in additicn, It mIght also be heloSul to establIsh public document rooms near waste facilities

simIlar to those now required near nuclear power plants.

j. 'ine limitaticns: We think the five-year active zonitor ..0

prhase requlred by the proposed rule 96i.29 is far too short.

Zxperlence with o:ter low-level sites has shown that migration

.as ofte- gone undetected for long periods or tl.e, and can

A occur in totally unexpeczed an! unforeseen ways. *r.-a±izioro

-t past exp;ri-rce with licensee monitcrir; aroo power plants

lea-s us to'ex-ea: that monitor'-g efforts x'li be ro more than

the m:Inimum requlred by the Commission, a-.- that consequently

detection of wribllms xll be unlikel7. At leas: ten years of

some form of 3c::'3 -cn':cr'ng s-ees to be required, and perhaps -ore _s-lrg :he experience gained at ::axey Flats. Soam

Page 3

specific provision for additional monitoring if determIned

necessary by geologic or other conditions would be helpful.

f5. Othe: Cne additional weakness we noted is that licensee

soes not apparently need to submit a detailed closure plan at

the time of application, but that this will only be required

as closure approaches. We heartily-agree with the philosophy

that site operation should be. almed at all times toward closure,

but would like to see a stricter requirement on applicants at

the time of applicatIon to have detailed closure plans, subject-to amenAment with Commission approval when so required

by developments during operation, prepared when applying. Section i6i.53(d) requires the lIcensee to have plans ready In

case of migration: is this a realistic requirement? Since the

robable problem would be groundwater conta-inaticn, we think

it unlikely that licensees will be able to do anything about

it. Specific language that licensees would be required to inify well-users in case of-mlgration would thus be preferable, Sect'on §61.31 refers to the duty placd on llcensee to

£- I perform 'minor custodIal activitIes' after closure.-What about

,ajor activities? Again, specific language placing financial

responsibility for these on the licensee would be useful in

removirg potential ambiguity. In addition, it appears that

by virtue of the omission of major duties (such as cleanup)

and the Commission's discretionary power to apply these rules

retroactIvely to exIsting sites, the stage could possibly be

set for a taxpayer-funded ballout of pcorly-rns exIsting an!

'roperative sites, like &:axey Flats ard Jest ' Vlley. 'e feel

:hs: -he Industry shoul c ear these coats, and the re, a:':rs

shoul: be written to make sure that this is done.

Fina:ly, an interesting philosophical questIon is raised

by the statement at L6 F.B. 38085 that one hundred years Is the

lor.gest 'hat *govern.mental institutIons shoull be relled cn to

carry cut actIve controls.' Given the problems to date Of our fr -in litLy to solve the hjgh-level wAste dilema, andA the fact

that even the nost optImistic predicticns estimate that hih-.11

8-192
Page 4

level waste (and other low-live! waste cotsaininr Isotopes

such as Fu_239 and U-238S) can remain toxic for up to 600 years,

5 s this not an admission that we are cr-atin a Problem for

*uture .enerations that we or.'t think they'l be able to

solve, and that we ourselves can barely handle? As a catter

of' philosophic good sense and goc-n moral conduct, this statement would seeo to require the ccosation of any producticr of

lonr-lived radioacttve waste.

Co-ents prepared by Daniel ?'. Read.

9.1 1"

UNITED sTATCS

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUASS~ WA"HINro. 0D.C. 2O

September 16, 1981

Honorable Nunzio -J. Palladino (g, Y0r09)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SU8JECT: REPORT ON PROPOSED RULEON 'LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE UASTEDear Dr. Palladino:

During Its 257th meeting. Septetber 10-12, 1981, the Advisory, Cormittee on Reactor Safeguards met with the NRC Staff and representatives of the U.S.

Department of Energy and the Comnonwealth of Kentucky to discuss the pro- posed rule on *Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radloactive

Uaste' (10 CFR 611. This was also the subject of a meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittee on Waste Management held in Washington, O.C. on September 3.

1981.

1. General Comnments . -

On the basil of thts sview, we offer the following general conments:

a. Adequacy of Prooosed Rule ; ;

The proposed rule contains criteria which should asiure lmprovement in the siting, design and.operation of near-surface radioactive waste disposal facilities., Concurrent with this effort

should be a continuation of work to seek~betlir cl±LLAmg .a tnls asnabl wel. as A completion of thC esta lishn'ent o afor deeperl r- II ~ _A1an so -oee ri te

possible disposal of.such wastes n tne sea. In addition, the rocesses that result in the production of the wastes need to beaddressed. Att tttLt be hhould th for X-5G-zfI reducing the vol s of wasten for uring that

at ar _r e ar in becnvre to. a

b. Aoplicability to EListing Disposal Facilit es

The rule states that many of the operational characteristics re- quirements proposed are In effect at currently licensed low-level

radioactive waste disposal facilities and that such facilities .A-1 , ,, ., ..

.:I

'-'

B-193
Honorable Nunzio J. Pa11a41no - 2 - September 16, l39s Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino - 3 - SePtember 16, 1981

should have no difficulty In complying with the Suggested require- ? Ients. The requirements for sites where operations have been ter- I minated because of disposal problems are not Covered by the proposed rule. The MAC Staff has stated that methods for decommissioning the terminated facilities are to be enumeratel in regulatory guides issued in support of the proposed rule. It should be recognized, however. that development of satisfactory guidance for such actions

may be difficult. Several of these sites contain wastes toat include plutonium and other long-lived radionuclides which appear to

b in contact with water.

c. Types and Ouantities of Wastes Subject to Ofsoosal

Development of the proposed rule has revealed certain deficiencies

in data, particularly with respect to the compilation of detailed

inventories on the quantitias and specific radionuclide concentrations In the low-level radIoactive wastes buried in existing dis- G4-C posal sites. The MAC Staff Is currently compiling such data. Although this effort may require the development of Instrumentation

to identify and assess radionuclide concentrations in waste packages, such data are essential if the ARC Staff is to have a clear understandfng of current practices and If they are to be able to ascertain the impact of various regulatory actions. particularly the influence of the establishment of Ge minimus' concentrations

for selected radionuclides in specified types of wastes. Such

information is also essential in order to assess the impact of

various restrictions on the types of wastes acceptable for dis- posal In a given site.

2. Specific Coinnents

in terms of comments on specific topics within the proposed rule, we offer the following:

a. Time Spans for Various Requirements

There appears to be a lack of clarity within the proposed rule relative to the time spans over which the various design requirements are to apply. It would be helpful to Include a cltar statement

that restrictions, such as those pertaining to floods, erosion, and water drainage, are to apply through the time of site closure as well as the period of Institutional control. In contrast to th1is

there would appear to be little necessity for specifying a need to observe long-tore tectonic changes potentially affecting the site.

(b Avoidance of Soil Subsidence

T) he proposed rule implies that the waste form plays a major role in .D-62 \-Z sail subsidence that has frequently been observed in land disposal facilities In the past. Since experience shows that subsidence S 6 results from a variety of factors, including primarily the manner In which the waste packages are placed in the ground, this portion f the proposed rule may need to be reevaluated and revised.

Restrictions on Tyoes of Wastes

The proposed rule contains a number of limitations on the types of S - wastes that may be disposed of In a land facility. These include 3 restrictions on pyrophorics, explosives, wastes that generate ikct toxic gases. etc. There are also requirements.on the Ostability- of the wastes, without a clear definition as to what this means, and on the minimu1 compressive strength for the wastes, which Cculd

unduly increase the volumes to be buried. We believe tha:t hese

restrictions and requirements need-to be carefully assessed, both

from the standpoint of their enforceaoility and overall implica- tions.

d. 01sposal of Chelating Agents

the proposed rule would not allow the disposal In surface .land facilities of-wastes containing greater than 0.l: chelating agents.

T Since such agents are present in a wide variety of radioactive

t5a - wastes (for example. In decontaminating solutions), this provision could exclude many wastes from burial. In our discussions, the ARC

Staff indicated that their intent is not to exclude sucri wastes

from burial but to make the disposal of such wastes subject to

tneir approval. The fact that consideration of the disposal of such stes may have to be handled on a case-by-case basis needs to be

emphasized.

In closing te Committee would like to note vat, at the present time, there

is a shortage of facilities in the U.S. for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. Therefore, it is important that the MAC move forward to com- plete the development of criteria for the establishment of such additional

acilites. At the same time, as pointed out above, It is important that 6at.tention be directed to means for reducing the amounts of such wastes

nroduced, and assuring that those that are produced are in a form compatible ( th dspcsala ui 1a also omportane do vigorously pursue amternatlves to

dhallow sad buria as a means for the disposal op such materials parttc- ularly In view of the problems that have been encountered with land burial

sites located In areas of tne U.S. with high precipitation.

Sincerely,

J. Carson Mark

Chairman

8-194
T I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

SEP. 11 cJ9o

Mr. R. Dale Smith

Division of Waste Management. 4t Q3

Office of Nuclear Materials

Safety and Safeguards

tl.S. sNuclear Regulatory Commssion ?k~f|t

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear .r. Smith:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is presently

reviewing proposed regulations for the Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. These proposed

rules (10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40. S, 61, 70, 73

and 170) were published for public comment on July 24,1981,

with corments due to you October,22, 1981 (46 FR 38081).

The Federal' Register notioe refeienced an Environmental

|mpact Statement (EIS) which still has not been distributed.

| We have been told that this ESSwtll-be'more than 1,000

pages in length. Accordingly, we would like to request that

I NRc onsider formally changing the due date for corments on

/the rule to coincide with the date that comments will be due

on the draft EIS. This would allow both documents to be

-ev'iewed simultaneously.

Should you have any questions concerning our request, please

contact Dr. W. Alexander Williams of my sta!f (755-0790).

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely yours, S I

William N. Hedeman, Jr.

Director

Cffice of Federal Activities

Naina.cenc n Am peieA mlltwte

t g U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

, NVPQCNMNTAL. A1311AoC ,.AOAMOntEgS #, loera. Caledsua oc

September 11., 198)'

TO: R. Dale Smith, Chief

Lov-Level Waste Licensing 0gy'O5E) 'ran 

Division of Waste Management o lit 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemmission

Washington, D. C. 20533

FROM: Willia Tklcs/aki,,Chiib

Supply Sstmces Divisi

SUBJECT: Proposed Rulemaking on Land Disposal of Lov-Level Radioaceive

Wastc

Reference your letter of 7 August, 1981, subject as above.

This Agency uses several extremely loelevel radioactive sources that

are alL self-contained sealed units. Disposal or turn-in of these units

are handled through agreement with the University of Colorado located

adjacent to our facilities. This Agency does not use any liquid radioisotope materials that could apply to subject rulemakingtac this time.

Sased on the above, no comeents, suggestions or recommendations are

o submitted relative to the proposed rulemaking.'

CC: J. A. Kemper -

Jack Cooper

. //

N

.. V

.. . :61

CO~)

2 16FRUSC81PU

SIC92!0269 3109l4

-. 6FIR:5C8 PCR

B-195
FOR: Secretary of the Commission /

U.S. Nuclear Regulitory Commission I.

Waehington, M 20555

PROM: Catherine Wi2 research director a W"

Pollution & EnvIronmental P:vblens, Inc.

P.O. Box 309 Palatine, Illrnois 60067

(312/38169

SBJ3:T: PROPOSED RULEMAX1, ON LAND :SnOSAL OP LOW LEVD

RAMOACTIVE WASTE: lPSF61 g

2 S!A=S OP COMMMCIAL RHU WASTE UN2I lXP8 2AR2 61 uLE C 7 Zs

| Nin , its proposed rule lOCFR61 on land dispOsal or low levol Iradioacive waste, categorizes transaranic (WU) waste as Class 3

I er ! sAn Ste . Class 3 waste 3s waste that ha radiolaopset0 concencridhonthat exceeds 10 nanocuries per gra= (iC/g), is ns er~allr acceptable for near-surface disposal., ad shall not be

|isposed or without specific Cone-aion t,(NW) approval.

XMs3 Nu proposed rule (lOCcPR61.ection 61.58) states the Mc

"may upon request or ±ts own initiative, authorize other provisions

for-the classification and charater-stics of waste on a specific basis, if, after evaluation, of the speclifc characteristics Of

the waste, disposal site, and method Or disposal, it finds reasonable assurance of copliance with the performneobjeoteves in Subpart C

of this part." TSubpart C is'a discussion Of performance objectives

for land disposal facilities -- criteria fbr siting, operation, closure and control aftr closures.

The N7C has succumbed to Industry pressure and has proposed a weak, ineffectual rule on u which will allow zoore than 10 nZl/g of nu to be considered for land burial on a case by case basis,

R. Dale Smith, chief of the NM Is low level waste licensing division,

told me (Sept. 15, 1981) that lOCPR61 will supercede other regulat-ons

(or lack thereof) regarding commercial disposal of M;I waste in

shallow land sites.

?AGE rT.

1XFR61

) he ME said an alternative to land disposal would be required for

defense 'MU waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Comiaston (NMC) and its

Agee=ec States took a more lax approach. Because of pressure from s (which wanted to help Industr) and the nuclear industrr itself,

th>e YZ: allcwed comerzial 31J to be buried at the Richland Site until

J 1977.(according t3 I= s Smith) when pressure from Gov. Dixie Lee Ray caused the N= to place a 7HU limit to 10 ri/g In Nucleasr engineering Ccmpany's renewal license. Te NIX:' Own lOCFR61 saYS *The last

commro'al site: posed ehe 10 ni/g restriction in 1981 -- so there

iS a contradiction as far as the date of restrictions on Richland.

In discussions with government representatives, it is often.-Paid that

there is verr little commercial TMV waste now because there is no reprocess31g In the United States at the prease= time. In fact, locTh6l.

says: "At present, wastes contraining transuranio muclidea In concen- trateons greater than 10 rni/g are not be:; generated In sigmLficant D-5f_ volumese" Mese observations overlook the _act that major producers of MU wastes have been private companies like Kerr-o:Goe, Westinghouse,

Geneal Eectrio, and Babcock and 'Wilcox in Pennsylvania. These

companies were Involved in plutonium fabrication and research and

development on Advanced plutonium: fuels for breeder reactors froe

the 19 s through 1978. Since commercial plutonium fabrication is

virtually at a standstill, companies like Kerr.McGee are trylng to

decoesSion their facilities, according to the NR: 'a Smith Sth

said there is an inactive plutonium facility at Erwin, Tennessee

wait'i to be deoommissioned and decontamIzated. In Smith's opion, the N6213 1C2F61 won't solvethe problem of these companies, because

he Assumes the NX will rule against burial of higher concentratIons

of RU in land disposal.. sites. HFowever, we have no assurance this

will be the case. The NRC hasbowed to inlstry pressure before --

and has now placed Itself in a*position to take a "sofu" approach on a case by case bass, . -

It is ironic (and incredible) that the MC is considering relaxing its standards on the land burial of ;sU at the verr same time the

M3 is spend#r4 millions (billions?) to dig up MD waste at its

Idaho NAtional !erS' Lab.

yr interpretation of l0CFA61 is backed up by projections or the 1979

Interagency Review Group (IRG) report on radioactive waste management.

The IRG report (TID! 28818, Appendix A) states that wastes previously considered =U wastes ma be clas33SIed as low levelw aste, Increasing

from the cure;3; 10 nCi/g- to as high as 100 .1S/9 -- Which WIll substanzially increase the Amounts and act-vity Of low level Waste.

In a private phone conversation on August 4. 1980, J. Howard K2Cttle,

manager of waste'nanaganent program at Argonne National Laboratory,

told me: "MransuranLi wastes are largely alpha emitters with long

half lives. This waste Should be treated the same es high level

wate."

The lCCPR61 rule is a weaken ng of the U.S. Department of Energy (=z)

approach to EU and the accepted practice today Or not allowiSg land

burial of nore than lCn I/z of mU. In 1970, in response to concerns about plutonium migration from trencekes at the Idaho National Lnergy Laboratory ( .'(C), the Atomic EZergy Comission (AE") ordered defense

contractors to stop diSposing Of MU Waste With More. than 10 vsi/ig

In land sites, It ordered 1RU waste be given retrievable, above-surface

storage for 20 7ears. Because Its standards were more rigorous than

te ommercial sector. IMe ZO defense disposal sites refused to acept MU contmninated waste frcm the corunercial sector.

B-196
PAO3 TM=

loC M61

CUOGG

PAOZ T~-r ~A

1007Z61

WIGO- a

CO!-MS; REGARDING MANRAaC WAST S MM l0CFV_ 2~- 61.

W1 ddn't the 2R put "less thian lOnri/e in eolurms 1 and

2 on page 38085. Doesn't it apply? D-SS'--3 _ -. 2. Wh didn't , the N say that TRU waste above 1O0n i/g should Jbe given retievable surface storage until its new regulatfons /for.-intermediate waste are available? The X: 's R. Dale Szyth says promzlgation of these regulations Is next on that agency's \_agenda.- -- * -

3. lOCFR Part 61 indicates the N2r 14l1* decide 7RU waste disposal on a case by case basis, giving it shallow land burial if t~e X2 deems the site suitable. Who In the MC will make that deision and what are the criteria that i;llbe used to judge vhether 0r not a particular site is suitable"

4I. e 1 s Smith told ro -high level waste wll row include .jU waste down to 10 Ci/g. Isn't this misleading when a 5; gallon drum of radioactive waste containing.2-million nanocures of-MU or 70-million curies of plutenium-2l will be allowed burial in a low level waste disposal site under the proposed regufa.tions?

S. :1n.seet'an 61.55 (d),'there is no definition of-"near su.raee.*- does'this mean that if the dumpoperator dgs3 deep erough, then land disposal at that-site wilZ be approved7

' 4'at is tbe maxf'ium lunit on transuranie concentration the N: 6_;s Awill' allow for land disposal? Mhe rule '*s no Indication, lothe than to suggest that above 10 r i/g, speeifl Comnission .pproal will be required.-

7. Averaging' the concen ration of radiolsotopes over the volu.e of waste a.a contaier nay allow heavy actual concentrations or "hot spots of radioactive waste to be accepted for shallow land burial.

D-5r 7 In very small type, the NM states: "?or a 55 gallon drun, multiply 

concrete, the jallowed) ecncentration by 200,0C0. Thus,-.by adding one should be able tabury just about anythig -- es long as you add enough concrete. Te multiplication factor of

200,000 will allow 2 million nanocuries per gram of TRlor 70 Million nanocuries cf plutonium-2s- in A 55 gallon drum of radioactIve waste.

2. Wh 10 nCI/g: "Ie should exardne the origin of the 10 rcl/gS

standard for trans %ranlC S. Pro-nuelear, sientetsts were. quick to tell Me at a recent ZA Meeting on lostleiel wastes ;hat'"l~rS i/g

-; 25 ais the same as natural background -- it's like the soil outside

Co thsbidng iin, Te rwron , According to the Atomic SnerZ7

manageent: (AM-), App edix 05l, art 1 on ra~oactive waste

-"The vlue or iOr/t ts derived from the

utner range of concanbraetons of radiuin2z6 ul<'.,t n-e eareh andis subjeet tCmo tdfircatlon D , based on lonrj-ter.m studes of nuelide migration

IAt Maxey Flats, Idaho National 1hergy Lab, and oak Ride Ntinal Lab indicate that plutonium migrates much more ~ui~cl thouh the sOil tban Originally anticipe ted. (For details of te ?~ey lats esperiences, see Scelnce mggasinle June 26, lt81, "C aracterizatIon of PlutoniumTUrFoy nlats"5, Ones Would eao based on these experiences, to. see the cOzent_.tiOn of trnsuni3 allowed shallow land burial regulated downwar1.i

* I

-~1

B-197

.1
PAGZ FOUR 100FRPAR? FAGS FIVS

lO1PR6l

qUIGG

HZ STATUS OF SPHZT RNS UNMR 1CCMD1

Zon-exohange resins are used to take radioactivity out of primary

cooling waters they act like a filter. Spent resins look like litelo

beads of plastic. ahey are considered low level waste even though they are highly radioactive and contaInis3otopes with long half-lives like c eaium-137.'

Under lOCFR61, spent resins will contlnue to be allowed shallow land

burial. T. Hward Zitzle, An expert in uclearwaste managment at

Argoone National Laboratory, told me in a phorA canversation (August 4, 19 dO) that: "1 (spent resin) Is really In a different category and

should be containerized. Moera is no way, to reduce resin volume."

Kittle said the = requires irmobIlizatioa of spen: resins now or th use or high integrity Contairers. "But no one knows what a high integrity container is,' he said, "and that Is why utilities still

ircsob'ivze their spent resins.".

Kittle said: "I strongly favor the consideratfon of spent resins and.

cladding hulls as intermediate wastes. Spna= resins require rersote

handling and clad hulls have to be handled remotely.

Unfcrtunately under 1OCFR61, spent resins are allowed shallow land

burial. ThIs 1 what industrY wants. AC a-meetirg of tha American

Nuclear Society at Northwestern University, 'vEan3on, =Lno~s on April 25. 1981, ;ohn S. Richmond of: Wisconsin Pubvlc Servioe Corporatlo: said: 'Spen.resins should be solidified as polymer or with cement

instead'of sh'pped as liquid. It's ok to give them shallow land burial.

3;t other experts, In addition to Dr. Kittle, disagree. In a private conunica"on with Joh3 Feel Or the I23t3 office of-waste isolation

in July 19O, he said: "Our rocus is on improved shallow land burial.

We should quit burying organic chemicals and ion-ezharge chemical,.

Peel said, 'Spent resins snould be solidified. You can burn resins

In an incinerator or glass smelter at low temperatures. There are two types of resins; you can burn organic resins and moelt zoolites.,

According-b the N:'as . ale Smith, (phone conversation Sept. 15,

1981): "What we did in ICCFR-PLA.~W51 was to establish performance objectivea...allowable exposure. Than we back-calculated to the kinds

and amounts of spen' resans and other waste that could give that kind

of *xposure." Smith said, Under these calculations, most spent resins

would :1i into the categories of waste that could be given shallow

land burial. "

Smith went on to say that for spent resins above that limit and

Inorganic materials, the type of disposal had not been determined --

other than the fact tha; "It snould not be shallow land burial."

Smith acki-owledged the need for a definition and diSpoaSt'on of Intermediate waste, saying "that is next on our agenda."

COY4.'EMTAR ON SP? R2=INS

(n my opinion, 0 NSX has made a serious tactical error 'n no' 1releasing intermediate waste regulations at the same time as low

!)-5&-20 'gevel waste rules. If my rsding o: lOC.F261 Ia correct the N=

IhaalreadT defined R.U waste and spent resins as low Tevel waste, Ie agency will have a diffcult, if not impossible, task of e definint these wastes as "intermediate wastesW In the fuMLe.

The allowed exposure to low level radioacrive waste is se: bv the

hat 5a00 mill-rem per year per exposed Ind!71vidal In 10CM61. Te

I discussion (page 3WOd, Fed. ealster, Sept. 24, 1981) in the proposed ndrule lncoates: "AM waste with corcentratorns of these isotopes that

would cause an exposure greater then 500 mill'rem nust be protected

C- t from intrusion by deeper burial or some other barrier."

How did the N-: arrive at 500 milI.roem which is th *qutvalent or about ten chest x-rays or 20 dental x-rays as a safe co s. res the

X.: take into consideration the greater health risk to children,

pregnant women or the fetus, or Ill, elderly people from such a dose?

Tere i3 no basis given for the ',I's projeoton that only one, or at

the Most, a few persons would be exposed to the 500 milllIrem dose.

Eow can the !TM predict how many people mSiS_ be farming o. digging in a certain plot or land scnewhere in the nmited States coer the n CO or 300 years?

(And uy7 doesn't the NMH wait for the Mavironmental Protection Agency

(EPA), which has environsental standarda-settizn authority, to se. iSa Cz limit:s for radioact've releases t. the environzenz from disposal

1 aclitties? -Why 4s the NU, in ef:eo%,.;ro-empt'ng the EPA's author'ty c-3 y "ent$lopat2ing' the 0A stardards forrad-oactive releases m 'lear dumpspteas.?

P LU IV: Z HZN ; LZEE VAsT- TO =SCALAM3

/5e : has separated out from the 10 zCi/g restrict-on the trarsurantc

| element plutonlum-241:. and allowed it a far greater concentra:'on

tian was previcusl1 permitted In low level waste. Cn page 38097 of

its new reg aticns, the N1 proposes a. concentration of 350 nri/g of pluz=_m-V2abe *alowed land burial aS Class C ntruder Wase.

To expla'a, the N7C states 'this conocntrat on of short-l-ved beta- D-S;3- emittlng isotope decays to 10 rCi/g concentraticn of amer':1n-211, a longer-liv-d alpha ;emitter. " Te NMt goes on to say that "At

present, wastes containizg transurenic nurlides in concentration

greater than 10 nCi/g are not being generated in significant cquantities.'

Let us eXa.-ine these tw statements. First of all, plutonhiv-21. is

not short-lived as the MC states. It has a half-life of 13.2 pars, which means i t will be toxic 'n tne environment. for 132 to 164 years.

Mhis is not a short time. As the NF: sayT plutoniunZi42. decays to

americ._um-2il. ADIC"4m-Z has a half-l"e of L58, whIch means _ 's tcxic from 4,580 to 9,$140 years. Although plnconi-2! is a

B-198
PAGZ SZ!1

PAZE siX OlCFR6l

I Oc TR 6 1QVIGO

(beta-emirter, Its decay products amerlcium-2hl.1 and neptunium-237 v. olume and curie amounts of plutornjiua-2 that will be allowed

(half-Lt fe 214 million years) are alpha emitters. land burial under 10CR61 is staggering, when one considers the

NIVs allowance that "conoentrations may be averaged over the volume rhe healh from risk alpha radiation comes from its Internal penetratirj of the package. Fhr a 55 gallon drum multiply the co oentr tion unitS

power; it has weak external (beta) penetrating power. L' alpha - -55- by 2CO,000 to determine allowable total aetivityi we are told.

particles are Inhaled cr Ingeated, all of their energ- strikes a few 0ells, increasing the likelihood of cell nutation or cell death. For plutonium-2!Vl, we rmltiplted-350 rri/i by 200,OOOfor a total

Pluronlum-211 and americiun-24I enmIt alpha particles with strongMMalwd7 iin; urspe5 glodumfputiu- energies and have high linear ernerg7 transfer (LE);that Istrong NRC allowed eanocuries 70 mllion per 55 gallon d of-plutonium-2!X1 transfer greater energy in a shorter distance..A publication of the

Scientists Institute for Public Inforration, Radioactive Contamination defies reason to understand such regulations by an agency mandated 3 by V. Brodine, 1975, states tha: "Observations or rsaiaricn ezfecst protect the health and safety of he Amrg la sb public.

at the cellular level have shown that high L= radiation cearnt be

repaired.n

Americium-241 Is known to move through the food chaIn. It should also

be noted that anz transuranICs that are given land disposal can, through various naturel mechandsms (ereo.on, intrusion, wind storms), become airborne. Riclosures for the record:

Jeffrey King, F researcher in pulnonerr physiology at the Harvard 1. Letter dated Apr-I 30, 1979 from JeffreH.M. M,.iD., to

School of Public Health, says that arericiurn-2W1Ls In a class w ith Joseph Strasburg, :ew York City Council, Legal Division.

the most radioactive elements and isfear more toxic than the most

toxic careinogen. King says, "Me special toxicity to the lungs from 2. Statement of Karl Z. Morgan, July 28, 1978, regarding amerlcltca-241

amerIcium (or plutonium) is a result of :he p6werful short range, and radzum-226.

effect of alpha particles en the sensItive. brenchial epitheliun.

3. Report by Carl 3. Johnson, M.D., to 5th Internattonal Congress . arl Z. Morgan, considered the father of health physics in the of the InteranatIonal Radiation Protection Association, Jerusalem, United States and the former director of health physics at Oak RIdge Israel, March 9-14, 1980.

National Laborato-T sa7s his oalculatlons Indicate that when amor- ciu e and radium-2;4 may become depos:ted in the body, anarlcur-241 uuclide L. "Calculated Tearly Production Fo a lCCO Mwe Plant", is about 16 times more hazardous than radiuu-225.' Calculated erl Nudlide Pod s n uroan10 we" ln Table 2.4. from "ActivIty. Levels of frMansuranie Nuclides In

After an investigation in-o the lnclderce of cancer. frrm plutonium Low Level Solid Wastes from U.S. Power Reactors," prepared by anivsiainil h niec fcne~rmpuoimSadence Applications, Lmc, MD., for Zlectric Power Research

soil centamination dowrwide from the Rocky Plats plant,_ r. Carl Inettute, Palo Alto, C1., August 1980.

Johnson of thb University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver,

concluded: "Tle consistency of the increase in.inzidence of all cancer and of certain categories of cancer with inereasing concentrations of

Pu in soil supports the hypotheets that exposure of the general publIc

to low concentrations of Pu in the. env'rrnent may have an effect on -4 carcer incidence."

Now ccmes the NRC with 10CFR61 proposing rot onlv that we gIve conoen- tratons of transuranics over 10 n i/g 'ard burial, on a case by case basis -- but that we also allow 35 "t-es -ore pluzonium-2111 than any

other transuranic nucllde. Could It be that the 'M ard the ruelear

Industry !ciow, as we know, that plutoni-ma -241 is the most cormon transuranic prmduced by cornercial nuclar power plants? Acerding to a recent saudy by the 3c tric'ower Research Ins tinte (RI- 1052, April 1979 , plutoriun-2!a consa:t:es 8lpe;nrt of the

alculated yearly transuranic nuclIde production of a 1000 megawatt

ulear power plant.

B-199
SIAIC GP N(VACA

0IP.A?-C,. GP W. *L4gsawcts

DIVISION OP' JEAL.TH a"".a el cl.4.9.v-. ,lTh*tf.C A-ic.

SThY9 or 'w9-hO

097ARY1V,? or W.. *LS0WftC9

DIVISION Oll HICALH a..".. a, G-o.4-"..? *,OtcY'* £.wf

0Q'-0

Septetnoer 24, 1981

Sb3 8S,.*"# 9v..S

-a c .& 0 .. I n SE

?fl- . q. nowU 30 -4.

Ca..= L.,C hnS ,-. *I

(8) .- ,E-, !X116-a 01) 2't4

A/

""N4,

'C.

oCCT22aWaCa

COWW~vS Oil 'QC'POSZD

10CF Rd I

R. Caie Smith. ChIef

Low-Level Waste Licensing 3rancn

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

wasnington, D.C. 20555

Cear Cale:

I

In answer to your request, we have enclosed cnsmnts on the proposed ICCF~q6l.

Sincerely,

'orn Yaden -- GCw o

Supervisor:

Radiolog1cal healt7 Sec-.:n

JV/jc

It: ccears to te logical to categcrize radioactive waste to prosoca stability

of toe surface of tne site and to protzct possible users of the land in toe

distant fui:ure.

To out such a system of classification of radioac:lve waste into effect, however,

takes aor tnan just croulgating a regulation. 1: w11 require tie c;cceraticn

of the zackager, -ne site operator, toe regulatory aSency and an Instit:uion

that will ,cnitir tne site for up to ICO years.

(te history and record of tbe :ackaging of radioactive waste by generators has not indicated a duraole capability to ;ackage tne wasta In confor:ancz Di-55- ith DOT regulations. Furmner. tre types of isotnoes and their cuanti:tes

In tne packages of waste are at ces: ecucated guesses. In view of this situation.

it Coes not ses likely rat the waste generators will be able to pro;erly

classify tnair waste accoroing to tne prciased regulation, or for hat oattar ven lael It correctly.

A site operator will have to accept the radioactive waste as classified by tw_ generator ecause he cannot open tlC oacaaes fEr insoecticn. The Class A w e woulc be placed In a designated trenc!. Tre sit c;eratar wculd assess potential active maintnance coass for nis tyre of tretinc. anc ace a per unit

volue cnarge to toe sni;oers of Class A waste.. For si17l1ciy, _le site

operator would cznsiCer all other waste received as innruder waste. This waste

would be urled in a different trCnch under 17 feet of dirt. The additional

cost for tnis type of tur al would be .assed on again o t*he generators of

the waste. All of ;ne acd1i:cnal bookkec1ing recuired -ill coplicate waste

dis;osal coerations end _oe new rie-c7s of cisoosal will greatly increase costs

D YS-J \of "aste disposal. In addition, the repulat:ri agency ould need to niltor oe onar;es cellic:d by Cne site -tera.or for active raintenancs :ecausa, If

t mxney:was not all eat during the five y-:rs aftar site closure, it srould

be :urned over to :ne institution. :_a: will have custody of Lie site f:r long term :are. too maintenance.

The rvgusatory eqency ;overnin; 7.e site woul: eitner recuire -aste oacka;es not laieied ef:l a wasce classiifizaicn to :e opentc cy tne site ::ers7r at

nis ex pense. or nave :he waste returneo to Jne generator a: nis exoense.

The regulatory agencies overting the genersatrs w"li nave to increase ti.eir

ins;ectlcns of tne a:tia7 radioacti:e 4astt caceagping Oeraltins to dtermine

Ithat tne waste ;acxagea ooes meet the reouirements for tne osfferent classiflcations. It is dzu*:ful :n7it reula:orj agencies :an ao more Its:ectlon In t.IIs arwa than ttoy are now toing tecauze of b~dget 1 sitatlcns.

Enc.

c: ,. wayne Ktrr (w/enc!vsures)

S... ..

B-200
Comrrents on Proposed ICCTR61 -2-

The rntosed regulation states that Class B wastes .must be stabilized. T1his

will re'luire considerable quality control on the part of the generator in his

D-55-1) packaging ooerations to eliminate voids and to assure solldification. In the

case of resins solidified with cement, for exarole If tihis is not done properly,

the ratrix will eventually crack and the resins could flow under pressure. This

mneans that dCeencence ray have to be placed on the container for prevention of

eformatien, an additinal expense.

Section 61.29 of the proposed regulation states that site ooerator. rust actively

maintain tile site for five years after site closure. ihe cost of this operation

_for a new site could be estimated by tne site ocerator and passed on to tie

Swaste generators. In tie case of existing sites, particularly in arid climate.

.X"-^52-Z it is not ex:ected that trench caps of trenches cvntaining segregated waste

-ould crack or collapse ':r many years, nerraps 50-.CO.

rThe statement is cade in 'other corsideratiors- that the proposed regulation

would ac:ly to existing sites. In tils case, the regulatory agency would

ter r clo stre a: i era r to ac:1vely mainear wol n Sie n for at leest five yoe rs

|eftuer elesite oears txoense teluse tmanerai would be no way tne stfe coerstor

to aosts current users of the site would make burial cost crotibitive for them

at that site. It Is not l1iely tnat the site operator would agree to tois

arrangement and probably could not be forced to do so.

(n 61.7 (b)(2) a stateent is made that Class A seregated waste decays to

ac-eotable levels during t:e period wren *ne site is oct:uoed. What ari

*acce:table levels'? i: Is asWL-ed te accestable levels are below those In

Colurn I of eTble ;. In the case of enricned or depleted uranium, however.

lthere would be no azcntciable decay during the period :te site is occuoied.

IFur:er, desendent on the definition of !cceptaola levels-. tne receipt of

Class A segregated vas-e at the site would have o be stopzed at scme :oint

in tine before tne s1ie is closed, if it is to decay to acceotable levels

rior to site closure.

In surrery. a radioactive 4aste classificotion system nay be effective for new

sites in the future oroviee an intense eaucation *nd inspection program cmn te

dcveloped for tne Senerators of the radioac:'ve waste; and provided na:.

=ethods can De founa for solidifyino wastes -- at eed to hc stabilit:ed wnich

will not leave res'dual licuid and not eeer'i-os: In f. Existire. sntns .ill

recuire ac:'ve mainte'ance 'or a qrea: nuroCr of :'eS- so :-e wasne olassi'I:zaton

system is not meaningful In tiese cases.

{otner inor corent: Wors suen as 'ccrnerst:ne '6deueate comolenent' mnd

unreasonmole risk" snould :o elimina:ed frmn.n-te r-^ultlnn. Section 51.23'A;)

|(_fers *o Section 1.50 Sdnl:n does mot exiSt.

-oQvn :csin. i.uervisor SeptoTzer 24, 1951

tadiological !msaltn Section

£311C0 NUCLEAR CCMPAMY.Inic.

'SEARCH AMID ThCHNOLOGY CENTER

Oletq.*wmM-i..Wy ka,.~~t.

-ONE:- (Ml9 23M7100

October 1, 1981

secretany of the Cocission

U.S. Nuclear Ptr~guatory' C==Lsien

washington, C.C.. 20555S

Attzi: :'Ockttinq and service 3ranc~i

0'0

u .10,"', I'll

aefrenence: ?-.posed Rule, licensin; me oizemt.t3 for tAnd

Visposal of adicactive waste, ?ederal Fegistcr,

Vrl. *6, No. 142, p. neo1-38o10o.

centleens

We have :eviewed the referenced prcxosod ?m:es a-d have a m=ber of

c=McnAs for y!c= c-nside-radon trlor t preparcn of the f--LI role.

:a gene:a&I the proposed oil. appears to be a reasonable bland of performance ori-ente objectives and technical :e;uI-ents. The proposed

rule should increase aaC prctoite public enrfidence relative to the safe

disposal. of lvw level :tdLoacttve wastes.

Specifdo ceents 'ith respect to the proposed rule are given below,

N .rne , - . e 

cia(ber d ofi a u b

*1.2 /I- betts e!L':: of dfs70sa: uculd *et *::r

.-

-1

| Sneeno of the wastes with no provistens made

for subserueno retr'eval.'

.his rs'.razaga;'h sreci!es mna: there be no

| tnt*r c:n beo, c- eruat dtsposear unIts and

L-jpO.ies th a an absoluts conditcin be acem1 laied by &serarltnln of h. disPosal' uite :t

would be sore :recise no state that 'wastes

desig-4ted as Class A .. iY In nla *srosa

units which. have rw s ler f tormt ':erecton

with disoresal r_:s n ronta=nq othezr than :acs

A seqrapated wsetes'.

The obli!at-'cn tn the annual repor tno i-ncude

iformati-on relative to 'any !stance in vhich

cbserved site oharac-etrstics were differe.: frum those escr:ibed in tie applloation for a

'canse. sho"d Ce modifed o refr :teport-

"S civ of iuch site oherer'atis ' _ wee 'sngtiflt: nty' "fif eea: ..

1(21 (vi

2 46"CeC9C1 PR .. A g.,L:A -9 t' (5 0, csXO .¶ O

B ZR01
SOCZSZaZ7 Of the CO=LSz~eo u --2- CObX1 =Qtar 1, 19s1

a-I.

Pazaqaph

?iuber -

eL.aiw2m(a)te La th-12 paxrAq-zap leave cP*A oo t.he

ozL&IUte :,;liz to Laspect Waste zatarials

whichl have been ;laced And covered wi0t.LA a disposaI unit. S±0co tv;Lis 9cesma'aly is not

tb. LAtth. t!-G ?Aa9aZaPh Should be~ e to

specillically ?Iuat ±0e Laspacticza of rad-loactive wastes to saceriais Which have not rAen

71aced wihJ.. a eisposal.*i ± and =c¶exed.

2.1.03 Z Ls cot c.ea~r -cw thre :evised pA~zaqra~k

1Ac~ludeS .3.5t* di'SPOSa1 txc±2Lt4.es licensed

VuxSuL=O to t.-s ;zoposed Part 61.. worlia

siia-to cat O! Ohs revised par 2.104

(el wouIg appear to be ap;ropr:Lat* to more

2,rciselly delino the !..fec:.Od U..cAMO&~S.

~-0 . 211 Cd) 3and -.0 aSsur oCoplitac& vizh :e siztcrV ze-'aixmants,

proX s exists. t!he fzc-lzwtm &Ii xoattive to

C z peazazcrs ' a zanner whticb assuxes ccom.ILanc*... chapter, anageenc audlzs of the

operat-1ons .=St be zcnduced,'

Sinilar word., woald te apprprc~izae in paxaqrapa

COMMONWEALTH OF PLN4SYLVANIA

1DEPARTMENT OF NVIRONMETAL RESOURCES

Hrr!1scurg. PA 17120

Cct- er S. 1981

Z f PR-; d-4 Samuel J. Chilk /',/ C/li O T,. N~t

SacratCrs of the Ccrmission -_' 0 S, jel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C~mi;ssionJ td a,

'washington., O.C. 205.i

At-n: Docketing &no Service 3rancn

ceir Mr. Chilk:

Ihe Depsr-en: nas reviewed the proposed regulations covering tne

licensing requirene s for lmnr dis:csal of rad1oact1ve waste (-, C;R 51). AZ-.ched are cetailed staff cocoents ea: contain the specific _oints :e Department is concerned with.

Senerally, -ne use of perforsance oojectlves and xre general tecnrical

criteria instead of the previously sug5ested soecific standards leads -o a micn wre flaxlbse and ahievaole re-ulatory systen. Hcwever. in our ^oinion, o=re information is netee in vne licensing process.

S1i understand tna: tae supor.Ing Environmental imoac: Statamen: (_.S) rferenced In *ne prcposed regula:Icns ;as *ot been isuesd. We reserve -

7 ,En taeright o rcvice the XaC with acdit;onal cocents on !esa reeula:Icns

aftaer a* review vne :-S.

Thanxyou for is ctoc;ornI;y to review vie propcsec rtgula:Icns.

. - Sincertiy:

'_ ^- ;:'F^PRD@:1 W

- Secreury Af.Env orx*n:b3 les:urzes %;S 1// S '.

I

MnrC 4ae Lias

az! ils cnur

0t1013O1d3 Q11005 PDR PR

2 46FROBC81 PDR
CCOflENTS ON NRC PROPOSED REGULATIONS - 10 CFl 6l

by Cepar::nent of Env1ronnental qescurces

The use of general performance objectives and the nmre general technical

critera instead of the orevicusly suggested soecif c standards leads to a much more flexible and achievable rgulatory system. However, :0 provide the more definitive inforemation whien is necessary for licensees, It Is suggested

that a: least the following topics be addressed in the fomr of rcore detailed

regulatory uidance:

l. Waste Stability;

- 2. Soecific assumptions to use for determining whether -he intruder - . scenario meets the performance objectives;.

3. Guidelines and assumotions for setting maxim-m discosal site

inventory limits consistent wih the performance oo.ectives, 4. Concentration limits for naturally occurring Ind other Isotopes (especially Racium) no: specifically.addressed in Table l;

5. Soecific guIdance for the ir.forration -hat 1s resuestedin a license anplication.as outlined in Suboart B. ThIs :ould be

in the form of stanmard formats and standard review plans

Such that the licensee would know beforehand the level of

detail and, where applicable. minimum acceotable criteria to

.satisfy the ;RC review process; . Definitive stancarts for the conditions that sr- required to be

met for ;os:closure license transfer and terminatIon of the

licensee.

Because of the fac: that low level waste (LL4) disposal has become a state

rtespnsicility, it would be very helpful :o zresen: Agretment States, or States

which arn contemplating on becoming Agrtement or Limi:ed AgreeTent Sta-es for

the ourpose of regulatIng a LLW site and for the NRC to formally specify which

portions of.Ptr:51 Must be acorted by the State for conmoatibility. It is

important that this be done as soon as possible so ha thoseT-tes M which are ' contemnlating on cnanging their agrterent status ane a :ossible need for

sotcific State Legislatcin could include in their deli ern:1cns the inmac: that

the mancatory adcption of tnese regulations woutld.have on those decision-making

procasses. Part H of the Suwmary seeMs to iNoly t--atall of Part 51 will have o be complied with for ::r:.atibility.

should beassSured tat these rt ulatIcns wi:: be crotnatibie with the

si:e select:on orcctss that may be eitner .ar:.of a copact: sr-ng5een:t or an Individuai State process wni:n h&s been es=aH shed to mleet .'le ;rnvisicnS

Y he L-L Pzlicy Ac:.

SPecific Comments on Indicated Sections:

61.2 Oefinition of 'Engineered Barrier' may be too restrictive in that

*his term could also be used to describe engineered barriers that limit

[Subsurface migration or surface water intrusion.

651.7(c)(4) It is recognized that the 'nergy Reorjanization Act precludes NRC licensIng of all but thOst specific DOE activities listed In the Act.

Possession of cotrimercial LLW burial sites is not Included as one of these

specific activities, but NRC should request that Ccngress consider amending

tne law to allow licensing of this activity to insure adeouatt protection of

public health and safety.

61.25(b) This provision would allow tne opportunity for public hearing

every five years during operaticn. whether or not significant c.anges have

occurred. Unless the prerequisites for requiring a public hearing are

D v 5 sufficiently strIngent, such that this process is not subject to abuse, these

hearings could beccme overly burdensome and potentially lead to unnecessary

lcost without a commensuratU benefit to health and safety.

61.30(a) Does this paragraph preclude the site operator from r-taining

licensee responsibility during the institutional control period following post-

-. 4 closure observation and maintenance? If the site owner chooses and the site

J cperator is agreeable.-the site operator could remaIn as the licenset until

/ the requirements are met to terminate the licensee witnout a detrimental effect

on public health and safety.

( 61.41 It should be recognized that the limits of 40 CFR 190 are based on a cost/benefit analysis of the potential for reduction of releases from each C.-3 stes of the nuclear fuel cycle. These ALAUA princioles may also be apolicable

in the case of.L!,1 disoOsal since engineered barriers or other disposal site i

design features could further reduce potential exposures in a cos: effective

imanner.

C 51.50 Consideration should be given to Including as a requirement

accetssibility to major transportation routes. most assessments have shown that

the largest contribution to population exposure from LLI waste management

33-0 1 osertions Is due to transpcrting the waste from the ;enerator to *the disposal

site, and therefore this factor snould be assessed and minimized If Possibse.

.inimmI1ng -.ne imoac: of this factor c:uld also ;os tively effec tIe Institutional

and political ac:IptDbi:ity of a disposal site. The approoriate way to address

this c:nsideration nay be to Include a separate section which lists only

insti-utional requirements such as oublic water supolies and pooulation density.

C 6i.52Ca)(i).(3). These subse:t:onsasaem to irply 'hat only Class 3 wastes

etd to mee: :ne requirements of paragrarn (:) thrugh (70). Certainly C.ass

9515wastes need to met, at least -7e same reo-OrteMents as Class 3, an'. considerat1:n

should be given to requIring Class A to meet -1st Of the aCditional requirements.

,ept ;ernaos paragraph (i).

B-203
DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.

Section 61.52 (a)(5) the term 'reduce future suosidence' should 'e stated

:ontrl future suosidence" ae4duca is tco amigucus.

Section 5i.5Z (a)(9) Is not a performance specificatIon. 1 should *e JED' rewritten to describe wnat is to be ancieved.

Section 51.53 (a) Catu covering a simple twelve-imntn period for seascnally

variable characteristics is insufficisnt. Seasonal variations having an itact on future.environmental monitoring would setteer be related to established D-S3-II normals, maximums and minimums as provided by appropriate agencies.

Section 61.53 (d) should include language specifying wnen performance

soecifications should be readied and to whcm tney snould oe SQ.tlstad.

61.55 NRC Should rconsider not setting generic ce minimus' levels for at

least certainisotopes. The cozmitmenz to ccntinue to set these exemptions on the basis of certain waste streams is of dubious value and Is considered to

Dc a poor excuse for failure to deal with this controversial t:pic. Since

there already exists generic disvnarge limits for all Isotopes If they are rCleased In a gaseous or licuid waste stream there is no reason that release by

unrestricted solid waste disposal should be treated any differently. If the

limits are properly developea. In fact. paragrapn 5l.7;b)(4) Implies that

Class A and a waste decay to 'oe minimus' levels after 100 years.

61.53(a) It should oe noted that nationally recognized groucs (Stata

Planning Council and DOE mazional LLW Stratesy Task Force), whicn have developed

policy reconnendations for LLW management, nave recomaended that tnae option

hould be available for Scatas to turn over resoonsi0ol1iy for long-tarem Custody

<9f LLW disposal sites to tne Federal Iovernment if they meet satisfactory 3 /ecoommissicning criteria. NRC should more tnorougnly consicer this option and

bke appropriate recomrendations for specific Federal legislation if needed.

C 61.59(b) Consideration snould be given to Including requirements for.

_ -9- 4,cr limits upon, *ne use of the surface of *te disposal si:e ouring the instituticnal

7 control period.

*:: snould also be made clear vte: at-Ive controls, especially environmental

6-Jb surveillance. could continue beyonc the IC0 year time period if Mte oustodial

agency so Cesires.

Section 54.-0 deals with performance standards for avoiding environmental

h art. Reccgnized alternative uses snould oc :onsicered in the assessment of

;b-.57-2 jresent wcrt- because any si:e chosen must :e restricted for a minimum of ICE

Ujears ano 0oss:l:y over 500 years.

LAA"N LABOPATCAY

October 12, 1981

DC'---. 'T 3.

R20C;ED 0r2

Secretary of the comoession o. S. Nuclear Aegulacory COMMLSSLOC

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attentiong Docketin5 and Service 3ranch

Subjects DOW CONMZSTS, P&O005SD ZULEMNAING 10 COF 61

CV Oommnt dated September 18, 1981, am the subject ruleahing are enclosed. Coamtss:on employees have verbally

)Informed Dow that the commeot period will be extended to

January 1982. So written confirmation of the extension has G ' l I bee naoted in the Federal Register or-any other offtctal

Lsouce~ tb~s t~ae to asaure that they *re wtthtn the off~c~al co:- th Do comet se tat: herefore berog submitted at oent pertod. AddItIoual comments ill be submitted as necessary and as opportuatties Arise.

Sincerely,

9.3. Owen

Group Leader

Nuclear S Solid:ftcation Services

517-636-3388

uN Cft^AT'.NQ 6M? OP m9 DOW C.IWuCM. COMPANY

B-204
* e.

-2- September 18, 1991

Us:> DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.

Septe mler 18, 1991

(.F-d1-7 LAIK1Pi = No.

O MLNO UtHANK

Cs/II~.3'o~.tTT7

Secretary of the Comission

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attention: Dccketing and Service Branch

Subjects PROPOSED RULEMkKtIYG 10 CPR 61

Dow Chemical U.S.A. (Dow) is 11censed by the U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (Commission) to possess, use, and

transport certain radioactive materials. Dow is actively engaged in developing. testing, and marketing technology for

cleaning equipment that is contaminated with radioactive - aterials.'-The Commission has reviewed and accepted the Dow

topical report, DNS-RSS-001-P-A. which describes Dow technology for solidification of low-level radioactive wastes.

Dow recognizes the need for and supports actions which

result in proper disposal of radioactive wastes. For these- reasons Dow welcomes the opportunity to comment on proposed

rulemaking.10 CTR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste, published in the Federal

Register on July 24, 1931.

Specific comments are as follows. -

Suonlenentarv Ihformation

/ Section II acknowledges that current regulations do not

contain any standards or technical criteria for the

disposal of licensed mzaterials and that the need for

standards and technical criteria is well documented.-

Section Z:: acknowledges. that the Commission has had a program underway- for several years to develop regula- tions and other guidance for the management and disposal

of low-level wastes and references NT2REG-0732, a draft

environmental impact statement, to provide guidance and

support to 10 CZm 61.-

Comment

Medical and research facilities, nuclear power plants, and other commercial activities have been generating

significant amounts of low-1evel radioactive wastes

each year since the 1950s-' The first commercial site

for disposal: ot these wastes was opened in 1962. The

lack of regulatory standards and technical criteria

resulted in the selection of some disposal sites and use of some disposal techniques without regard for

the concept of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)

and for which there is very little or no technical or economic justification. Some private companies, such as Dow, have developed new or improved disposal techniques which have been tested in private and national

laboratories and are being used by some waste generators and service companies that support them. However,

due to the lack of enforced regulatory standards and

technical criteria most of the waste generators have.

shown significant reluctance to use the new or improved techniques. There are a few waste generators that have

openly stated that they will not change or improve disposal techniques until they are required and

nforced by regulation. ' -

The reference to NVUR-G-0782 as guidance and.support to

10 CFR 61 is an example of Commission actions which

result in waste generators being reluctant to act.

without specific regulatory direction. Dow attempted

to obtain NUREG-0782 and was informed that it 'is still

being drafted and that when the draft is available

there will be a 90-day comment period. The comment 4 j~ '1 Aperiod for NVREG-0782 will obviously extend beyond October 22, 1991, which is the end of the comment

period for 10 CmR 61.' To comment on 10 CYR 61 while

the guidance and 'support that is to be provided by

FUREG-0782 is still being drafted tends to add to the

waste generator's reluctance to change.' In the'

meantime, the waste generators will continue to

generate wastes and use disposal techniques which are known to compromise the ALARA concept and the goal of

assuring protection of public health and safety during

ransport and disposal of the wastes.

he Commission must recognize that there is an immediae need for regulatory standards and technical

;- l|' ) erlteria and not allow the development program to con- tinue for several more years. Immediate actions should

1)-5r~--

AN4 C55AA ftO UPN CO 9.- C OQ. CNEI).CAL COM *ANY

8-205
:: .. ' :^ :

-4 Scptember 18, 1981

-3- September 18. 1981 Spebri,18

be taken to establish and enforce standards and technical criteria based on the concepts of ALARA and best

aveilable technology for disposal of radioactive waste

at the existing disposal sites. The Commission has

used the excuse that the existing disposal sites are

located in and licensed by Agreement States, therefore,

the present regulatory standards and technical criteria

are the responsibility of the States. This Is not a

D -S - I \(p valid excuse. The States have limited technical and

economic resources to evaluate new or improved techniques and establish and enforce standards and technical criteria... Like the waste generators, the States are also reluctant to act without Commissionqguidance

and assistance with these matters. The need for the

Commission to provide guidance and assistance to the

States has received additional emphasis by passage of

the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act which

authorizes the States to enter into compacts in order

to establish and operate regional disposal sites. The

Coznission-should-take the lead by providing basic

standards and technical criteria and strengthen the

Agreement States Program with additional technical and

economic assistance.

2. Section 1V explains why the term low-level radioactive

(iwastea is not used in 10 CFR 61.

EDIn Comment

Dow agrees that wastes should be defined in terms of

radioactive and chemical properties and not in

traditional terms related to their origin.

3. Section V is a discussion of Commission logic and philosophies related to the use of prescriptive requirements versus performance objectives and the minimum

technical requirements related to disposal site --

selection, cperation. and closure including waste

characteristics and classification. Land ownership, -

institutional control, financial assurance, life cycle,

and impact of other regulatory requirements and groups

are also discussed.

Conment

Dow agrees with most of the logic and philosophy of

this section. However, the present needs for regulatory

standards and technical criteria can not be overlooked

and require the following specific ccmments.

Subsection a

Placing reliance oan stability of the disposed

waste at the time the facility is closed will be

possible only if stability is specified and

enforced by the standards and technical criteria

n _during the disposal operation. As pointed out in

previous comments, techniques wnich provide stable

waste forms are available today but due to the lack

of regulatory standards and technical crIteria they

are not in general use. These techniques result in

monoliths which place the radlonuclides into forms

which are less likely to be dispersed and less likely

to be released to and transported by, ground water. These monoliths are more likely to be recognized

and therefore avoided or properly investigated and

handled by intentional or inadvertent intruders.

All of these factors are within the concept of

ALAPA and reduce the need to rely on the many

unknowns and uncertainties associated with pa.hway

analysis.

Subsection C

As provlously stated Dow agrees -that wastes should

be-classified by their radioactive or chemical

properties. We also agree with the intent and the

five disposal site characteristics that are listed.

However, without Denef:t of NUAEG-0782 it is not

-possible at this time to provide specific detailed

-comments concerninq the waste classification

schceme.

(It is possible-to comment tnat lis-ing waste

) streams under Class A, 3, or C appears to be an

EJD - I attempt to classify wastes in terms of their

or:gin, and therefore, Is in direct conflict with

-lhe Intant of the classification scheme. It is

acknowledged that it is implied that ZMREG-0782

contains radioactive and chemical data to support this listing. -

D -5^ST - 2,

At is also possible and necessa-y -o remind the

Commission again that there is an immediate need

for enforced regulatory -standards and technical

criteria based on the concepts of ALARA and best

available technology. This need includes definition

of a 'de minimis' category fo: waste. Dow feels

that there is sufficient information available now

B-206
-5- September 18, 1981 -6- September 18, 1981

D fl5-7 i d questions the need for the Comaission to work n this definition over the next two years.

Subsection H

Dow agrees that many of the operational provisions

and waste characteristics requirements proposed in

this rulemaking are in effect at the existing

disposal facilities. The point is that the waste

characteristics requirements proposed in this rulemaking do not reflect the concepts of ALARA and

est available technology. Just as important.

taybe more, is the condition thit neither the'

omaission or the existing disposal facilities have

inspection and enforcement programs to assure that

the requirements are being met. Standards and

technical criteria without inspection and enforcement are useless and unnecessary.

(in spite of this comment, Dow agrees that the

existing'operating-sites-should have very little or A .t no difficulty in complying with the proper stan- I- _ |dards and technical criteria including inspection and enforcement. This must be put into effect

aimdiately. _

Part 61 - Licensing Roeuirernents for Land Disoosal of

Radioactive wastes

To comment on eachSubpart-and Section would in many

instances beto repeat comments which have been made regard- ing Suolementar Information.- In an effort to minimize

repetition Dow has limited its commtents to the following

specific Sections or paragraphs.

I ubpart A, Section 61.7 Concepts. (b)

Dow agrees that the primary safety objectives are to

prevent migration of radionuclides and exposure to

Intruders. It is also agreed that stability is a . cornerstone of the system to central migration of C ~ <radionuclides and contributes to intruder protection by _- providing a recognizable and nondispersible waste form.

Dow has no objecticns'to philosophies of the waste

classification scheme. There is some concern that too

much emphasis is being placed cn pathway analysis and

the ALMPA concept is being overlooked. However, specific corments can not be made until NIIEG-0782 is

available.

2. Subpart 3, Section 61.13 Technical Analyses and

Subpart C, All Sections

Once again, Dcw has no objections to the philosophies

expressed in these Sections but emphasis on pathway 5._ * analysis and specific dose values without including

the ALARA concept continues to cause concern. Dow

has noted that the Comuission has mentioned ALARA one time (page 38084) in the Supplementary Information

and not at all in Part 61. In an effort to reduce the

uncertainties associated with pathway analysis, the

CommissicA should make it very clear that the spirit

of the ALARA concept applies to all standards and

technical criteria.

3. Subpart D, Section 61.55 Waste Classification

Dow understands that the basis for this Section will be

contained in WRMEG-0782. Specific conments will therefore be made when NUREG-0782 is available. It is

possible to make the following general observations.

The Commission is to be complimented for not including the listing of waste streams under Class A. B. and C

that Dow objected to in the Supplementary Information.

/Table-1 leaves the impression that the Commission is

completely ignoring the needs of today and the objectives of assuring protection of the workers, the general

population, and the environnent durIng the cperatibn of

the disposal faciltiy. For examplez. Class A segregated waste may be transported and disposed of- with

only minimum requirements on waste form and cha;acteristics but may contain up to 140 curies of OwCo in a v5S-gallon drum. The minimum requirements on waste form

and characteristics are set forth in Section 61.56(a)

and will permit packaging wastes which are in a readily

dispersible form and which contain significant volumes

of liquids that will contribute to radionuclide migration by ground water. Dow understands that'140 curies

of 6 0Co in a 55-gallon drum will decay to about 0.1

millicarie after 100 vears of institutional czntrol'and

is therefore considered to be of little concern to the

intruder. However, there is doubt that 1C0 years of

,nstitutional control Is possible and 140 curies of

1

0 Co in a 55-gallon drum is of significant concern during the t:ansport. disposal, and first 50 years of

institutional control. -

8-207
:

-1-

September 1a, 1981

September 18, 1981 -7-

ahe point is that there are waste solidification technolog Ls available and in use today that with very

0ittle offrt and cost can place this 140 curios of

Co into a stable form. Use of these technologies D-S s-'3 *will dramatically reduce the transport and disposal

problems of today as well as significantly minimize

the potential hazard to the intruder should the institutional control fail in less than 100 years.

The Coomission should not ignore the needs of today and

establish standards and technology only for the benefits and protection of intruders after 100 years of

institutional control. This Section appears to be in

direct conflict with the concepts of ALARA and best

vailable technology.

4. ubpart 0, Section 61.56 Waste Characteristics

Dov suggests that minimu requirements for all classes

of waste should exclude the presence of liquids.

Historically the Commission and the nuclear industry

have used the term 'no free standing water' to describe

this exclusion as a desirable characteristic of the

wastes. The Cozmission's Effluent Treatment Systems

Branch (ETSB) defined free water as uncombined water

not bound by the solid matri-x in Branch Technical

Position - ETSo 11-3 dated Sovember 24, 1975. The

Z_ O Ccmaission funded a program at 3rookhaven National D- \Laboratory (3HL) to investigate the properties of solidified radioactive wastes and containers. 3SL sum- D _6 I.- marized the results of their program for the period

from April 1976 through September 1978 in NLREG/'R-0619

BUL-tUREG 50957. The 3B4L investigation confirmed much

of the information that had previously been reported by

Dow and others. The Central Electricity Generating

Board (C.E.C.B.), in the United Kingdom, has conducted

a similar investigation and confirmed such of the Sirinformation. At the request of the Commission, aSL

also provided input relevant to the establishment of

free standing water criteria revised October 15, 1979.

Dow suggests that the Commission has sufficient justification to limit noncorrosive liquid in the waste, as

referenced in paragraphs 6; S6, (a), (3) and 61.56,

(b). (2), to not exceed one-half percent (0.5%) of the

waste volume or one gallon per container, whichever is

less.

Dow was informed by a responsible Co=mission employee

that one of the purposes of paragraph 61.56, (b), (2) was to provide for disposal of ion exchange media by

mlrely dewatering to 1I of the volume of the waste.

Dow assumes that the wording of paragraph 61.56. (b).

(1) which allows the disposasL container to provide stability after disposal is also for this purpose. Dow

suggests that the practice of disposing of icn exchange

etdia by merely dewatering. to any level, is not within

the conceptr of ALARA and best available technology.

Dow is not aware that the Commission has any information to indicate that any of the disposal containers

now available, including the recently introduced igh

integrity contarfiers, have b-en testeO to snow "hat

they cantwedeboecte -to irov1e ty in the disposa. environment for aI Ieast 1S0 vears Dow suggests

that 'n prepar'ng Sectlon.61.56 the Commission has

ignored the 1hformation provided by BSL and others.

Section 61.56 therefore fails to reflect the concepts

ofaLA&RAind best available technology; it is a significant change from Section 61.86 in draft 10 CFR 61 dated November S5 1979: it is a significant, unaecessary, and unjustified relaxation of criteria now in

use at two of the three operating disposal sites; and

it will not achieve the objectives of the Commission as

stated in the Supplementary Information, Section V

Summary of Rule and 10 CYR 61. Subpart A, Section 61.7

Concepts. As written and published, this section will

not alleviate the reluctance of the waste generators and

the States to use new or improved techniques or provide

them with a clear indication of future regulatory standards and technical criteria. This entire section

should therefore be rewritten to correct these

conditions.

Dow understands that the Commission, with assistance

from BN4L, is preparing a Branch Technical Position

which is intended to describe a stable waste form. Dow & I4 Jfeels the Commission now has the information necessary

to accomplish this task in a timely manner. In addition to limiting noncorrosive free standing liquid to

less than'one-half percent (0 .5%) of the waste volume

or one gallon per container, waichever'is-less, the

characteristics should define stability in specific

terms such as homgeneity, leachability. compressive

strength, yield strength, impact resistance, radiation

resistance thermal resistance, biological resistance,

nd similar properties.

B-208

I
-10- September 18, 1981 -9- September 18, 1981

5. Subpart e - Records, Reports, Tests, and Inspections

As previously stated Dow feels that regulatory standards and technical criteria without inspection and -

inforcement are useless and unnecessary. It is noted

that the Commission intends to amend 10 CYR 20 to

include a new Section 20.311, Transfer for disposal and

manifests. -.Paragraphs 20.311, (d), (3) and 20.311,

(f), (5) provide for conducting quality assurance 7< -programs to assure compliance with lO CER 61 Sections I | -61.55 and 61.56. The Commission is to be complimented

for this intent and is encouraged to follow up to assure that these quality assurance programs are prop- erly performed. Compliance can only be assured by

inspection and enforcement at the waste generators

site. Dow suggests that this follow up include a full

scale preoperational qualification test similar to that

which was conducted prior to solidification of decontasmration waste-from the Auxiliary Building at Three

Mile-3sland-Unit-II during July 1979 or as described

in Appendix 2 of ANSSI/AMv-5.1-1979 with an appropriate

process control program to assure that radioactive waste - are solidified- in the same manner to produce the same results. . - - - -

in summary, Dow agrees with many of the goals, oo3ectivis, philosophies, and definitions expressed by the Commission in

this rulemaking.- However, the Commission has failed torecognize that there-is-an- imediate need for regulatory

standards-and technical criteria for the proper disposal of

wastes- that are being generated and disposed today.- Pathway

analysis has been emphasized without inclusion of the ccn- cepts of ALARA and best available technology. This emphasis

has resulted in a waste classification scheme which maylimit exposure to the intruder after 100 years of institutional control but fails to consider the need to protect the

vorcers, general Population, and environment during

transport and disposal operations. The Commission has sufficient technical information from BL, Dow, and others

which when considered with the experience of the nuclear

industry justi!ies immediate action to establish and enforce

reoulatorv standards and technical criteria which will meet

the agreed to goals, objectives, philosophies and definitions.

Dow representatives are available to provide additional

information, assistance, and comments necessary to assist in

the timely establishment of appropriate regulatory standards

and technical criteria.

Sincerely,

Lwg. i. B. Owen

Group Leader

Nuclear & Solidification Services

517-636-3388

fo

B-209
ISHAM. UNCOLN & BEALEM COURMLORS AT t.AW O i9'o

Ncl GO. U ea *r Ptc 1 . & 

Ja-s S i sa *one, 

Stcye an^no -LX|s ----

O1.S. t~1uclear $ sio R______

Washin~tonD. C.; 205SS- --± W- &-g0 /

Attention: DocketLng and Service Branch

Cc-mnwealth Edison Cropany (Cc onwealth) S. s 4 tS

these comments on the proposed rules for Licensing Req=I-re-

=ents for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, ublished in

46 Fed. seq. 32081. Cero wealth holds operating licenses for

seven operating nuclear reactors and ccns'ruction per4its for

six aore units. Comwealth and its crstoners Ln Northern

llinois have a substantial interest in and need for the

prompt establisi ent o' i 'idwest low level waste facility.

Acce'rdiglly, we have the follcwing suggestions.

The zronosed additicns to 10 C.r.a. part 61 will. unecassarily yprolong the tire required to obtain final approva!

of a l.cense to lde disposal fac±l±ty for low level-rad'oactive waste, by delaying-eeffectiveness o! a l'cerse until- ail

adeinistrati7e and Judicial appeals have been exhausted. -.

Co=onwealth' urges that pr-o-osed 10 C..?. R5561.3-and. 61.7 be

rev.sed- to' allc le censes;:o heccme effectlve redl-elv^

when granted bv-he Aomic Safety and Licensing 3oard (A.2)

Pa'42 w- o, at the latest, upon final review by the C. - .

Present regulations, 10 C.?r.. 52.764 allow ccnstrctiCc authorizations and operating licenses to become

effeetive: !=ediately upon issuance by the ASL3. This

'L-ediate effectlveness rule fully protects the ;ublis

health and safety wlthocz :_s-'y and -=%necessary adnila--

- rative delays. A s the r-Ile nov sta-ds, ccrsc-_:on anc operat'on c! -!aci 7 't conditicned -ucn approval ny

the ASL3, the da _3-izative body mc st a__ ed to judge

the cempliance of the proposed fac : ty With federal laws;

noreove:, a-procedure is ava-lable for delay.g :srs ction

and cpe-aton- even-:after AS'3 approval, 'f good caise is

i Shown why te-ae~p-0va~ fsoctd not become - -tedia:ely effect've.

-2-

proposed 10 C.F. . 5561.3 and 61.7 will delay effectiveness of a license until review by both the Licensing Appeal

Board and the Crmaission . itself, and, as implied in the

Supplementary Tmformation preceding the proposed role, 46

red. Reg. 38087, appeals through all levels of the federal

judicial system. This could cause a delay of several years

between initial approval of the licerse and the begqinnig

of constructIon of the facility. The small and speculative

beneflt to publIc health and safety whtch may accrue from

this delay is not nearly cormensurate with the added cost to

the applicant, its custcmers and the public at large who

benefit from l1w generating activities and who u-gently

need the prompt establishment of new regional 11w facilitles.

At a mini==, the rale should be revised explicitly to exclude the possibility raised by the Supplementary Infor-ation,

that effectiveness will be delayed until all federal judicial

appeals have been exhausted. The judiciary brings no additicnal technical expertise to review O' a nuclear waste disposal license, and Judicial review w4 ll shed no critical new

light on a proposed facility which has been reviewed by, and

has the approval cf, all rev4ewing bodies w_ 4.'. the NRC.

Delay of constructlcn until the end of Judlcial appeals will

add greatly to time and expense, with no concomitant benefit

to the public health and safety license.

.. . . ... . .

.

,. .

.. : . * .

... . . . .

.I .: ,-

. I " . - . . . ' . . , I * . 1

B-2 10
The Secretary

Nuclear Regulatory Coonission

Washington DC 20553

VSA

Department of the Environment e

Room *-5

Romneyltouse

43 M trsham Street ,n 5

London SWIP'3PY *

Telephone: 01.212. Zt-';

S~z^__ jA ;

*: - *-,e .,-e., 0., A

13 October 1981

,,...-'

Dear Sir (q&l~ IM

PRCPOSED RUIES: 10 C." 60 and 10 CTR 2, 19.

20. 21. 30. 40. 51. 61. 70, 73 S d 1tO

I respond to the Nuclear Regulatorv Commission's invitation to ce=*net on

the above proposals on behalf of tbh regulator? departments itn the United

3ingdor with resonasibillties for radioactive waste managenent. They are

the Department of the Environnent, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food, the luclear tnstallatioas Inspectorate and the Scottish and

Walsh Offices. I also annex conments received frcm other t"S organizations.

The proposals made are most Interesting, demonstrating the absolute standards

approach rather than the cuse-by-case regulation conmonly adooted in the

United Kingdom. Document 10 CFR 61 illustrates the setting of overall

performance objectives whils: allowing some flexibility in desitrint and

poeratlng each individual repository. *hereas dotument 10 CM 60 innears to set

acciptsnce criteria not always justified by technical evidence.. This

could, in our view. lead to unduly restrfctlve or lax standards when

--search results perVit a sore rigorous analysis to be undertaken.

h United limcdon rexulates the whole system of disposal of low level

radioactive wastes. Te deal with disposals on individual sites and on :he

Ibsis of individual waste tyPes, matching waste to local conditions either In

\shalow land-burial sites or by disposal to the marine environnent. Our

precTice recognisos that wastes will eventually leach from a dIsposal s'te

a - and we aim to ensure that adequate dilution and dIspersion takes *lice to protect critical groups from wnacceptable dcses.

|' also recognise the merit of developingas range of repositories o!!erine

levels of isolatIon appropriate to the nature of :he waste utiliszI:t

for instance, exIsting cavities or purpose-buil: rvposa:orlts at invernediate

Zn the case of high-level, heat-genersaIng wastes, the Znited Kingdom is not

connitted to the use of the geological route fcr disnosal. tesearch is

takin; place Iato var ous optIons (disposal to various tFyes of ;,eolnlc'al

forma::on, disposal on or under the ocean bed, rery loor-term stornee at or

near the surf2Ce). The fIrst step however will be te vltrify such wastes, and

it is then likely that the vitrified wastes will be stored, using

existing technology, for a period of 0 years or even lonrer, in order to

facilitate supervision and secure a substantial reduction in beat output.

The best solution can then be chosen oan the basis of full and detailed

infornation about the alternatives. We believe that such storage ie a

realistic and acceptable proposition, ard it has gained a considerable

measure of public acceptsance in the tnited Kinedom. Because of this,

we do not see a need In our own case for the particular concert of

'retrtvability' which Is incornorated tn your pro70osals: we shall not

undertake disposal until we are satisfied that the rerository in question

will be safe.

In regard to problems of human intrusion into a repository, our view Is that

institutional controls are required only over that period during which the

hazard Is primarily due to the fission products. Similarly, our existing

control over potential repository sites does not take into consideration

present-day population distribution, since we cannot oredict population

changes in the future.

In takieg account of the many-technical factors to be considered in a choice

between the several options for creatinr a repository for heat-emittin- astes,

we have adopted a systeus study approach in order to bring together the

many areas of rseaareb and operation. As a result we would not wish

to set down specitic criteria or defined levels for a11 variables, because

these levels will differ from site to site. Te think it advIsabl, for any

regulatory procedure to make allowance for natural variation.

Comment has been Invited-on a nuober ol spectfic issues and those on

which we can corment are dealt with in the paragranhs above.- Those remaining

relate to matters ofonational concern and do not call for any coment from

the UK. There are, however, two matters which should be considered as needing

clarification:

- (a) theALAPA principle, mentioned as a footnote on p.352S9, might

perhars he explained nore fully in relation to the anpreach

adoptr by the ICRP; In particular the need to take social

and eccnemic factors Into aceount:

(b) on the sme mate, in coluon 2 iA 7 it is rot made clear whether

"c-ne part In 100,000" refers to the ctivity in the yeair in

question or to that which was originally e=placed. This seems

to be 1 critical matter which must hO unanblguous.

The detailed comments received from the National Radiolocical Protecdton Board.

the United Xingdom Atrtic Energy Authority, and the Natural Environment

Research Council's Institute of Eteologlcal Sciences are annexed. t must

stress That the vIews eorressed are those of the orzanisa:ion Subai:tt1C then.

Yours sIncerely

F S FEATES

1

8-211
6 * e -'**.

\7-S-U PFOt-CSMf '..

otio CPsiloical P--ectio n Bca.'d.

lo Cm P --rtf_0isocsal cf Hiah-L-elg Pd otveWateinCe3.cia

1.Gee al aents

7. he rule has bheen developed in the ahsence.of radiolbeical. ;rtctitor.

criteria Ce-vramntal StLads, for dizmosal of hIq.h-Iev.el wastes; th-.

pr =.sed te-dnical criteria are, therefore, .ar-bitrary. 74his aczroao tsett-Iq tecodnical criteria is Lo=zrec-t i. zrinciple. Itt le~adi to c-ir±a:±

%tihare inflexV51e because, since they have no oCiazz Oasis. t1hare ca-n Le

no basis for chapgirq theo.- Zn addition the accrzacnh is v;erv I",l t

2.ezd to criteria which ars too restrictive, thus causing wror exmdit*.re

crn Ligh-leval waste disposal than is warated !;I radiolog-ca protection

1.2 Mhe rule does oti- def-ine Ln any detail th',e re-ans by -4ulch coti~r.-l,-ce with

perfoctance chiect-~ves is tzo 5e de .nstrst~ef. ;.s a cre.en~te ooe

perfcctance objectives havee little r--eaning &rd it is very d~fir--olt to

decide whether tne- ame &=roroolate Cr achievsble.

1.3 Cre Cf the -.eio parzoses; of the rula is to radzce uncertairties :in

pref-~cting1 thepefomac of Seoc-Cgic di'sosa-l Sysz=rS. lvi,1e t is a

reascm'able cb.t~eit is hs1--stte-nia

criteria -h-Io may be to etitv, a e resriciv, e a. ly fo := -as .j . it

also ~me the "geologiz barrier, to an extuat uthIch is i:z;a~~

with the rase fz= select'ng t:-e qa~losi d-Istcal Cztion.

1.4 For the rezsar~s outli~ned above, the rro;csed± rale is1 naisec- a-r

sh,"Iad vto be adc-rad inI its crpsetr fom.: .culd be :r-e-e:C.e leave

the X.-l! in1 roc ' or un~til the N sta.miards have i;een PulIts~-and 4

unt±.1. thera is suff1oier~t -Ilfzzmatic.n Wavaiab to drive :eh.clcriteria

fz-nt tnese Stnad .T rol,_ n.~ the ob rev-sd

2. Soeiciffz PCInts,

2.1 ±n~ - Th etiveirPre.iae (C. 25232 and Sect-'M

60. 112. P. 3-289) -is ;crlvy def tned, It is not Clear wnet.,= rstoxevLn: is

regardced as an etrem-e eaur ad the ntant 'ztrz is onlyv to sr that

wastes C--I be ca--ad and coo.:d te rezrieved at Zmalt C!-S, o.- -tet!~A

a resitz=-. !nL:ed estc Oned z~= rata tod W =.ato~~i be

relativel~y siincla.

2.2 L.-%tx:.:tsicn - it is reason.able to disti'nquish ter.neen delilerate orsn

und -in verzateoi.rson ard to i~gt' fcr.crn=c i wha .. ,e sett-I

critearia. o'erthe o-rcbability7r- c---r-re'!iav~w nuiSho=a2 be cosie ed tn Setting tec:nnlcal Criteria sluch1 as themiur

dispcsoal dazth, and L,' sixocifyi.n sita 3election ind ,rx-.'r:qrLntn

s~ =h NXo (p 323,oltn 2, caa.3)tat it 'doos no u:se to argros'

over nessurcs deziroad t= pr.even-,t intor'si~ -r to "s 2Colata' on 'intxrtico

scendrics ±5 CnatntWt t-ha dl±S'zlz~C.n I.C! proodes it. SC.

axzVnints an So,22±OJ hol piay a coot i.,dcdngnhte a raspzsitzr( is acce .tibla.

2.23 A ltorotiv3'Atr P oh os (to pr oscriLIng crltcria) - T he 'alternative

a, roo-rc.hc3' (p.35213) 3. carln 3. para. 2) c:-os-Idrd sdot by 7X ahCd tC

c-idcrd zs aller.ativse, they represacnt stzes in dcvoloping cr:tcric

ar .- ri pa erfo=om e btec -lv es f or ;eol dgic dispcsal. 's I ni de to develop a

csnsisis-t set of criteria it is necessaxy to set a siaqll overall

parf-cm nwrca stma.ard'', * -: der 've pirfcormance stw-dardAs for each

of the :rcr elealcrenss fom this overall- stadard via safety asses1 nts

and t n to derlv detailed nmrerical and nerqineeritn criteria f-c m mesa

perfor manc stardae s for th e sa ys1 eles en ts. In c hoosin g 'Altearnaive

2' U are acting prenatweely aaZ lkt'Ing the desIgners' flWibilitty to

an euesonable extentl (se-e also general ts.mits).

2.4 lnddepe-deunc' Cf Site ard Desicn Tr.2 - e v v'e that site aad deslcn are

so iterdame.n d et that it is a titt'ccal and misleadiWg to sa parate siti g

end design rern ire(nts (p. 35234, palum 1, para. 3) Is very real itic.

Separation of thre rwa t s of rec±irn miant u d ineXvitably lead to

cireosist a-cies ar4 di ties :Ln reeIng criteria.

2.5 Sit ing Pea air mna ts (pcpulati on densit y) - The decisiro_ noz ' to i nc ay

sitsing reir.sernts deai dheal direc w ulay ;cplaticn cth desity or

prrcriLty to pcp;atic.L cen.res (p. 35284, cozlnmm 3, para. 4) Is bcth

practical a s rea'Istic. c Gi:ven thA e log t:L- perids of c r z-en in caclcglx

dLucs oal it ww ud be -inp esible to e rea that any .o such re qJi ants %mra

r.et.

2.6 ref'ona cf ispsas t a n msa - Ta en t- e ther d thee e f'-' i ti o ns

of disd l -sal an!iscolati= (SectioL n 60.2, P. 352.5-3) are ocrs istina with

MA c-s=ers and on de recogL - itii n that isolaticn :L-=lies cn n _ rl f

releases to e vro _e rat e zero role..ma e.

2.7 a rlis;c Aspects of a n the description of the nt-s

of assesemnts (Section. 5C.21 (ii), p. 3S237F there is no meiton of

es-_uaIn .ozr*lL:Lies t''d tAt vaLrias events axd crcoesses oc- c--.l .

T ._I'tLcticn he is -that :. avav re s eached a eision on. the x- n to

whi ch rooba bi ites s. l -d L be I. d n:C ad in ss ass :a. ts, a S p1ta of the

1.-dica-ti s that =-A standards wl re le a r L . istic : arc ac.

%i-s s ec tion of t h.Ae r le fa rd ot -- rela ted se ti e ns e i r evisicr to

cl arify the , C os't: n on cassessmen_ " .do'x cs.

2.8 ' -s nab le Abss ura:r nce' - Me re -u: e m en o fa r reascr na le ass urance (Se = tion

60) 101 (a) (2), P. 35288) that fr-_e cb~ec-ives ad criteria will

be r et does ot mrovide s 'ic ient , e fc o .mcolicaits. SL ce the

parfozrmnce c',4ecove s &4 critari a in. the prpsa d rl e a-_:--arbtr>

(see g enera cm m nts) ' I is chri oosly di ddL clt to de'i-- : rersly hc

c c-plianc e is to be der crst-rated. cw wve r ctbe ass uanca" cul l be

s't s c: caly def'Lr e d, tain g i.-.t. o a co; the L CreaL-.e -It.e ;:nc

of treadict-ns with tinme.

2.9 ;--'A -:^ C spe ci: I'"ly seas oon.-its -, . r4- ha r an ZA; - . rI nci_- e

s .hCl d b, 1 -o' ed tO the - p erf rar c C!; e ctivs fo: oc or.: a nd c= :. = l

of rele:su (Section 6o.l'', r. 35239). _: _S diffi_ ':t toa s*a lreic

Ln ar oivyirg A!AA to p' tIoular ,- rts of the se rs'a systel _'hi Li t 6 h en sp ee flfy i n c r i te r i a f o r oth e r p ar ts . : h e At U i'A or i nr i olc s. s n u b .e

a major feature of the overall erfe .- nce c_ e ctve for ha ^.. ole d' rsal

sys t4A . T h: p rin cipl e s hould t h; n e : p lLed b oth in Cc.i, o5 et. er

;e w.le systm Is aoee 3!ie a -a i Ln s-ttIng per-'o-._r obe ctis for

system ae i .: nts. L the lat ter case i: -w'1 l b . e c ss y t s .hr_ t e:

p orfom-oc2 obje ct:ves are not c ve r-r estrIcttlve, -'n th slo se that th

entail -cre !-Imancial 21 soe I is '^ roon d by t-'. re uot L'! t t-al r i.t, ses to>'- us Z:-Z= :_-..cf !;' Cz '~-..3r.:

8-212
critoria would show n cntainnt fer 103 Ycars is not a reoncble

remuire-ont for either I7kl cr 1 wastes.

2.10 Favcurable ard Potentially Adverse Cwnditfcrs - This approach (Section

60.122 and 60. 123, P. 3529>1) to soecifying geologic criteria is a very

reasnmale and practical one. it allows considerable flexibility in

selectin sites, ranoi:- ellcwarce for thi wide va-iatiors in geolog±c

er.virorvtits. Th, e 'nclrsicn cf a r.L rx discesal deeth of 3n. as a

falvourable ccndition, rather then a strict criteria, is a pexticularly grc

feat.re ef the oopr-ach.

2.11 Backf'll onrtidn's - Th.e Crosed rule ris that the bad-fill sh!all serve a .ber4I functions (Secti 60.132 Ci), (3), (ii), P. 35293),.

without seoxifyIng the degree of ef ectiveness required. It seers unlielv

that any Lackfill rateriul could perforn all of these .functions effectively.

t2,e ojecrtive should be tO chocse a raterial with the opt=.an ccobL:aticn

of pFcerties.

10 Cri Pnrt 61. -Licmnsina P=pireaets for Lord Disosal of Pnicactiva

Waste

General Camrmta

1.2 The rule appears to be satisfactcri weimn viewed in the contaxt of the

\ eurrent US waste rarnagem-t situation. .he approach cf cifying overall

perfornance objectives (zadiolesical prctection standards) and

scritivre rents is so=ud. tleads t criteria which are C. | orsist a-t and sotndly based, while providing considerable flecibility fcr

Selectiog the design features and cperatirl procedures leading to an

/ optrin disposal systes for particular waste types and sites.

1.2 T-he e=.asis on the longer tean as;ects of near-surface disposal (site

closure, Instituticnal ccntrols etc.) is enti'elv apFrXFiate. hese

aspects have not received sufficient attention Li t.e past.

2. Soecific Points

2.y rfoor.vce Cbje-tives - The radiological protection standards specified in

I the rule (p. 3S083 and Sectic-s 61.41, 61.42) actear to be reasonable. Mae

aporoach of sett'iSg an -idividual dose lirit for inadverte-nt intrusion ard C-t seperate 11:Tits frc gromrdw-ater releases is ccnsistent with the propcsed

tUt aporzach to radiological prote0tion standards for dispcsal cptions ard

wi-h ICO ;riniciples. Hioever, it is not clear w.hether the S5 rres lUimt in the intrusion case is entirely consist.et with CP dose Units ~bec-use the r:le only states thst the linit is for wthle bcdv dose, net

'heter it is in ter-s ef effectIve dose. This peont should be clarifie.

The dese l-:Lts for g o-e.ar releases are cor.sistent with -rrrnt US C- 3 practice and, when cbini.ed with the req.ire-ent that =A Orfrkinrg Water

)Stanar4ds suld rnot be enseeded, sh uld ersure the deses are as lewr as

.reasctably achievcble.

2.2 Mi:ninr Technical .. e'-.s

.2.1 Gr .dw-ater - The Lrecuireents related to access of grod-.ater

'.o e~e Uste (P.35 8 e4 and se--s 61.7, 61.50, 61.51) seen rduly

rstrietive and s-ac '-:sst-nt with the per!o-rce oct'v es. 7here should be .-o re-:ire-ents to prernt warer access, ni- misa wmter a-ess or show t-at diffusion is the ,redca±-nant radt.cl'de ransxr aiIn. lt is oely recessary to e.-sre that releases via cnrvzwadter , not result Ln a failure to meet the mer!r:n.oe ebhecoties.

(2.2.2. easte ClassifLcation - the classification of astess into 3

cate ecries, the basis ':r this claissiication and the associated cc:ditionirg D- %) 3 a.n dis-xsa; _e_ ,L rt .nay wl be a-r-r:ate for U'S w ses. Ho-wer,

the l'm't c 0l nC qc- !ion 61.551 -- aloha-e-ttL-.g; trans-uranc

r-4ionuclldes could be tco ras:rictive f:r Class C wastes. in additin it Ls rot clear *.et-er this lnit. a-coles to CLass A and Class S wastes as well; if it does t2ha reasors fcr c;ccsing the sa.e limit fcr all wastes

should be eolsire.

(i.2.3 Paoargng - The recuL-ent that all w-aste rust be p:oJpi to

J trarsoor-st2 s (Sect'on 61.56 Ca) (i); ?. NCs97) is not e^licit. D-C:--it is .-C_ cl:r whether wastes f.id :ordisposal ackie'; _ (this ,pro5it'g the use of re~sour le shielded -;cSces) or *.tej-r

(they c.nl.'-eed to be pac'cai for trsrcr-e ad .ndli prior to discsaal.

. I.

-3-

B-213
.' * ; . ..

.2.4 jtoblity - intenton to providf stability for at least 150 yea-rs

-5 - tSection 61.56) coes not ap r to be cnsistanz with eiter hce r snxim

L-~i uet l cr nl oc ic 100 y cars) cr th e x cr- :i cv- t that na- -m: c r

fr s~ r b r ae s i l e pr ov id e p ro t ec t io n a ga ir s t h ma n Li tr a zion f o r : least 50O years.

Inconsistenies bet.0--n 10 G-R Pan 60 ard 10 CFR Pat_ 61

5here are a -=rrher of Lrportant inconsisttencies bt.een Part 60 ard Part 61. "'e overall ef'ect of these consistncies is to r*pcr a- view that Part 60

has a less satisfactory basis than Part 61.

2.. Aproach to setting Criteria and Perforrarce Objectives - in Part 61 cverall

perfcrance dbjectives (radiation protection staxerds) anl prescriptive requirements are specified. This approach leads to a zral wtch is generally satisfactory aod w c has a clear basis in radioloctal _rot;ction as veell as practical engieering and aL istrative prceCdures. 'n cont-rst, Par 60 czntaiss a ==.ber of axbitrary renutrsnts, has no clear 'asis in radlogls ical protection and ray theref.e be to a larce extant - .c.-rcaole. The major inccnsiszwn-v be een the two rales is l lkelv to create un.ecessaay .dilfiilties in i-plemanting MW disposal sL e it will reinforce m vie. s of those wh claim that disrosal of this waste o-.ot cebe c urr± cat in an

acceptable raner.

2. Pzo tacticn of idividuals and P l=aticrs - In Part 61 both 'i dividals aa d

prlatiP' s s are considerad 'en setting radiological protection criticia; C -I -1ti ta ticn o f d o se s to - inL v v ii s aa s in - -h e t v e on t, o f-c ia n io p las y s a major part in s eci q , '.re r, ts. As noted above, ladiogical ;rztection, priciples anl critaria !hav.e played a minor role -I divolcis n Part 60. F :eve, this rule dOes not contain ref e'ences to te e EA s taid'r ~ fo i dis isall a.-O. t' i dicati s are that thase sta-daxts

will deal, only wit't th effects! in pcul atic.s. It, tLe' refore, apr ears that NtIC are prc=csos' -g to use radrca"y dc fferent radacLca ical c o criit ria . for i r and E ; dis s. s l. is . is25 c 'herently cm Iy 'heis-ir - it is alaso incr sistat with accetd -radicltngical orontction principles.

3. H Rean L ntruscs -o '- he Lnrtzn int cusion quastion iL s discussd L i Part 60 but

largely disri, sed as a factor diin a s spe decisions. In ; Part ; 61 of perform e objectives and tec'.ial se aror. arme atx =roteic.- . of

.the naLverten --_r.der. LrhciL.e nusicn is clearly rcrne ;:r--e at ne-surface disesall facilities and sh,:ould, therefore, recaive roe attention

L i this case, it is iLn =;sistw= to ds:iss it w..: n specifyin rrq.;- mn5 s

for deaper disposal.

4. Ls stizt"-' - al C-ntr:o s - Parr 61 does not te= it l- relire 'st on con1'tr=ls !o r-a :- an 102 yeaxrs and eai s to xxm--im - _buz see' n ss"' ea f._an re on urre ga neration . PaPt ;e sra ries that a - = o1: resrasssL s h o u l d r e- m a ine o pn f o r 1 1 0 v e * ...a r s . T h e - ra s f!r t:h e s e a'e t i L .d - f f'- vIeews of te extant -waste to --.ni.h :m nageunont raspcnsihizitLas ss be'

passed on to tte generatis are not cl.

.Sir Ase ial Assurances - ecr finaacial resprfns-biltt sime, closu-re are. \ sorvation is trL ated detail in Part 61. In part. _ 6 , - t-e re the tia es-as are lcrqer and tla rAeed to establish resisibilitLe s greater, this q\est Icn is nctr ddr:e ised; it is iL pllic assus tly 'a:w that ill be

availible. -_5

C.-5

A L W ;- he A A- pA rinciple is L :l ic it t hr u t Part 61 s inca t.3 Fh s analys e cost __th a benefits of a r a ro r of cb4 cotimms a2 d presecatLive r.culoequ nts. 1n Part. 61 thare s no eviden r thtis

principle as ben applied ard its application apcors only to have been Considered in s-cifying ccntaixmnt aid relase rate objectives.

'lnteozediate _evel Nastes - The rAt effect -of the w r'les is to recquire that wastes with less than 10 nUC g-l alpla mittinq trarnsuranic radionuc'"es

srald be dlsoosed of by ear-sueface burial and that wastes aboe t:-is L mit (TY wates) shmk d ba treated to prcd:ce a highly leach resistant

waste form and ulazef in deep geologic rezositories. AllthO.h there is a provision in Part 61 for dealing withere active wastes Co a casa-by- case basis, it is evident that this provision is not intended to cover TRU wastes. Part 60 req.,ras that TWU wrstes shold be maraged r-, dispcsea of In essentially the sate way as HU?. :Fe tz rles, tharaefore, praclude the option of disposing of t7> wastes at inte-ediata depth withust thghlv Soph _iticat d a-J ex es- ve s Cut c L is tio iag. This -aV .. be in t* a clrr-. t U S st': ation 1 _ :ae the rate of gene ratia n of T. wastes is lw . It culd nct sen to be a reasonle -emnt for the CUA u.are tere are already large o!Lzrneas of inte te level (-. r) wastes in store with more being producad admay lead to pr-ol.ns in the fu==e in the US. Me two riles do not pcz vide an a--rcacn to the disposal of al the a-taoores of Ln -te levelate Iel wastes -_.tc is consistent with the ALAOA prnciple.

.a ticnal Rl diccal ->adc::=o.-- ,

!_lt.., o, O:o, oC>! C.-,.

3Oth SiptL.-,r, lca:.

B-214
b 5

s @ *ffi l ffi

page 3'2'3, colurmn 3 00Pj4!NETS C.W 4.M~.C. PqCPCStC. RULES

By

UNIr=D KINGDOM4 =?0IC ENERGY AUNCRITY

10 CFR Part/ Disosal of Hich-tevel Radioae:tve Wastes in Gecloiio

Reoos :to ri '

Geoeral

we feel *hat too many firm numbers are being laid down without sufficient

experLmen:al and theoretica' 'us:L':a!& on. Pa:ticla:ly if !isosal

will net take place for rany years It is 'ette: to se: overall dose

limits to CefLe e *'e required _er'oranos of the multiple 'arrie:.

S: is then up to desI!ne:s to cp:imlse the indivi":al elecerts i'- -'

system as models ad experimer:al da:a a:e I=proved over thIe years. The

proposed role weuld free:z pcp:':s too srcn. Most of the numters

quoted are probably reasonable but at this stage *hey should be txitples

not r:'eS.

We belleve that zver-emphasis on designIng 'or ri:trevabtiz3:y eould

dis:ort the desl;? of a :epcsi:r;. Fs:or hato-elttnq waste it is

better, therefore, to a'm for a -er:od of re%:revLble storxge fo:'owed by

disposal with no '-:entirn of re:tieval. After -' , re:!reval is

always eos':eib as I las% resort 'ut it rnould never te necessar' Ind

shoeld net be allowad to distort the desIgn. !Ths problem rni': 'e

eased by having separa:e rules for spent ':el and otse: hegh-:eve;

daste s nre wasta * u:cd be even--ally disposed of but !-el is a resour:e

.which eay need t: te retrIeved.

:n a nu-'er zf cases the 'a' n't':ns ;uo:e d dL!far in detil: f!rom

tzosa =:::Ished ir the :AEA Nueiea: wasma Management :lcsrly ;::ra',

Aprl: !92::. :t would be advan:i;eous If the ternatlonally a;:ee'

dafinit..ns could 'e ' sd wneraver possible.

O.:aile! Peferencees t: :hs Tex:

Page 3e!, colurr 2, para.: 2 Ne are ozt_ abou: speci!:Ynq

Page 35284, column I

Page 35254, coluvt 3. last pare.

page 35:°5, column 3

page 352S6, column:

Page 3'329

Page 35250

?age :'i§0

have value as a resource.

Of the 3 'alternatLves at this

stage we strongly favour 1, the

setting of a single overall performance

standard. :t should then be possible

to eove to 2, setting of 'nrm

per!ormance standards for ra~er elements as core experience and

evidence becomes available.

overall Oescription, we have grave

doubts about the soecifica:ion ef

300 metres minimumv depth whIc? may be

totally Inappropriate at a specific

site.

We agree that there is no point

in invoking a pepulation criterion.

Definitions, we would like to see many

of these altered to conform to the

'ALA glossary.

PeWLl is a printing error.

?erformance Ch:actives. This is the

SOst critical section and we would -estion

the justi1c":aton far moit of the

numbers quoted a .:

- retrievabilizy '0 years after

emplacecen: is cmplete.

- ,0CCG years contaInment by the

waste package.

- i In :^CoCCO Arn'-l release o?

any radlouclide. Also this

definition Is not totally clear.

is it 1 in 103,CCC of the anount

of the rdld :l;ds present after

!CCO years ::r in lC,=:O in Any yea:

of that ok:h is presen: at-.the

start of that year.

Favoo:rabl :o!:1c! s :') (4! le are

deubtful ibout s;eo'!ying ht re:-er

at thIs stage since i:s si'n-ffcancs

is ve:- depsrdent en 1) regarding

radionuc:ide 'rinsport.

(t) as above we are cencerned that

3CC metres =ay co ina&;r:priate a: soM2 sites.

?otentirl:y Adverse Co:dItIens.

:_) the nlad :o I:nvc:;I:s::e' 2 k:':-tro :r:- *nd !'; !Ctos be:ow_-::st:- _ _.___ - ... . _... .* .

?age 23':1. Z _-:ars1:- . I

Page 253.-, bottom cf oolm-jn

?:;e. 2!:, ::'_r 3

:0GC year transt :L-te.

O ^CO years is a specl:er ti:e:*.oer

and rztninr is ;aIned by s::ming It.

:! waste is to be ditp:sed of on an

experI:enta: basIs L: is ressonable to

insIs: on re:::ov_: in t:na

ea:ly stages. We do no-:. howeve:,

bel'ave th': :;3 year ret:oavobllty

sEcul! be a ::rd!::: for a:l 1 'tur_

reposioortos. we !awour the

alternative of st::ing :he t:idf:ed

waste for cany years in t!an dfszCs2n7

:f I! wtth no Intent-:n of : t:'evi:

Aunan ±n-:rus::n we 'elIeve that a

B-215
10 CFR Part 61, Lcensing Recrai:ements for Land atsposal of R&oac:tive

was-_*

Ceneral

Cu: za>z co=en: is jus: to no:e -- a: VtA. def~a':,- 4f t'w-Lave: wa&s:e

Is noc eonsistent a th ae 1IZ de .n:tion and cvat szi.ar~ly VAe

cate;orzes A,3 and C and the 1'-'i:s Tzed in 7&ble I :eflez: U.SJA.

national prac:tie wnioh differs :n detail f:cm ha-t Ln many oA.:

Couwwries inc.ud4r.g Vhe U.K.

Der-aled Referenee to -a. Text

Pages ;fZfS/38CSC De::nstions. ua sggasz hat: -.nr. : aye:

poassi±2 e -"ese snceld La ;_ e

wit% Ve :Az. ;7!ZssAry.

we doubtV .he us.-f-e: z:r req-u:.n

stablli.y for :!C years.

NUCLEAR RICULATCRY Ch-MiSSION

tO CFR PARTS 5C ANO 51

CO.MENTS

by the

INSTITUTE OF GECLCCICAL SCIENCES

tOtNCON

PagD 3SC97

AXPD

3uildin; r 0

ERE Har.aU;

!ftsti:u e of ^::!:;7czl Sciences

_1- x i; t i n -.27a

S:J:h Kensinton

Lencon S'J7 2CE.

CCT:2_!. !".I

B-216
. - .

Cornrents on fluclear Regulatory Corrllssion OC rent - 10 V'P. Pa 1r y the

Institute of Geological Sciences

General Correits

The rajor features of the proposed rule are considered under six subheads:

(1) Overall description

(2) Performance objectives

!3) Siting requirements

(4) Design and construction

(5) waste package

(6) Perforoance confirmation.

There Is a ;eofo cal cononent erbodied in all of these su:heads but before

considering the detail It is pertinent to discuss two gereral points. The

first relates to Section 60.2 0efinitions (;p 352°5-6). Defnitiens are

given for "Geologic repository". "Geologic repository operations area".

"Ceolegical setting" or "site" and tho"0isturbed zone" but :hese are arplifi^d

In later sections of t:e report e.g. the "disturced :ne" is rather :lghtly

eefined on p.3529C (colur- 3). These subdivisions of the ;eolcgical tnvIro-n :

lead to possible differentIation betwee, the criteris recessary to def;re the

charactaristics of the "near" and "far" fieles. As they stand tne deflnitions

are ambiguous, particularly in relation :o the "`eole7ical set-Tng" er "site"

which eaer;es as an arorphcus concept of unlenzin direnslons end charucteristics.

The second Senerel coint leads directly froms the amblguity ir the defini:lon: are

relate% to consteuential incosi;stercies and varlaiiltty in the decree cf

qualitative ie-sus q ita ti. e cz : - Tents in' t tchnicil Xri:ar'3 nrcr te

;eo'oglcal vicv-peint':'.is :an be sce^, for exe-pla, In paces 35233 er; 35251.

Sections 63.122 a-d 65.123 in 'ni'h the favourable enC potentially adverse

conditions of the gao!ogie sete:i; are cnscrs eed. 0ther exarplas are

retfer-el to below in *eiat;on to specific poin:s. Scoe irconsistarcies hig!l ic':

acnirab;y vchse aspects of the siting of a PLRW rijptelory about which there

are insifficicn: :achni:31 data. It car be ar;,ed tha: :-ese socz:ins of the

dc..r.mnt Iliustrate t:e st:en;:h of t;e case t'r delayir.; t:e pro;ese- r,'es

until more techniCal data are available. The deficiency of dtta and the

problen of the proof of tne aeequacy of a reeosltory intothe future Is

recoginsed throughout the text, for exarple at p.35293 Sectlon 60.101

paragraph 2. Staterents of this nature are entirely valid and seem to

negate the technical content of assocIated criterla.

Specific Cornents

feference to geological criteria occur throughout the text but they are covered

in sore detail on p.352S9 Section 60.112, p.35290 Section 60.122 and pp.3'Z90-1

Section G0.123 in which the required characteristics of the geological sett;ng

are considered and the octemtially favourable and adverse conditins are outlined.

The generallsed characteristics of Section 60.112 (mandatory) are ampilfied

in Section 60.122 which is proceeded by the statement that. "a geological

setting shall exhibit an approoriate combination of these (favourable) conditIons

so that, together with the engineered system. the favourable conditions present

are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that such perfor-ance objectives

will be ret". There is no IndicatIon of what combination of conditions would

be regarded as approprlate and so.re of the associated staterents are so

generalised as :o cause difficulties In interpretation of their neaning. Ft'S

of i-e Criteria are interective, although this is not erohasised in the text,

and many of the specif;i canditions are the products of a number of interactIve

factors.

Section 60.112

Para. (a). Sore quertita:t,. state".nt of 7tability wculd be desirable if these

randator? :haracteris: :s ere seen as slGiificant but a stable ceologleal setting

has :rovcd difficult to detfne in a ;eneric sense. It will nor3ally require

aftn1itinn in a reg;v-a 'a~h: than a S!cI sense.

'aris. fl end (b'. 'o itcrt of :he 2:cernsry" was probably chosen as a

rclatively arbi Err,. t,. ::venient t Ie base (etted a: atout 2 mI;eion years

ego in th :n;:^e r. ::. :hsch i as s fficiently far back In Th ;e ioqiccl

record to prvcvde a ns -r;t t;0re-base. Hotever, there is little scicntlfic

tails for :'cos;n; tz;: :i;o period, rather than any otchr specified araiod.

B-217
Para. (b). In the lind maessaedthe northern henisplere there have been a series

of glaciations during the Quatarnary and it Is totally unrualistic to speak

of hycrcgeologic and geo-orphic stability since the s:art:of the Quatcernary.

Para. (z). The I0O year timc ceriod appears to be related to assessacnts of

the life-span of the engineered barriers. The pre-waste emplacenent rates o'

groundwater movement. rather than travel tires over an arbitrary period of tire.

are relevant as the base-line from wnich migration tines can be judged. Any

final nuelide migration models (of the types outlined in Section 60.21.

0.35287 and to be included in the Safety Analysis Report) will atterpt to

simulate the repository and its geological setting as an entity. Accordingly,

it is the groundwater travel tines resulting from any perturbations caused by

the repository and its-waste which should te definitive. There is an

inconsistency with respect to groundwater travel times between Section 65.i11

para. (c) where the phrase .. at least 1000 years" :s used. and Section 60.122

pera. (f) (4t where the term . "substantially s... exceed IOC00years' appears.

Sec:lon 60.122

Paras, (J) to (a). The phrase "nature and rates of processes"'will prove difficult

to define and quan:ify when applied to some of the processes referred to. The

distinction n-ade tetveen the tarms "tectcnic pr:cesses" and "structural processes"

In paras. (a) and (b) is fine. In most situations :he two terrs woult be regarded

as synonorcus and the reason for the distinction is not clear.

Para. (f) 1). The tern "low grcundwator content" is aroiguous and

without a rigorous definition as to its precise weaning this condition could

preclude :-e inc!usicn of mony ar;illaceous formaticn5 and :rysta!"ine rzcks

which current rescarcn indicates couic be satisfactory as hosts.

?ara fj; .nis cat;n-eii ccrcltion il stret:s the ;aneralisa: neture of ::n:i::r

(a) to (I) and emchasisas the prcl!e-s of draf:in; :r!:eria :o ccver all of tne

intcracticc factors ;n aavanca of c:-I-:;lon of :-- recassary resear:h. Tnis

point is hell recognised in zt- te,:t (;.3523L 3rd column) ..... !h e.. irmcac: ef

these charac::risti:s on ovor Ii pZrformano .:cuvl t:s se ;:ecific. Thus. the

o:mission has jc;es :tha: :hese snojld not te -ade abso;4ta rti-enants.

Presence of all the favoiracle :'hr:c:eris:ics :crs not I::d :t :ha :cnciusicn

;ht: the s'te is iji:able :o hcst a r:p;si::ry. 'ci:hcr is :^e ;res-tion

of unsuitablilty bccause of the presence of an uifasouratle creracteristic

;ncontrovertible'. This valid concept should no; be negated by earlier

statemen:s in the rules whi:A are based on ,eneralised colcepts.

Para. (a) CS). The recognition of the timing of moverents on fault planes

is technically extrerely difficult and in many situations It would be irposSio;c

to ascertain whether or not a fault had been active since the start of the

Quaternary.

Para. (b) Cl) and (2).. In the cases of argillaceous and crystalline hcst-rocks

the evidence available from opencest and sub-surface mines as well as from prior

drillingr.my be advantageous in that they increase the aroun: and reliability

of ;nformat;on and may in no .ay detract from the suitability of the site.

This may not be so for evaporites, but the wording shoild reflect the distinction.

In addi:ion the rules ray well have Implications on the use of existing cavit;ss

for the storage of waste.

Pare. (b) ;5.* Nearly AlI rocks have, at some tine or another, suffered

dissolution - it is the degree and the nature of the processes involved which

are ;rportant. Mos: rocks are soluble under specified Oonditions.

Para. (b) {6) Does this condition refer to only onr fault - It Is the nature

of the fault wnich is important. not tie rere fact tha: it exists. In sor

cirL:-s:ances the identification of faulting In the distJrrbed cos may be regardCd

as advantageous in that theilocation(s) of the potential for future moverment

is kncown.

Para. (z) (3.. Uplift and sbsidenCe following isostetic readjustment af:tr

:he last cte Age is ubiquitous in the glaciated a'cas rd iS ::.-.:n ir nch

of the rest of the vor!d f!r varioes reasons. It is :he degree, rate and

tauses of structural zaforratlon whieh are i ortant

Pra. Ib' :1'. so such correlations shculd be are:ptet as :f nic!:,e as far

as 2rzas re-:;e fro. ;:ate :cunWaries ar: concerned.

Para. (b) (1!3. It is difficult to envisage tha: there are rot cores w:hifn

ary poe ntlal host-roek in hite' th2r, are not roducilr. c on;itrs. Zciautin

and intry af air into the -istr .d: one will chz.ga :th :cnditicns. it lst

in t.a naear-field, an'd 1n 4 ch clause will r.ee :to reccgnis; thi5.

8-218
Further gcoio;ical aspects or the technical criteria, especially those

concerned with geo-echanicaI. geochemical and the nature and design of

backfilllng naterials are conteired in Sections 60.132, 60.133, 60.134

and 60.135 (pp 35293-35295). These are concerned with the design and

construction requirements of the repository and Include sore very definitive

statements, such as the requiremznts of the backfill placed In a facility.

It can be argued that It is neither proven nor generally accepted, that

such requirements are necessary and that, accordingly, these statements are

premature.

Section 60.21

The contents of the Safety Analysis Report which is required to acconpany the

application for the siting of a repository provide a valuable resume of the

types of information necessary to describe and assess the suitability of a site

for the burial of VLRt! but again this ermphaslzes the need for conpletlon of

the research before comprehensive itandatory rules are Issued.

Conclus on

In it presant eneralised form the 'Proposed rule' hinhlights the areas In

which mcre techncial data are required and Illustrates the difficulty (one

danger) of Framing co.-rohenslve technical criteria which define safe linits

for complex. interactivo parameters. That there will be a need for technical

criteria to be defired at som1tire In the f>turs cannot be argued, but current

research programs are providing data relevant to the definition of such

criteria ard :he publication of a definitive rule for universal application

should await the cce-pleclon of many, If not all, of thcse studies. In the

meantime individua: a-plications ror site licences should be dealt with on a

si:e-sp;c;fic basis to ensure that rerfarmaincs ibjictivvs can be net.

Corments on Nuclear Rcgulatory Comimission 10 CFR Part 61 by the Institute

of Geological Sciences

The report Is very generalised In respect to the geological guidelines for

site selection and Is not dissImilar to the hydrogeological guidelines Issued

in the United Kingdom for disposal of controlled wastes. (The licensing of

waste disposal sites, Oepartment of the Environment, Waste Management Paper

No 4, MiSO, London). The concept of minimising water access into the waste

by choosing an appropriate site or by site engineering is stressed, along

with the need to assess the potential for flooding, erosion or seismic/

tectonic/volcanic events.

The following paragraphs consider geologlcal/hydrogeological aspects of site

selection, and are discussed In turn.

Para. 61.2. The definition of"engineered barrier" Is novel and Osage of

such terms ought to be compatible with document 10 CFR Part 60.

Para. 61.12. This identifies the broad subject areas which need to be

ED- I considered during site selection and includes "geologic,

technical hydrologic, meteorologic, climatologic and biotic

features of the disposal site and vicinity". The term

"technical hydrologic" Is taken to mean both hydrologic and

hydrogeologic but a precise definition of the meaning is

equi red.

Para. 61.13. This basically states that groundwater is probably the Frost

significant pathway for radioactive transport back to the surface

and man, and requires particular study. Although groundwater

transport Is very significant, recent sensitivity analyses

suggest that other pathways such as human intrusion, erosion

,8-| and vegetation uptake may be more significant (Faulth and

Wilhite, 1980, Prediction of radionuclide migration from

Savannah River Plant's burled waste. Trans Am. Nucl. Soc.

Vol. 34, p.119).

. IB-219
rara. 0I .5. this paragtrph outtines crlteria for use In site selection,

covering the prectieability of characterlsation, modelling

and monitoring; mineral reserves; drainage and flooding;

erosion/stablilty; seismicity/tectonics/iulcanism; and hydrogeology.

In particular (a) (8), states that "any grounowater discharge

to the surface within the disposal site must not originate within

the hydrogeologic unit used for disposal". In some circuastances

this may be unnecessarily restrictive and tray not be required to

meet the performance objectives outlined earlier in the document.

eas. 61.51 DPoint (a) (6) states that the "site must be designed coeliminate L . contact of percolating or standing water with wastes after / disposal". Again this could prove unnecessarily restrictive In

(_sany circumstances and for some wastes.

The SuretyAssociation of America

100 WOCO AV. S.. SE. hi VJY tAaM (201) 494-700

ULOYD MpOVC57

Gvwu M-9

October 9, 1981

L;msacS PX 1Ds'1 MOR UND DSPOSAL

OF MDAICACT:VE WAS=

Secretary of the Comission i L£d U. S.; Nuclear Regulatory Crission CI" Fig 37O'J

Washington, D. C. 20550

Attentions Docket-ng and

Service 3ranch

Dear Si::

OUENTW W. tLRtCHt

FRtAC:SX. LNwUNYNC Y--

AOSIN V. WELCY A.Ot SWI0-VM

Atl~ D.PWmOSEAR G. ,.EPSURN. JF. Aesw~ 5.wwa'

GATCN SACrCCCI

ALICE TERNEY AeWS S---V

This Association Is a trade assocaticon of more than SC0 companies

wniting surety bonds throughout the united States.

We have reviewed the Notice of Proposed Rule which appeared in the

Federal Registar of July 24, 1981 concarning. the licensing requremeants

':: lard disposal of :edioactive waste. The proposed Rule requires the

licensee to provide assurances that sufficient funds will be available to

carry out disposal site closure and stabilization. One proposed method

to provide such assurance would be thrcugh t.he use of corpcrate suret7 boncd

Iy their very nature these bonds would be of very long term duration

and would be sub4ac- to periodic increases as the cost of ut.1re closure

rises. a addition we cnderstsnd the bonds will be required ia suabstantal

amounts. All of these factors lead us to suggest that we do net believe

such surety bonds would he available except fo: the largest, most 'L ial:

responsible firms in the ccuntry, i. at al1.

Under these _ircumstances the alternative methods proposed in the Rule would apear to be more feasible.

Somewhat sizadr bonds have been pr:posed by the Nuclea Regulatory

Commissicn to provide assurances for the decontainaticn of urnium mill

talings. ro our knowledge no ma:ket has developed for those bonds and

you might want to check rwith-la the Cc-lnsisn who :er bang that require-nt ta b4 2 wtnces vwith surety bonds.

:' we can provide any addtiawl i• omattonate

to conzact us. US. . p

a q23::cog '. ,-'45 X I

'1102!C22 3l 9DRr- st SwRi PR_

I.

Ly

B-220
*.', t-':*

A.ugust 26, 1981

i'RIORZTY l?.TERZll

pLTASE ATNSWERI BUSINESS D 2 Joseph !{. White III ~ 1S South Merion Ave.

m=.a.a.

R.Dale Sitho Chied fQ M'_ 4 010

Low-Level Waste Licenasig 3ranch ^ OCTFl&3eoi 1

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Washington D.C.

20555>

Res ?rOPOS3Z RIZc;WMIO GO LAND DISPCSt OF L9OW.- RA DIOACTIVE WAS - CCZ'~NTS J~iD Q'uESIONS, 3~G7- SZPRLL .U1D SPCFIC

Dear Mr. SmAth,

GENERAL CCn T, I

pg. .38087.;5ectiorM.other considerations' 'Many of the ope-ationa1 D

rrovisior.s...;are in effect at existing dismosal facilities...'

i) What-are the location of sites within the region (Bryn Mawr Pa.).

where I live? Please cut an asterisk beside those in '.ennsylvania.

2)>What state agencies are responsible for the sites in the region where'I live? List agency with corrasre n.dlng Ft&. e - A thieh -3) i *ri of the ebo7a mentioned s.tes row meet NRC criteria?

.t'hstre thenaxium r.umber of sites proposed*

* Nationally - ; 2) In the region where I live.

2as a tile-lIn e c.-eatioh of nrei s4tes' li in considered by NRC yet? if yes, please forward I.

On page 38088, a Memormndum of Understanding bet"2en NRC and DOT Is

mentioned. Please forward a copy.

c-3 aWht amount of mlgratlon off disposal site' is acceptable by NRC?

When a site is closed prematurely by NRC, due to .ule violation, who - assumes responsibility for the site and waste already disposed?

p gOn ,.38088,,ycustate 'SIerf.nd ;nay be dup=!Mtin-' ')hat are you talking about? . .

Specllc comments on A j1a Licer.slnaReculrements "Llr D4"sosal of - Radioactive waste

(') 61.2 'Active malntenance does not include...replicement of monitorEDI )lng equipment...r.inor repair of dis-osa' unit covers..." What are ttese

(called or refered t-s? Passive ar.ntenar.ce?

(2)

2) 61.7 P6. 3809i (A-2) last sentance first full peragraph. What,

>1(specfically, are the mitigative measures refered to?

•?) 61.7 pg. 38091 3-2 last sentance first column, &w will the units be

'$Z -) tseperated?

561.7 pg. 38091 9-5 i Besides depth, speciffically what barriers

'¶twill be used to seperate Class C from other wastes?

e ) 6i.25 pg. 38094 i Again who is responsible for on-site wastes if a E - license is revoked?

60 61.44 pg. 38093s What Is to be done if stability is not met?

61-52 pg. 38096 (A-6)0What percent is a few percent?

61.52 pg. 38096 (A-8)s 100 Fset is-too smail a buker zone.

) 61.53 pg. 38096 (A)s Pre-operational Monitoring programs should o 5@ l3so include the local population density of the area, and the historic

't 'Iad predicted future movements of the population in the area. Land use

Of the area, e.g. industrial. farming, residential, must also be addressed.

1 0) 61.56 pg, 38097, (A-8)s What do you mean by mazxium extent practicait) 61.56 pg. 38097, (A-8)s The words, "Potential nazard' are GARBAG.

ED- 1 Something is either a hazard, or it is not.

12) 61.56 Pg. 38098 (3-3)s What Is ment by practiable? Please send

the definition according to NRC Jargon. -

13) 61-61 pg. '8098 third sentances please give an example of reasonable

,assuisn.

4) 61.80 pg. 38!00 (h-2-i0. Any release to unrestricted aes, must G reported iLmediatly to NRCI likewise NRC must investigate uny

Lrelease to unrestr-ietqd areas immediatly.

.hls closes ny co=ments and questions at this time. I would again

like to stress the necessity of receiving these documents with haste.

. . . . .

B-221
-7 /:; ;^ :-// , -- 4-S' .--, ' .- - /j / " .

August 31. I9g1

3KERR-MCGEECORPOP7ON

-0 7o n 5 N

a@.W ys z d ,

(Y RD1

Mr. R. Dale Smith ' Chief, Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management'

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ".- a

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmu1ission

Washington. D.C. 205;5

Dear Wr. Smith:

A check with NMC publications concerning our July request for a copy of Draft

Environmental Ipact Statement (OEIS) NUREG-0782 has determined that It will not

be available for another one or two months which puts receipt possibly into late October.

The potentially late availability of this documnt makes informed coment on proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 61 concerning shallow land disposal of lcw-level

nuclear waste by the established October 22, 1981 ccurent data difficult at best.

As noted in the Background sec tion of proposed 10 CFR Part 651 NUREG-0782

provides guidance and support for the rule- development and is, therefore, an integral part for consideration. - -

Because of the iocrtance of the background docunent to 10 CFR Part i1.

Kerr-McGee requests an sexnsion of the proposed rule October 22, 1981 comnent

tate to Include an atequata review period of NURES-0782.

0. M. Mathews

4200 Glenmere

No. Little Rock, . Arkansas 72116

Sept. 15. 1981 P

Secretary of the Ccmission, -Ira"a.e

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comisssion C L6 F 52OT-1

Washington, D.- C. ZOS55

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Re: Federal Register/Vol. 46, No. 142/Friday, July 24, 1981.

Proposed Rules.

Dear Sir:

I have just finished reading the above listed proposed rules and am

submitting the following conments with regard to some serious defecierces

in the manuscript.

I failed to see the logic of 20.311(h). In this secticn the shipper of

a package is penalized because of someone else's mistakes. In the event

that a trucker loses the package or in the event that the receiver fails

to notify the shipper, then it is (according to paragraph h) the obligation

of the shipper to conduct an investigation and file a written report with

pi..- f the comsslon regional office. - -

lhile I agone that shipnents of any type must reach their destination 1

fail to see any logic of picking a whipping boy to penalize for anything

that goes wrong. The NRC, the De:artment of Transportation and any other

agency of the government that is involved Should do do their job properly

end refrain from needlessly penaliiing users of radioactive materials. My

(final conments ire in relation to section 61.5 and 61.56. I have been

tcompletey unable to establish.any line of reasoning for the numers listed

tin Table 1 and consequently with the class A, class S. class C, ratings

Sincerely,

X.J. S elly, YVcC-p-tsid

xuClAr Regullatin :d Control

81ItC21C= 8t :ctx

2 APRze oe R

-N.

i- CZx- '2'0o - '

. . I

.%, "I

, /:

B-222
Letter to U.S.N.R.C. > ;zmt:: ZXOIlDI

September IS, 1981 . !;,t5czc4 F uji Page 2 7 .. '.('ia 14.Zodc

ssociated with these numbers. To merely list a sample of the confusion g

that I encounter, the ncrp.total body-burden for iodine 129 is 200 g o_________

microcuries and the corresponding total body burden for strontium 90 Is

20 microcuries. Both these concentrations refer to soluble materials and =t. Sobket.r and.Ser ce Seco.

the values listed In Table 1. column 1 shows in'allowable concentration > ear -Re latory-Cc=issioi of iodine only 1/50 of Wahnton, D."C.- ;*<,20555.. the allowable concentration of strontium 90 while ; .- ; the body burden for'iodine is 10 times higher -tiin that for strontium 90.

In the event that these numbers are somehow related to a classification

of hazard or danger, then a statement explaining how they are chosen would cRg -be very beneficial. .'! ad ips~f~docv. a~

Moreover, there Isno indication of. any value being considered for the a a v e= the,

numbers in Table 1 with regard to the chemical composition of the radio .v

Isotoce under consideration.. It is my contention for example that iodine , ,.

129 In the form of lead iodide which has a very low solubility would be of.. * . > - - --.

less hazard than iodine in the form of potassium iodide which has a rather

high solubility.

JSL:fDlS:sp Although the number In the Table are definitely not arbitrary, a much better Enclosure

grouping of numbers could be obtained for such an all inclusive use as R. F. JCne cek (1/1)

radioactive waste disposal. It Is my hope that these numbers will be G. P. Wagner (1/1)

reconsidered and these two sections revised before forcing these items on N50 File 13-4(1)

every user-of radioactivity in the United States.

Very truly yours,

710,< '"' 0. M. Mathews, Ph.D. ;

cc: R. Dale Smith

c:: Senator David Pryor

cc: Representative Ed Bethune

- - .b - ,.

B-223
I

lOcTR61 - *LAND DISPOSAL Or RADIOACTMV WASTE. I

CCOMMEJT'S ONi PROPOSED RULMAXIN~UD -5S5- Ii

Section

Section

61.55 - Table I

.he waste classi'lications scheme presented her& with

the associated concentration L'imts presented in Table 1

would hav, a substantial impact on the nuclear power

industry's waste disposal costs and hence, upon the cost

of nuclear generated power.

The concentrations given in thIA Table are much more limiting than necessary In the study prepared for

the USURC by Ford, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc. A Radioactive Waste Disposal Classification System." NURZG/CRlOO5,

conservative radioactivity limits for various waste classes were establlshad th rcugh detaLled hazards analysis. The

liits :rec-=ded in .XUREG/CRlOS should be incorporated

into 1O0Ra61 in place of the arbitrary values in Table 1.

rMUNITED MatwtA

M TECHN2OLOGIES 00 W t

PACKARD 2. 270"I

JAG 21-10-6 ?wckO 5rnZm

The Secretary of the Coemisslon Otober 15,1981 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory COissi53 on W'.shington, D.C. 20555

efit COMWaa

SUB7ZC?: ?-oposed Anendments Regarding

Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste CY PR H01

61.56 Paraaraoh (Ib) (1)

*Stability for 1SO Years- needs to he modified to 'ndicate

what fors of proof are acceptable. Scom a:tal. wooden,

and concrete st-Uctures can be shown to have maintained - er a '*stability' for 150 years past. Very few of these

_r J 5 7 axe applicable to waste packaging. The:e is no way that

deforMaion alone of the waste form can be a hazard to

the public. The key requirement is to keep the waste

from being dispersed, which is little affected by

_slumping' or a *5I1 deformation.

Secticn 61.56 Paraca-ch (b) (2)

'Wcn-corrcsive liquid' should perhaps be charged to

'liquid. ' If the intent of this art-cle is to mi izice 1 3 corros'vily it should say so instead of' sett:- arb_- / trary limits. Is the radioactivity in the liquid o! / any concarn? Is - ere intent to limit the amount o! , "clea* water in the contaimer?

Se:tir. 5:.36 ?&raera-h (b) (3)

oes 'this mean that filler material must be added to

packages containing rreguIlarly shaped solid eb-ects?

Or is it the intent of PI's article that all such

objects should scmehcw be zhopped, aelad, .cr ot'erwise

Vompacted? What forns axe acceptaba, :e 5ash,

;ellazs, cmpressed trash?

Z^ general, the intent o! these -so aticles is not

clear and theI' aeppLcabiI'- t: wastes such as fevwatred spen- re4ss and -C-cerl0atzr as; or pellatized dryer

or incnerato: rofduct needs CaI: i!'atien.

Gertlemen:

PackArd Instrument Company, Inc. is pleased to sutmit c=men:ts on the proposed amendments to Title IOCFR as printed in the

Federal Register, Vol. 46, pages 38081-3SO5. Oux- ccmments

shall be limited to the proposed sections which affect shippers of radioactive wastes.

Our general reaction to the proposal is favorable, in that we do not disagree with the Commission's Intent. However, we do have some specifIc observations which we hcpe will be

helpful.

Zn the preamble (p. 38085) the Commlssion refers to the new J20.306 as.an example of-the recognLtion of the need for

"de miniats" classification of radioactive wastes. We agree with the need but hoe :that future efforts at "do mlnimI3s

classifIcation will beaore successful. irn 120.306 the

Cce-3ss'cn redefines the term radIoactivIty to mean (a) in excess of 0.05 microcuries... of hydrcgen-3 or carbon-;4, cer gram of med'un, used for lIquid scintillatIon countIng or (b) in excess of 0.05 nicrocurles or hydrogen-3 or carbon14, per gram of animal tissue averaged over the weight of the

entir- animal. This appears to bea welccne.relazation of

reg.lao: 0n. !owever, the Department of Transportation defInes

-adioact've material as materIal with a spec:fic activIty

greater than 0.002 micrcoUr'es per Sram o. raterial P(SCFR

1173;389(e)). Since the :OT regula:Icns require Use of a radicacti7e hazard label,-the relaxed reqU1Ir-Ments of 120.306 -

are null and vo7d f:r any wastes which must be transzorted

fron the generator's site. We are concerned that new approaches

to "de mi.nmls" classIficatIon should avoid -- tI'uit7 and should e applicable as intended.- -

8-224
NRC 3 NRC 2

fie suggest that 161.55, Waste classification, needs some

I clarification. First is it intended that the section

mandate segregatton ol radioactive waste by radicnuclide? ~ ... e /This is an inference which some readers have drawn from

VTable.l. Segregation by radionuclide is highly impractimable

and is 4v=posstble in wastes rroa multiple label erperiments.

Perhaps an expansion of,. and reposttioning of the footnote

to Table 1 which refers to mixtures could clarify what appears a be an ambiguity.

^W also have sore concerns asOUt the estimation of specific activity. The solid radioactive waste which we generate is a potpocrrg of varsous elements suca as papereslasst rubber or plstic glovres, plast e tubes and caps, resgns esc. Tubs )mixture is not amenable to analysis, therefore any statement of

activity can only be a rough estimate, and the combining of

ratios of mixed radionuclides wil-. certainly increase the

uncertanty. Is it intended that accurate ccncentration data

mandated by 161.552

the case of liquid scintillation wastes, the estimaticn of

D *tal actvity could be a horrendous bookkeeping task.

Perhaps a."de minlmist classification promulgated by boeb the

Commission and DOT would eliminate the need to consider liquid *o!ntillation wastes as radtoactive waste.

are fu- cner-cozncerned with 120.311, "bransfer for disposal

nd. manfests." It may be important to establish a manifest

tracking system but, one must be careful rot to develop a sstem wherein- the paperwork bu:rden exceeds the benefit of

itracki-mg a shipment.

Several questIons arise related to the requitements of 120.311

Cb) such. as,- -

1. person generating the waste

2. type of waste

3. waste volume and mass / . radconucl'de !dentty an-d concentration

5. total activity

P_ I What is -eant by 'the person generating the waste?' Do you

refer to separate individuals? I suggest that an appropriate

definitIon is a7ailable from 'he Env1ronrental ProtectIon

Agency in 4OCFn 1260..0(a)(26)

"'Generato-' 6eans any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste ..."

The phrise "by St'e' clearly removes the possibility that

individuals would be considered to be generators.-

ihats meant by type of waste? Ts this referring to chemical

form , or a physical description such as paper, glass, plastic?

I believe the desired information should be stated more clearly.

JvJ - t The waste volume may not be d ifficult to indicate if the drum

size is acceptable, e.g. 55 gallons. The requirement ftor mass seems unnecessary and may not be readily supplied by generators

who dn not possess-a large scale.

The- requirement for radionuulide. identity, concentration and total.

activity evokes the sane k.nd of comments as were offered

relative to 161.55.. The- identity-of the radionuclides can be

readIly listed, assuming that miast es of nuetdes are acceptable.

bwoever, how do we measure the concentration and total activity

of paper wipes, empty containers of glass 0- plastie, or contaminated protective devices such as gloves?

Pinally 120.311 (c)(3) mandates the establiskment of a quality assurance program to assure compliance with 1161.55 and 61.56.

It. Las ur bellef that such a program would not be necessary

at many generator sites where the low level radioactive- IA 2 astes would be generated.-

This leads me back to the-"de minimus" classif4catjon concept

mantroned in the preamble. It appears to me that the Commisston

could relieve generators of radioactive waste from unnecessary paper.4ork by identifying a concentratton of activity which

would be- eemaoted fromthe- requirements of 1161.55, 61.56,

61.5T- and 20.311 - However, such an exemption must be made with

the concuenceof the Department of Transportation so that

transportatIon could be made to ordinar7 land-fills.

It is hoped that the bbservation3 offered in this letter will

assist you in the development of a practical system of licensing requirements. -

Inc::oere 1y

/r~ismes A. Gibbs

Ie ?egulatory Affairas Manager

jag/dde

B-225
* ;\w . @ D D .

NaJona Aerrutcs iS W

jaiw , A ome Spece C~w

KafVWeY Soaca CaMWa Plonda 3259

MD-ESB-A

NAifSA

17 October 198

DOMTED

DCT -1 i 9bt Ame FMc OF SECR~

Secretary of the CotmsisiMd15 iSA..Y

Nuclear Begu21atory C--4ssion fdC

Wahigtcn, D.C. 20555

De"r Xadam or Sir

Noithem Ilinois UntversIty t

DeKaib. Illinois 60115

Department of Biological Sciences

815 753 1753

815 753 0433

VC` M. = MOD 

P.E Bt2 -,4 &/

CY6;=R,30gJ)

Mr. R. Dale Smith

Chief. Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Hanagement

United States

Nuclear Regulatory CommissiOn

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Smith:

TheBiomedical office has reviewed the subject proposed rulemaking and

concurs with those portions applicable to generating' and 'waste

colec ting' licensees. We are, however, concerned that requirements

to 'conduct quality assurance programs (reference page 38102, Sections

20.311(D))(3) and (E)(5)) beyond standard management/administrative audits

could be overly burdensome to many licensees that handle only minimal

amounts of low-level wastes. It is suggested that those sections specify

that minimally acceptable quality assurance programs in such instances

may be comprised solely of management/administrative audits.

-. Paul 8 anan. M.D.

Dire .or Biomedical Office

cc:

MD-ESa.AIG. M. maroaro

-" wIfl serve as C5nt an the wProposed .al'z i"' on Land-Disposal

oS LI -L ve B e c o e c iv W ..ot ( Xflih 6l) .

Despita the laudato7 effort to inprove coantaitrnt, tab`11n1-r and

ioi t of !w-lvel radioactfie waste in shallw land burial, neither

epce*riece nor caLent aodies provide assurnsoe of an effective sequestering

of taxic cb-cal or radioaotcte Vta for the nacessa-7 ==ber of years.

The mechaisn for migrastion of radioactive materials of. dpp site rez- 8 a±-. poorly understood. After only :our 7ears in.=e trech a. * 1dS ,

inofi, tritm-'= zirated 150 feet. Jess Cleveand and Terz-y ees, U. S.

GeologicaZ Sry ( cSciC 2'2, 3506, l981), repor.ad in thsir chaacterzz-.ani

of plutcoi= zigratio, in zhe azW Flats ?aohat es, that organic matter

produces stable, =obile cclxAs of plRtc. Ci cl des hav e -ra'e

at f-fve o the six coerocal sites in this contr7 - sonetinas after less

than a decade. Ic .Ls essential for the M2C to Ais-iss 1and buriZ aLs an

e=act-78 mea= of sosae, and deveso .euia for etzpoaac of lowlvel radioactive vaste in deep nined cavities in areas ef.ow prcipitatica.

L oup medio/iversity radicacti7e waste represents &ahot 25 percent

af ooL= sc:=; vasto, it contans less than 1 percent of the r

PCM

B-226
^; ; .;:

Northem Illinois Unheersit

it disposed atlaLq of idich p8.7 percent has half-2±ves of 60 days or 'las.

Medicza/jiversity waste =st be segregated at the soirce, stored for a

matter of mcaths, and dspoesed as ro~al trash.

Tz s~mary th problem associated with the lad bora of radi eaetiv

waste make it izerative to vigorcsly deveLcp alteratives to this tocept.

able reans of disposal.

Sincerely,

Broce W. ven Zellec

Professor

Dament of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20545 OCT 1 ' 7981

1m Mr 22 P49

OFq!: OF 5ECT ARY

=OKETING & VUICE

BRANHM

Mr. J. t. ,.Iw

0. S. Huai ar lagulstOrY Co=ission et R- 4

Vshingtoon, D. C. 20555 PROF O3 6Of8)

Dear Mr. Martini

The Department of Energy has partiAly coupleted a review of the proposed regulaton 10 CF1 61 concerning the uear-surface disposal of nuclear sta.

Some cements were provided Kitty Dragonette at the Lov-tevel Waste 4en-gesent Program Review Cinittse seeting in September.

Our review indicates that Table 1, The Disposal Concentration Limits By Nuclide, my need further vork in that the limits provided my inadvertently elimnate volume reduction. This could occur if the lialting u2dd is

carbon-l4 or nickel-63 In controlling the disposal category. Is order to

constructively coment, it Ls necessary to review and assess the scenarios

end methodology used to develop Table 1. This information is not currently available being contained within thb Environmental Impect Statement.

Iherefore, I request an extension of the time niit for coent on 10 ct 61.

It would sees appropriate that the coment period be extended to 120 days from the issuing of the draft Environmental Lapect Statemeat.-

Sincely>$

Sh5eldon Heyers Actig Deut Assistnt Secretary for Nuclear Waste Management

and Tual Cycle Programs Office of Nuclear Energy

B-227
a-Cr oF sERECAP4

D RANCHS~lC

ID) zecrezary of the Cozmission

TNRC age Two

Nuclear Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc.

Saeviag Lbratod Hokspitals& ldumsy Poe Mm B 791

914 "M NO ' 7= YO&10566

October 19, 1981

Secretary of the Commassion

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20S55

Attenticn. Docketing & Services Branch

len:lemen.

We have comments concerning two of the proposed changes to

Part 20, as published in Federal Register, Volume 46, So. 142,

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal o' RadIoactive Waste.

As a licensed Radioactive Waste Disposal Service (collector),

we are very -much concerned wi'h the increased paperwork requirements contained in the new manifest requirements of 10 CPR 20.311.

We feel there should be some allowance made for our type of operation in the final rule.

There are two provisions which appear nr.necessarl:y burdensome

for a service company such as ourselves. These are:

* t (A) 10 CFS 20.311 (d)(W): -hs requires the generator ta forward

\ o us a copy of the =a4ifest for the waste pick up that we have

,.St made. All of our oick ups are made In our own vehIcles

by 'ML employets. In all cases -he vehicle returns to cur

'_censed storage locaticn. ThIs requiremen- necessit.aes an addItional page for ar already ;ulzipage form, the only purpose

of which is to notify us of scmethIn; we already know; namely,

that we received waste from a particular generator.

Our suggestion is that the requIrement In (d)(S) be waived

when the person making the pick up is the same as the Intended

icipient. The provisions of (I)(l) would i- l± apply.

(B) 10 CFR 20.311 (e)(2) Because the waste receIved from one

generator (due to varying burial site requirements), may be

destined to be shipped to any-of the three authorized sites;

and because any one trailerload of waste originating at our fac'lity may conceivably contain waste from as many as one

hundred and sixty customers; it wIll be extremely burdensome,

if not physically impractical, to include copies of origInating generator manifests along with the new manifest which

wIll be prepared by NDL. In the fIrst case the generator

manifests will contain information not applIcable to the

r- + shipment in question (e.Z. containers destined for a different site or some of the containers listed on one manifest not getting on one partIcular shipment). In the second case

Zthe paperwork for one burial site shipment could Include as

many as one hundred and sixty pieces of paper in addition to

the paperwork prepared for a particular shipment by NDL

While admittIng that the 160-figure is a ittle extreme

(a worst-case scenario), in practIce there probably would

be fifty to sixty originating generator manifests, many of

which would contain ronpertinent informatIon.

Our suggestion is that the requirement in (e)(2) be dropped,

rovided that copies of orIginating generator manifests be reained on file and all required information be Included on the

faniest prepared by the disposal service (collector) for shipment

for burial.

If you have any questions on the comments and/or suggestIons

above, please contact ne.

Very tru'

Alan JoA

kenerai .anager AI:s g

B-228
P C.COX M11,OOMAIdt. PL nIts

'81 MI2 1`52 9

WOdTC1,1G ~ THE uvERsrry OF NOPTH CAROLINA

eRAtc AT

CHAPML HILL

October 20, 1981 Na%." Sd.I. om,*

I-$ -bw AX 14.1 lA,

CIad ilL a-ai C6.b MItA

CCT a Lt U ^Ut =^

October 20, 1981

L-81-455

V0

: - . I ., -

I0,

rpl.rr - Office-of the Condission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coiion - r ;

VWabington, D.C. 20555 Com msi np3OSO)

Attentions - 4 - . . Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sires

In general the proposed rulessaking on land disposal of low-level

radioactive-vaste, Part bl,- appears to represent a foundation for

improvements in this critically izportant area.

A few coumenta are offered concerning:

* (. 61.52(a), (4) aid(5)

" It does-not eeenolicely that-th waording as given vill

D-St- X make any great strides in reducing overburdmsubsidence, / unless mechanical compaction is carried ou:. 61.5b8ta),

for example, apparently will allow the use of wooden

c ontainers. ^, , - I,:,1

6b.5b(s), (5) *nd (7)

t t6-Thas* rules appea~r to be contradictory concerning gskses. Radioactive Rdotheve rasle waste gases gappear in tobi conventional otadco:cner cylinders probably ggss

should not be buried.

.61.58(b)

* Low-level wast. stability, or lack of it, has been an'

C-8 important characteristic in problems at waste sites. The ) wording: of this rule seems to be remarkably vague and may

invite problems.

.ne proposed rule has gone a long way in improving exfsting

standards for the land disposal approach for these wastes. It is

important that a vigorous and competent regulatory overview also be

maintained.

( It is encouragirg to read that continuing studies of 'de :isimis'

wae eclassification will be made. Expanded use of incineration.

)compaction end segregation as volume reduction tools should, of course,

(also continue, to be encouraged.

St,>Jur 1 5t_ . ..

BosbbTi Wilson

Radiation Safety Officer

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

Secretary of the Comslsslon

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comoisslon

Washington. D.C. 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

..I-r npmrZ.- ,Qr,  , ;U, ., U30 - mLi-d P

(46I F'R 39090

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Re: Proposed Rul, IKFR61

Federal Register Vol. 45t No. 42. Friday, July 24. 1981

Florida Power & Light Company's camments to Proposed Rule, IOCFR61 are

attached for your consideration.

Very truly yours.

Uhrig

Vice President

Advanced Systems & Technology

REU/AJG/cab

At: achment

PEOPLE... S31v-IVI PECPLE

B-229
Table 1 of the proposed rule IOCFRS1. section 6.55 provides a specific list of

radioactive Isotopes and their concentration limits for each of three classificat1ons of radioactive wastes. Proposed lOCFRZ0.311 (b) provides that 'The

total quantity of noted isotopes identified in Table I' Part 61 of this chapter

must be shown.-, implying that a specific assay must be performed for each

radioactive waste shipment. We do not believe this to be a practical requtrement nor a technical necessity, particularly for nuclear plant wastes. Except

as discussed below, we don't believe the issue is whether or not the-concentration

limits are reasonable, rather we believe it is an issue over the practicality of

demonstrating compliance for non-gamma emitting isotopes. Any provisions which

would require radioactive waste generators to do a complete assay on each

radioactive waste shipment, in accordance with Table 1 of IOCFR61 and IOCFRZO.

311, will as a minimum be likely to result in sicnificant increases in personnel

radiation exposure. Increased radiation exposure would result because of

requirements to collect more and larger samples and because of the increase in

sample handling times in order to accocmodate more sophisticated analytical

techniques. In addition, the transportation of radioactive waste shipments

would be impacted due to having transportation casks tied up longer wnile

awaiting completion of an assay prior to shipment; similarly the urgency for

temporary on-site radioactive waste storage would be increased.

In the sumnary of the proposed rule, that ,ortion of section V. part C, dealing

with waste characteristics and classifications. indicates that the maximum

concentration for most alpha emitting transuranic nuclides has been calculated

to be in the range of 10 nCi/g. Further, it is stated that the calculations

.ere conservatively based with no credit for dilution. A higher concentration

limit could have been adopted but was not, since the current concentration

limit of 10 nCI/g was in the spirit of ALARA and has been demonstrated

achievable. We are not certain we can agree with these assessments by the

NRC. First, it is not clear if the transuranic isotope concentration limit

is a cumulative limit for all transuranic isotopes (except Pu-241) or If it

.D5.3 is based upon a concentration per transuranic isotope.

Second, the assay of solid iow level waste for alpha emitting transuranic

isotopes involves sophisticated analytical techniques. Some studies have

in fact indicated that the concentrations of transuranic Isotopes in eost

waste streams Is low. Guidance has even been offered for assaying transuranic

isotopes using indirect measuring techniques. However, while we consider

these studies to be extremely valuable as an indication that transuranic

isotope concentrations in reactor plant radioactive waste streams are low, we

are not certain that the conclusions are sufficiently absolute. We would urge

the Commission to perform an in depth evaluation of transuranic isotopes in

reactor plant radioactive waste'streams prior to adopting tie 10 nCi/g

concentration limit, and to evaluate the practicality of techniques for

demonstrating compliance. We have seen studies wnicn suggest that the

concentration limit for transuranic isotopes could be as much as fifty times

higher.

B-230
Wisconsin Electrc P CowUPiF Z31 W. MI"ICNU P.O. o0o 2048. UILIVAUtt WI 1211

COVETED

1 g;TI23 p1:2

October 2o,, -

CY, & E C

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk -2- October 21, 1981

Mr. Samuel C. Chilk

Secretary of the Commission

U. S. NVCLMAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20555

Attentiont Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

PROPOS=B RtMEHACXNG ON LAND DISPOSA

OF LCW-LEVEL RAfIOACrIVE WASTE

P R n R. nux: .q

C4 FL38v8

(although historically implemented on an arbitrary basis, continues

D-SSr to be promulgated without justification. A new limit should be

Lderived, based on technically sound and justifiable analysis.

On Page 38098 of The Fedral e, the NRC certifies

that the proposed rule willo-t, if prorited, have a substantial I1-: '1 economic impact upon a substantial nurber of small entities. We

do not agree with this judgment in view of the additional paper- work involved with the Manifest Tracking System and the increase in

burial- fees which would result when the burial site operators ass on their additional costs. The economic impact will be felt

by all of the approximately 9000 licensees, and it will be felt

most strongly by the 'small entity' licensees who comprise all

but a few hundred of the.total number of licensees. !n the sulmary, 814 3 the NRC acknowledges that the economic costs of the proposed rules

to 'sall entitics' have not been quantified, and the burden to

prove otherwise is placed on these small entities. Many of the

small entities are physicians, medical clinics, and hospitals who are currently permitted to dispose of radioactive wastes into

sanitary sewage systems. The proposed rule would greitly increase

tbeir disposal difficulties with no benefit to the-public health

and safety. -

The new regulations are inappropriate, unnecessary, and

provide no benefits for the additional costs that will be incurred.

Very truly your,, -

C. W. Fay, 0 rector

Nuclear Power Departrent

I We have reviewed the proposed rulemaking on land

disposal of low-level radioactive waste which was published

in The Tederal Register on July 24, 1981 and have the following

comments.

Although the major impact of the proposed regulation

will fall upon disposal site operators, the additional costs

resulting from the additional requirements undoubtedly will be

passed on to waste generators. These additional costs to the

site operator include new administrative and operational costs,

and the provision of financial surety.

6 One of the new requirements which would apply to waste

generators and shippers directly concerns a new manifest system f A which would require waste shippers to provide more information in Al- shipping papers and to ±nvestigate missing shipments. Existing

Depart-ent of Transportation regulations pertaining to shipp'ng

papers and reporting requirements are adequate. Furthermore, it

is more appropriately the carrier's responsibility to investigate

shipments.

Another new requirement to be placed on the generator/ shipper concerns waste categorization through the use of Table I

of Secticn 61.55. There are several difficulties with this

(table: a) it is incomplete, i.e., there are many nuclides whIch D &re not included or provided for; b) the 0.1 limit for chelating _ gents is unnecessary and is-unclear as to whether this is - .- 51,-2- ercentige by weight or volune: c) the limits on concentration

P-g5- are too restrictive, especially the 10 nCi/g limit for transuranics,-

jand the technical justification for these limits has not been'

Ldemonstrated. We note in particular that the 10 nCi/g limit,

-1-

B-231
-. -.

uw - AjebamO Po_- Comoony

50o NorM ISM sit

Pat oe Box 2"241

.flmtsghM. A48M UVI

7..aet 206s 762401

Sor vec. T.G F. Ltdg 5M. CWIa% VI PltWA Jr Rntsig B" Alabama eower

rVWM"=3 P1 :23

8jMCE cSCRTARY ,M CEay . Cjr

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

U. S-. Nuclear Regulatory Comtission

October 13, 1981

Page 2

October 13, 1981

Docket Nos. 50-348

50-364

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

Secretary of the Comuission

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comuissicn

1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 "' FN 3S I

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Re.: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units I and 2

Comnnents on Proposed 10 CFR Part 61

Licensino Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes'

In response to the Federal Register Notice dated July 24, 1981, we would like to offer some comments concerning the NRC proposed rule 10 CFR

Part 61. 'Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes.'

Although the proposed rule Is directed at licensing low-level radioactive

waste burial grounds, certain parts of the rule will directly impact the

packaging and processing of low-level radioactive waste at Farley Nuclear

Plant. Our comments address the packaging and processing concerns raised

by the proposed rule.

'de minimis' Classification of Wastes

Cn page 3085 of ;ne Feceral Register Notice containing proposed

10 CFR Part 61 (Vol. 46, No. 142 dated July 24. 1981), it is

stated that Part 61 will not establish a generic 'de minimis'

)-5 ' -Z ' icategory for waste (I.e.,wastes that would be exempt from Part 61).

Recently the NRC set 'de minimis' limits for tritium and carbon-14

in liquid scintillation and animal carcass waste (10 CFR Part 20).

The new limits on tritium and carbon-14 allowed a significant

reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste being

shipped from hospitals and research facilities. Since a large

fraction of the currently shipped low-level wastes from power

reactors are not hazardous to the health and safety of the public

due to their very low levels of contamination, It would be very

beneficial for 'de minimis' limits to be specified in 10 CFR

Part 61. Such limits could significantly reduce the volume of

low-level radioactive wastes being shipped to burial sites and

thus reduce the need for new sites. Therefore, the NRC shouldspeed uo Its current schedule (i.e., two years plus) to establish

'de minimis' limits for radionuclides and incorporate those limits

into 10 CFR Part 61.

Section 61.55 Waste Classification

The waste classification system snould not prevent shipment of

mixed classes of wastes on one truck. As it is now written,

I CFR Part 61 only states that Class A wastes will be segregated

t the disposal site and nothing is said about Class B and Class C

astes. It appears that mixed shipments are allowed but it is

not explicitly stated. An example of the problem caused if mixed

shipments are not allowed is the following. Some waste containers

Jr-.5Z- are designated Class B and require a shipping cask. Since a

shipping cask holds many waste containers, several Class A containers

are used as fillers to help assure the safe transportation of all

the containers. If the containers are not segregated at the

disposal site, then all of them would be disposed of in a Class 8

burial trench. This would result in unnecessary costs to the

shipper and misrepresent the actual volume of Class B wastes

being disposed of. Therefore, 10 CFR Part 61 should clearly stated that all waste containers will be segregated at the disposal

site or that they will not be segregated, whichever is true.

ection 61.55(d) states that waste which has a radioisotope

concentration in excess of Column 3 in Table 1 is not generally

(acceptable for disposal without specific Comuission approval. The

value given In Column 3 for alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides

is 10 nCi/g;. This value is based on current DOE requirements which were derived from conservative calculations. However, to our knowledge, it has not been demonstrated that the detectable limit for

alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides is down to less than

100 nCi/q. Therefore, a 10 nCi/g limit.is not measurable and thus

t enforceable.

Mother concern with Table I is a footnote which states, 'Wastes

containing chelating agents in concentrations greater than 0.1O- are not permittad except as specifically approved by the Couwission."

SInce cleaning fluids, decontamination cleaning compounds, etc..

contain chelating agents, the 01 restriction would require a _ .r imwltitude of specific approval requests for Commission review. It

would be much better to establish a waste characteristic requirement in Section 61.56 for chelating agents such that these wastes

could be handled routinely. Since decontamination activit:ies will

become mcre2nd more comn as nuclear power plants age, the chelating agent disposal Issue should be addressed generically in

10 CFR Part 61 rather than on a case-by-case basis.

(Section 61.56 Saste Characteristics

Soem of the requirements in tnis secticn appear overly restrictive

D-.S -// and could lead to significant Increases in the waste volume. In

particular. section 61.56(b)(1) requires that the waste form be

able to withstand a compressive load of 50 psi while maintaining

B-232
.. I. - . ' .

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comuisslon October 13, 1981

Page 3

DZ~. CPR. [t2_

SLX f* SCP40 L -

October 20, 1981 !N. RIL - 0

cgb FR 3So )

physical dimensions within S: in the presence of moisture, Z-54-1 microbial activity, and with internal factors such as radiation

effects and chemical changes. Since this requirement Is part of

ection 61.56 which concerns stability of the waste for at least

150 years, I: is imolicitly assumed that the compressive load/

dimensional integrity requirement must be met for at least

150 years. The basis given for this requirement is to prevent

slumoing, collapse, or other failure which could lead to water

infiltration.

Subsidence (i.e., slumping, collapse, etc.) is caused by void

spaces In a burial site. Section 61.52(a)(5) addresses the void concern by requiring that the void spaces between waste packages be filled with earth or other material. Therefore, the compressive load/dimensional integrity requirement is overly restrictive and

could significantly add to the volume of low-level radioactive

waste by requiring additional processing of the waste to meet this r uirement.

If you have any questions concerning these comments, please advise.

- -- Yours very truly,

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CoMmission

Washington, D.C. 20555 8 Mr 23? P1Z

.. I .

.1 . `:Z-4-4

F. L. Claytonelr.I ,~~ . ,

FLCJr/G6Y/de .

cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas , Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Mr. J.. P. O'Reilly ._;

Mr. E. A. Reeves

Mr. W. H. Bradford

Attentiont Docketing and Service Branch O SE>ETAH

5"l?(o;& SERYICE Subject: Cooents on lOCFR, Part 61, BRAICH as Published in the Federal Recistar,

July 24, 1981

.he folleivng comments address limited sections of lOCFR

part 61, as solicited in the-Nuclear Regulatory Commission

letter, dated August 4, 1981, Subject: Proposed Rulemaking on Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste.

(11 ITZM: '?OCRAPHICAL ERORS

( S:wY - V. C., last three words in Column 1.

page 32085 - through 'te exclusion, EP 'should read, through 'the exclusion

61.53(d) 'incidate', should read 'indicate'

'TM: _2) See Section 61.52 Ca) (8), in regards to the lOOft.

buffer zone.

COM.E"MT: the requirement for a lOOft. buffer ione

may be better served from a performance

objective aproach. What is the purpose of the 100ft. buffer, to prevent intrusion,

off-site contamination, or both? If intrusion is the criterion, the lOOft. buf'er

is probably sufficient; if off-site contamination is the criterion, then the buffer width

should be performance based (e.g. a function

of tra nsissivity, waste classification, Kd, distance,- time,- etc.). If both intrusion

and off-site contamination are the concerns /f-61.52 (a)(8), then 10ft. should be defined as the minimum distance and, if

necessary, an addative factor superimposed

to accomodate the ptrformance objectives.

:-i

B.233
Secreatary of the Commission

Octob~r 20, 1981

Page Two

(3) rTEM tSee Section 61.56(a), 'n regards to stipulating

minimum requirements for all classes of waste.

t-D - I COMMENT: the next section 61.56(b), does not

specify if any, or all classes of waste

must meet the stability requirements.

(4) ITEM: See Sect'on 61.56(b), 2nd sentence, in regards to

the need for assurance that the waste will not

degrade.

COCM14EX the waste will degrade. The intent of the

sentence would be better served without

|equ'r'ng natuzal processes not to degrade

an environmentally unstable material. One

_ i _g , can require the waste bindes or container

__ LI to last 150 years, but not the waste itself.

The waste should be allowed to degrade, the

binder and/or containers could be

required to withstand disintecration, thus

avoiding soil collapse and subsequent infiltration.

Law Engineering Testing Company appreciates this opportunity

to conment on this important document. We look forward to the

publication of lOCFR Part 61.

Sincerely,

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

. S C Kaabl, P.E. G.

Manager,

Radwaste Isolation PrograA

LSK/mgd

cc: F. i. Steinbrenner

Joat Comnonwesalth Edison

o AC r*9 Macy ta: Plsl Cnt,c ax .61

Cgo °- llsos 6o690 COCXETEO

U.O 2 PRC

'81 CT26 P2.Y5 Occttic:?' 22 919 ------- -

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission

Washingtcn, D.C. 20555

Attention: DOckating and Service B:anon

2RDF2D ua n -<S<

ECDYSE FE 3-LE

G&P.AUCH osl

SuOject: Proposed Rulemaking on Land Oisoosal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste (46 FR 38C81 'uly 24, 1951)

Dear Sir:

Commonwealth Edison has reviewed the subject rulemaking and

offe.S the attacneo comments. We appreciate having teen given the

opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

L. 0. Delooar a Director Nuclear Licersin;

B-234
-3- Comments - Commonwealth Edison .- - Proposed Rulemaking On Land Disposal Of

Low-Level Radioactive Waste (46 FR 38081 Julv 24. 1981)

. COEVELOPMENT CF PERFORMANCE OB3ECTIVES - PROTECTION OF THE

LNAOVURIENT INTRUDER

This section lacks adecuate provision 'or the protection of the C-I1 general public from potential releases to the environment.

For example, while terrorists cannot be accurately described as 'inadvertent' intruders, we believe there should be a plan to

safeguard a site from terrorists. While security staffs at nuclear

powe:r lants have grown in proportion to the threat of potential

covert acticns of terrorists and ext:emist groups, there is no reference to security or anti-terrorist possibilities at the

p:oposed land disposal sites. This could be due to the belief that

site disposal security ls not necessary, when, in fact, disposal

sites are more suscepticle to covert acts than nuclear power sites.

This is true because the nuclear waste materials are already packed

4n containers in 0reDaration tor transport.

SUBPART A

61.7-b.4 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL

A period of 100 years is too long to be meaningful. As a requlement, it would be Impossible to meet unless the licensee

coul: proviie scme kind of assurance of institutional control for

100 years. If left in the regulation, it could become a stumbling

'-o:ock to the licensing of low-level waste sites.

* COBALT 60, the material expecteo to be present in any D-*5-e: -:ity, has a half life of 5.3 years. 100 years, as well as tne

3CO-:'ear passive control, therefore appears arbitrary. it is

tecnnically Incorrect to assume that carbon steel containers, whien are 010-degradable over the long term, will resist degradation for

:,e 100 yea: period. The proposed changes to 10 CFR 61 imply a

po:entlai change in the contaIner industry from carbcn steel to

nonao:-cagradable materials such as hi;h censity polyethylene. This

cninge would oe financially p:onhoitive.

- ;o!zr 5 - CENERAL PROVISIONS

5_34~ S...SsTE~hZ;AL TECHNN: ANAy;S A1ILYSIS

C A systems approach should be used In the regulation of

Zlcg s-vel waste burial sites. This means tnat criteria lo: c:::iance at the site bouncary snould be established and arbitrary

in:-.:neolate levels of racloactivity cn packages, leach rates, etc.

not me oart of tne regulat!ons.

61.55 WASTE CLASSIFICATION

55 t' .There are several radium 226 sources used at Commonwealth -Edison Fossil Stations for flow rate determinance. Radium 226 is

(not specified in Table 1.

Chelating agents are not permitted In concentrations above

0.1% without NRC approval. This is overrestrictive, and may needlessly impact chemical cleaning operations planned for Dresden

Unit 1. Additional comments regarding this Impact may be submitted

after further study.

(SUBPART E 61.62 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

This section contains no details with respect to the amount

of financial assurance that each disposal site licensee will oe required to obtain. Commonwealth Edison's concern is that

prohibitive amounts will force present licensees out of business and

.result In a lack of low-level waste disposal sites.

2710N

B-235
- ; I^8 .

USDRC D OSCXERED

Union of

CONCERNED

SCIENTISTS

'81 MIT26 P2.53

0QCE ,NNG & SERlj - 8RAANCH -

October 21, 1381

M CM 1'E n- ' /

& 6 M,' tS :a I -"

31 OCT26 P2.53

V8ff. r'r SEA

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attention% Docket'ng and Service Branch

Dear People,

re, Pronosed Amendments (rublished 21st July 1981)

to the Commission's rules regarding Licensing

Reguirements for Land Distosal of Radioactive Waste

The attachment contains comments on the proposed amendments.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Gordon Thomoson,.Ph.D.

Sta'f Scieniist

Corments on

Prooosed amendments (oublisbed 21st-Julv.lPil)

to the NRC's rules regardinz licensing

requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste

Gordon Thompson

Staff Scientist

Union of Concerned Scientists

1384 "Iassachuset:s Avenue

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02238

Attachn-nt

October 1?31

I 2 */s zfI:.'i -3.... * &'.r :;1 *z AA :,-i Ai ; - _ * t * .6 ?I !.7*t52

- _: -*t %., * 3_.'t *: |X |-;. -. e := _-t_;! ;SH I ic

B-236
w-l ws-a a@

-2-

1. General Comments

The proposed amendments in many respects provide an

appropriate regulatory framework for near-surface disposal.

In certain respects, the amendments are imprecise or inadequate

as outlined in the following specific comments.

2. Specific Comments

Part 61

(61.1 Purpose and Scone

A _~ lj t The amendments should be confined to near-surface disposal

t til requirements for other methods are formulated.

61.7 Concezts

This section proposes ((b) (2)) a maximum site inventory

for certain isotopes. Criteria for determining this inventory

should be specified in these amendments. Furtbermore. a

aximurn site inventory should be determined for every isotope

This section proposes (Mb)(3)-(5)) provisions to guard

against iadvertent intrusion. The nature of this intrusion

should be specified in these amendments.

Adoption of a maximum site inventory for all isotopes

uld provide sone protection in the event of inadvertent

ountrsion of a severity greater than that specified or in the

event of other circumstances which might lead to unanticipated

eleases of radioactivity.

' :;o provision is made in this section, or elsewhere in

D -Zl 4 these amendments, for warning signs designed for a life equal

to the 500-year design life of the intr'ider barriers. Such

provision should be made. -

(61.13 Technical Analyses

Analyses of release pathways should be prepared in such

D-53-I a manner that they may be validated by data acquired from subsequent monitoring. Monitoring should be conducted with this

end in view. Validation should be required at set periods.

61.41 Protection of the general po-ulation from releases of

radioactivitY

This Section states that ground water at the nearest oublic

drinking water suoply must meet National Primary Drinking Water

G 3 standards. That provision should be extended to all actual or

potential water supplies outside the site boundary.

61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion

This section should be expanded to include individuals

and nonulations.

The amendments should specify maximum individual doses

and maximum population doses, in the event of the specified

intrusion or of more severe intrusions (see our comments on

617).

61.52 Land disposal facility oneration and disposal site closure

At (a)(6) in this section, it is stated that gam.na radiation

/must be within a few percent above background. This requirement

should be replaced with a more precise requirement.

C At (a)(7), it is stated that three permanent survey marker

control points must be established on the site. In addition

/to that requirement, there should be a requirement for warning

( signs with a 500-year design life (see our corments on 61.7).

B-237
-3-

6153 Environmental monitoring

At (a), it Is required thst certati data must cover at

least a twelve month period. This period is much too short

for the appropriate collection of many kinds of environmnetal

data.

This section should specify the relation o: nonitoring to

validation of anal7ses (see our comments on 61.13).

1.55 Waste classificat.tto

A maximum site inventory should be determined for every

ED-I Ssotope (see our comments on 61.7).

D-;-w ln Table l, the concept "theoretical maximum specitic activ'ty"

is used. A definition of this concept should be included in

these amendments.

Table 1 should be extended so as to stipulate maximum concentrations for every isotope which may be included in radioactive

waste. The suggested procedure for comparison of the isotope

with Sr-90, Cs-137 or U-235 Is imprecise.

61.56 Waste characteristics

f This section should state that waste contaaniOg cbelating

agents in concentrations greater than O.1 are not percitted

(as iS now stated in the footnotes to Table 1).

3164 mUM Street I 8ufjeai. New Yozk i

Oear Sir,

fPR ~d

4214 (716=4310

October 23, 1981

nts on Licensing

f Radioactive Waste.

itted on October 23,

o=znt period October

be take, into

ate confirmation of -- - - - I

Herewith find enclosed ovr come

Reuirements for Land Oisposal o

a(es ;_ cocments are being subm

one day after the close of the C

6B -7 'z. I hope that they still will

consideration and would apprecii

this fact from you.

Thank you for your interest and c=nsidera'ion.

Strel yours, r

Oirectoro

Sterra Club Radioactive Waste Sa i9,

mdcade wase

C;Uft

B-238
31BA Main Street Buffalo. New York 14214 (7151 S3$9tX 4

cc:.4rS 0r ?PART 61 "LICZSSN; 2A 31 UI3E.2lS -CR LL4.D >$>'Q' CIVZ ;ro-rded a: access roite for Tater into the trenches, these hazardous fsoto~es .n Subfitted by Mina Manilton, Director, Sierra Club -adiet Waste Carml g4r culd g e off ste. In the case of cesim we are particularly concerned

61.52 Facility Operation C - " sbilit,. gej)4f t |because wL, e' its .rater soleM:y

4) tb ratter bow "orderly" t:e exolaceaent package integrity C bes .e >ee hiebir w endable that Nc 4 a rl'.r .. ,

\a'sta'sed d--:g enplacenect and disposal -steel drus ard wooden cates 4

-tiboo 'e.bd ure aSCn .-kar4 tar na o8!tws -*i1 re

al" degrade at different ti"es. Zven if dentical steel ,ackaging were o dxds ef yee-s.

ut'lized degradationa of --h steeLt. rli ocr at different rates accordng 5) Should 'e expanded to include persoss living downwind of -he site.

to type of nanufacture ard contents. Sl='ing ad shifting of packages is J Atou persoos "trasrting, F or d'sps' of the aste" cas be

inevitable with the cosseq-et sl:opage and caving it of trench caps. D 6-5;gc

5) F ture subsiieece esrtot be s'gnificastlyred-iced by, ffi~ag void livig cr working in the rcinil,7 reed a aen specif'c V~Arentee rgri

sp:ces at e plaeeeeat or time of d-p'sg. T>J rotting, anrot d harmful airborne ecataieatss such as rafos ges or tretate4 -=ethatq.

deteriorating of dffersent package materials (steel, wood) wfl inevitably

roreduce vo'ds sbsequently resuitrg in sl'.page proble-s. 61.52 Near-surface disposal facility operatioc and disposal site closu-e.

(a)(2) A-ently, the requ5rementa for stability for Class 3 wastes w11

el.56 ?aste characteristics - apply to Class A waste. Given the presence of such isotcpes as cesiua

e(b) 3Te reqiredenets ... are itended to provide waste st ttli for P-•;-Z \and stronti= in Class A waste, we fi-d the lack of such requirenents as

150 years." The assurpticn th. wste wil not-degrade or sllP for over 1±nccs's:eet with the over-all goal of protection of public health and

- centurie- a * s based ea nre =ohrg than ishful thicktg. Steel eO3/ safety.

co-rode and rust oc, in 30 to 60 years. *.1 Steel L=s exh-ed at the (4)(5) ere is no 'asis in exrerience for ass=!nton that "orderl7" or

U~bo !-p site (I;3=-) sere Ill serlousy g egraded a*t'er 13 yecrs Te I

h neat stackIng has ar7 effect on long-ter: packtge or trench Integrit7. The

ts~a'oa *t stesl-w-1'1sot corr-e has to basts ia e-,e-4ence 1 . actin of meat stackIng is czrrelated to the expected %ife-.Ie of -cod -r steel.

it is nclear as to how the goal of sta'l"Ity for 150 years was Lrrived N r how perfectly steel drums are stacked, they, 7ll event-141 corrode. _ _ ._N I f 'rr ere~gseldsx r S t'e ace ev the -:4 ealccr-o

a-. :Iuch of the caterial to be d-pd Is uteotaiated with cesium and Ir ,rristces 61.52 (a)(4)(53 or -1.51 had a basis In rea"i:g, the renches

srt wIch 7will rH ecqUIr stabilt:y for at least IM *'e!a'w. (This is at 'est 7alley would be stabile. 3ut within 2 years of eles'ng over 126,000

pres- 4 '? the industr' rule of tbf o' f n i x lolttp 10.) '' ;r'cr ga rts of water had scc'tulated in one t-ench at 7es' 7ai'ey. The origin

ts tize, trench ocilens d erostca, or other events \ _' 4 a4ter is t .c -

slerra club

radloactive waste campaign

B-239
-- 3-

.44 The goal of long-term stability and avoidce of continued, active

te ance a the ste s central to Part 61 of CFR 10. The goal is, of

couse, *nt usasatica. shared by eindetaLsta, ustry and

\gverr=oet. But there is no basis in experience with burial sites located

in regi*ns of moderate to high rainfal 'that indicates t!Is goal ce be

achieved by the meas ctlined in Part 6L Unless the rezccoanded zeasuzes

have been decnstratel at an already existing facility, then the

nea2sres arexampleS of wishful thinkng and net concrete tactics wtose

c- G a lzentation will result in the desired goal. To establish regulatiors

on the basis of a 'hoped-for future dxean and not Ca the bases of actual

experience is a dserous process that ray l"l the untary into a :fase

sense of security.

The coal of stabllit:! sroseadly will be achieved through specific

site design features. For example, in 61.51(a)(4) OCovers =ast be desir-ed

to prevent water i:itrate:." Thus far, over .2 years of eerentation

with increasing the size of cover2 from 4' to o', with using ipemn eable

clay as the aterial, with planting of special grasses a, the yest Vall.ey d= site

has not prevented water infiltration. Zater ifSlrtration contiates to be a

7 roble_ at the closed-down Sbeffield, ;5 is, UAxey Flats, Cy sites and th sti'

operattng Barnwell, S. C. facIlItIes. A:1 -,erati=; c=nercial i-:p sites except

tte :evaa sit. (a cgcon of rainfa'l' hare water Ir.f1-.'rtion ;roblens.

Twenty years of experientalicn &ad se seen to e o closer to preven:'ca of

water ialltraticn tho-ugh the covers. Perhaps concrete covers would work

-Ut 'ts approach his not been demonstrated to wore. ob c'ous prclea with

rcocrete would be the dlfficU.ty of maintaining the cover in plce as

trench contents degrade, sift. and s1.=p a leaving a void for the

cver to col.apse into. Th =nl wa to seep such a cover in place wCuld

be to have concrete walls sunk into the ground to hold the roof yp.

th lftime of this concrete would not reach the gcal of 150

years.-

C. - 4 Iere is an &aar-ent misucderstanding I' Part 61 regarding the simpler

. itable rmecanisn of sLp4age of trench contents. X thout this uaderstaading-that sluage leads to cover indentations, cracks nd* collapsetien 4t is possIble to mke the zstake 'tat cover 'design" can solve the

problem. Likewise-.thre is a fumdamental oisunderstanding that slu=page

can be avoided by tec!=iques of placing zateria.s into the trench or by

packaging of materials. SIu-r=age is intrinsic to placing naterials -tAt

degrade (steel) in a catter of decades '-to a hole for 150 years.

See pige 2,;.

.:aless the relationships are clearly seen 'etreen gr*adal deterioration

of packaging, slra;ge, trench cove: collapse &ad water il:::trti or, no

ei gf ' esign criteria caa be estab!L.shed.

SUE?= 3 - TC:2C=L PXJ>'S FCR :0 DI5PCSA: .ACuT-;.s

61.50 1ncludes a nurc:er of laudatory ;oals. W re is e however by eL. 0

(a)5; -.-Ich toes rt atso'luey e-:'ude areas of Cre;':en. p a=rdr 

Df floodirg, coy stating the area Sould 'be "general:y frsee of Such

cha-racteristIcs and wich states that burial in u-r C a llC-year flocpl ain

is excluded. Since the d4esin ;:'a is sta'bi1ty for 110 years, cbviouslr

B-240
1

pD5o-3

*a area of more frequett fl-ods should "e excluded. %e 1are -ac: ;roblems

-th t.e 150 year design concept (see beLow) aed thir burial should be

excluded o aear a 50i 7eu. f0ood 

(a)(7) should specify the deipth to toe atertable wich is accep-able.

Suf:icient derth" to the watertable ti so izcrecise as to be useles

Q re should be n: esctiere to the soecified d,;th regardless

of Oates of diffusion.

)Regular municipal landfill if there is certainty that full decay has occured.

This would signiflcantly reduce low level dump stte volume requirements

(currently 25: of total low level waste volume is provided by medical

wastes) and involve a more rational segregation.

tf anything the proposed system is going to Increase volume requirements

e because the temptation of waste generators will be to package their waste so

as to fit into the category of Class A and thereby avoid more stringent (and

more expensive)burial site character1stics of Class S waste.

6L The conceptof sgregasting differttt wastes in crer to better protect

he ub hc e-alt, ard safety is cr. etxellett one. tec¶ever, the method of

Las&sticattion ropesed Vi3l = lead to better r-tection of the public.

D 5- e ethod cf ssiftcation should not be based si=mly cn neber or e saI5

of ma-erial per graT. The classificatton sbhuld be based on the half-lfe of

t.e material. To mix tceetcer cesim s-d streatium contaminated Tastes tith

jt of 30 years and a necessay ertod of CO Years solatlon from the

bios-here, t -tt Iso-topes such as tec- 'ctur .9 sad itic~rith t

res-,ective.y of 6 .ho-rs and days azd a seqzester'^g period e' per.a;s 3

Mo-nhs is tot:17 i'ationcl. iut Is it possible 'o separste these Tastes?

The eas7 to -2plem:ent ec aism rou'.d be -o separtte 'hese Tastes at t.eIL

pn articular, this is feasible at medical hospitals and research institutions.

rs -xis es r =feeri. of ISC days ree seregated, '75 of hv:s5ital wastes

~-Z . .o~d ra:: .-. cn t.-t caregor tould be l stareh-use -Cer. c- near t'e

I bD-•. -os-ttk! cCmLx, ,:ail safe :evels _ad been reached; then of the volume

ofTstes Zoirq to rsd-ioacotie dCp- s5tes cee_ 'e- eliated and se-t to a

B-241
,. 9 - s

N/C:J;B£ I FJ ~ 3ioA~ l COt4XCTCD

Re: F.R./46, f 142/Friday, July 24, 1981/Prpo8f'd k`26 P2.54

OFFIC KE rFSERW F E 0QCKETiNG & SERVIEE

-

Sel-retary of the Commission

October,20, 1981

Page 2

Secretary of the Commission October 20, 1g81CRANCH --

Nuclear Regulatory Comemission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has been designated by Governor Rhodes

as lead agency for cmoent upon Federal actions affecting the environment. We

have read the above referenced document, solicited comments from other state

agencies and have the following comients to offer.

The Nuclear Regulatory Comsission is to be commended for bringing out the proposed rules. We are particularly pleased with tne proposed waste classification

system since this will allow the states to implement an-action plan for low-level

D-55- , {waste. We are also supportive of the de minimus standard.

CThere are no time limits for the licensing procedure described on page ?8067.

On page 33100 it says that a completeness review 'Generally . . .aill be made

a ( within thirty (30) days." Beyond that no time limits are given. We believe

) that the Commission should be held to an expeditious licensing scnedule and that

I(_t should be set forth in the rules.

i e are st1ll not satisfied with the 10 nC1/gm. value set for TRU waste. Our

oprincipal objection is that it gives rise to a great-deal of suspected TRU waste.

.3 Recent work with the neutron dieaway method at LASL has shown that over 90: of

the waste stored as TRU was not so contaminated at all. Although this is not

iry important to this rule making, it is still a sore Coint in the total nuclear

aste picture. We also object to the logic employed by the Corission namely

that since 10 nC/gm. is achievable, It should be continued. The consequence.

amely that a great deal of suspect waste is stored ard even buried, is Ignored.

- vA regulatory guide is mentioned on page 38C68, first coluinn. We urge that this

Ctv Z-TZ.ide be issued as soon as ;ossible.

(in the definitions on page 38090, engineered barrier' is too rigidly 4efined.

{>_4- . An engineered barrier, in our understanding, can zrotect waste against migration

0-44a )and leaching as well as against intrusicn. ^xamples might be ultra secure containers, plastic liners or clay linings added to a natural deposit.

i-So n•Ofn page 38096 we suggest adding a requirerent that the dispcsal site be accessible

r fto transportation facilities.

n j Some of the options considered at one time or anotner by some of tr.e States anr DVi )either prohlbited or made economically unattractive by the presen: rules. Fcr

p-s°04I example paragraph 61.5l(a)(7) states, "The disposal site shall be used exclusively

I for the disposal of radioactive wastes., Since the requirements for some hazardous

I (expecially toxic) waste disposal are very similar to those for low-level radwaste, the possibility of a dual purpose site has been considered. This would

save time, effort, money, and space. We can see why the Commission would be

less than enthusiastic about mixing explosives or corrosives with low-level radwaste, but we suggest amending the rules so that low-level radwaste and certain

classes of toxic waste can be buried on the same site.

~lso, the present rules are designed to assure containment of Class C waste. We

suggest that the Commission consider a set of far less stringent rules for a

facility designed to contain Class A or A and 8 wastes only. If such sites could

jejSi~ be constructed easily and cheaply they could take care of more than half of the

I low-level waste now being generated. They should not require such stringent

Uengineering or monitoring; indeed they would be little more than leach-proof

ecure landfills similar to sites presently in use under 10 CFR Part 20.

/we still don't understand some of the numbers in Table 1. For depleted uraniam

)contaminated waste to have the activity in the table, it would have to be about

10D t uranium (if it had-the density of uranium metal). Depleted uranium should

be classed as a heavy metal poison, not a radiation hazard. Similarly lodine

129, as formed (which means diluted with reactor produced stable Iodine) Is-of

such low specific activity it is less of a radiation hazard than natural potassium

or rubidium. We don't see why these materials should be controlled by the NRC

t all.

(There is also opportunity for confusion concerning the waste classification system

J since Table I on page 38097 classifies waste by Isotope whereas the classification

3>-_ s-4 on page 38085 is by point of origin. We would also question why some of these

reactor wastes (trash for example) could not be disposed of directly under the

na new de minimus standards.

n ;age 38082 other methods of disposal are mentioned, and they are certainly

to be encouraged. While we appreciate the Commission's reasons for concentrating

on land disposal, we would like to see alternative approaches, especially on-site

decay addressed.

cone serious tack which we noticed is ruling on the State responsibility after the

D-0 I licensee turns the site over to the state. We are also apprehensive of problems

£ I ke State may face if a contractor defaults on his responsibilities.

We thank you for the occortunity to coment on these new rules. We hoce these

crmments have been nelpful.

Sincerely 1

Wayne StNth'ol

Oirect~r ChioEPA

W SM : mkm

. .

Slat* of Ohio Environmental Ptotecton Agency

eCX Cs.9 3e1E. a6 eag St.. Cw:mbj.x Ch c 43*s1. * s: ea4Uts

james A. Rhodea. Governor Vayne S. Nichds, Omctce

B-242
05na UNION CARBIDE CORP0RATION

MEDICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION

.0.60 a*.,uwi0.hg~O 1wl9ll

?(L(.P.O.CN( 6131614131

~'A MT26 F`2.54

0 0:X Ti* O'qr7 0

21O1- PTng- ,

october 21, 19l1

Secretary of the Commission -. W KU a I e 1vt

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionf

washirvton, D.C. .20555 61 P R 3i

Attn: Cocketirg & Service Branch

Gentlemen:

'The foflowing cziments sre submitted for your corasderaticn to revise tne

proosed rulemaking- regarding the Licensing Requirements forL Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste as .puIllshed in the Federal Register on

'July 24, 1981.

6-3 J The 'ow Level Radicactive waste Policy Act sets a definite tie when

3 regional compacts must be established. This tPie table In turn places

reouienents cn the lndividual regional burial sites to make =oolicaticn

to the NRC for approval. The Commission should commit to a ;:inng for.

reecorse to an acplication in their regulations such that the a:plicart as some degree of assurance that the statutory deadline can be met.

Cminimnus Levels

1ne t:eatment of low level radioactive waste problems is iLo--rlete D -55- 2 wthout addressing deminimus levels of waste. Part 61 should acdress

this issue.

L!Oev In Storaze

It is inc-easingly comnon for nuclear facilities to package ra2ciactive

)aste and then store this packaged waste for a consideracie oeftod of r ¢ 3 i tine pr:or to sh'-mnt to the burial grounds. At our site Ne a:e Just

corleting a shielded waste storage area wnich will allcw 3.::a;e of

fully ^ackaged 55 gallon .rums of waste for up to ore yea: ;.-o: to

shipment. In the soirit of the A1.ARA c-nceot we believe that any rev packaging cr labtelng reariftements resulting from this pr:ccsso rule

exemot materIals packaged prio: to the effective date of the -egulat'cn

o tney may be disposed of properly.

4.1

Os 1

Summary of Rule

(Para V C

Any license issued by the commission should be for a period of time _ 5 essentially ecual to the expected life of the burial site. An inference U 15is made in the statement of consideration to a five year license term.

IThis is inconsistent with the nature of the facility and invites publihearings and intervention with each license renewal stage.

Pars V.HI

rThe cost imact of the prooosed regulation is not addressed . puantitatively. waste disocsal is now a significant (greater than lC%)

Iortion ofour operatirg cost. Disposal costs over the past two years have incresed at a far greater rate than all other cost elements. We

anticipate that the enactment of these regulations will cause a continuation of this trend. This issue is particularly important to

waste generators who mUst compete in world markets with competitors who are not subject to the same criteria. It Is an obligation of the

Comisslcn to determine the potential cost impact on waste disposal sites

and on waste generatrs.

r~nifest System - 20.311(b) and (c)

the manifest system, when established, should be universal and acceptable

to all disposal facilities, generators and regulatory authorities.

Do-mwentation of radioactive wastes has become a significant part of the

_zst of waste disposal.

Intruder Protection - 61.42

|en after the institutional surveillance -erlod has expired, tnere

snould remain in effect reasonaole assurance that Intruder protection ls In place. This protection could be provided by such basic means as

C I \costing of prooerty, restrictions recorded on deeds, atc. 9ecause of the

residual protecticn remaining after the institutional surveillance

|rie:d, it is overly conservative to treat the intruder with the sane level of protectIon as a member of the general public is assured; i.e., -o more than 500 mR cer year. A more rational basis would be a runoer at

e:ast 10 times greater, that corresponding to tne limitimg safe

cocupatioral exposure of 5,0OO mR per year.

('te Desion - 61.51%a)(7)

D- | S L wo ding seecs too sWecif~c. ve recceend; "TiE DISPOSAL SITE SHAL

/ USED EXCLUSIVE1Y F0R THE DISPCSAL OF WASTES CCNTA-NINC RADICACTIVE

"AERIAL'. ' 

7ll . . _Z2

Z0

-i

J

B-243
iSite Closure - 61.52(a)(6)

Following our comsent on Section 61.42, we recconend the following

wording; "WASTE MJST BE PLAP AND COVERED IN A HAK ER THAT LIMITS ThE

IGOkMA RAOIATICN AT THE SURVACE OF THE COVER TO THE LIMITS IN 10 CFR PART

20,.

Limit For Transuranics - 61.55 Table 1, Col. 3

This is an appropriate time to address the issue and establish a

- ecnnically based limit for transuranic wastes. By failing to generate a

reasonable technical basis, the regulation makes a de facto endorsement

of the existing laiit. The justification for not addressing the issue is

stated as the lower value of 10 nCi per gram has been demonstrated as an

achievable cncentratirn to control the disposal of tzansuranic

nucildes". This statement is not true becasse there nave teen occasions

when wastes could not meet *his limit and therefo:e are not acceptable to

commerical burial sites. we telieve that a more rational limit Is in

order.

Site Criteria - 61.56(b)l

D - ('me performance criteria for compaction is a Iunction of site conditions

-11 and trench depth. We propcst site specific lnimts for compressive

s-rength based on local soil conditions.

The propose I I Id have Class A waste secrecated from Class

a. It snculd be reco--lz--- at Class A materua woulO rol a nood

sielo.ng tufter fr-om the Class S material wnicn wculd cenerallv be a

tdor-vie snielding whejeas the

Class A material could have been uses fnr that ~H1VnTh and resulted in

(The proposed regulation requires a structural stability of Class a

7)-h 4- < containers to maintain the physical dinension of a waste package mitnin

)5X. This snculd more a;p:cpriately be 5% of the vol-ue. since a 5X

/deflection in the diameter of a drum Is Inconsequential.

Cresently, there are few, if any, waste containers that will qualify as a

stable container under the propcsed rule. Until su n a container has

N 12 en prcven we believe th.at the regulation snoulo offer te alte:native

J f) pe-etual care to correct the effects of settling or other

C :ran'festatIons of instaoility.

In general conclusion we observe that the current trend of radicactive

*aste disposal ls to reduce volume by coopacting or condensing to higher

concentrations. This trend is occasicned Cy regulatory quotas and

economic necessities. It is apparent that this trend will continue as

aevidenceC by the emergence of incineration of lcw level comoustibles. The developmnt of ctner technologies may follow. ConsiCering this trend

we can forsee the possibility of a large part of all low level waste

approaching the Class 3 & C categories. This becomes even more likely if

local authorities decice to scale down the Federal limits. Therefore,

any sound basis to relax these criterior should be advanced.

T'ark you for your cc.silseration.

Very truly yours,

lamnes J. 1cKovern

ausiness manage:

RadiochMsicals

ZW:Js

B-244
PATHFINDER

'81 COT 26 P2-54

PATHFINDER

S!.10 Cold-~,. St",

Su, ftseroca. Cf.,f'gm. 04194

7r'IexJ'2

Secretary of the Cornission

U.S. 4uclear Regulatory Comoission

October 22, 1981

Page Two Mrmre O " 5E!. E.;Es~ 2RAtiCM

October 22, 1981

Secretary of the Ccemission M '

U. S. 5uc1ear Regulatory ComLsbln:. t'"' ' P DDPI

"ashington, D.C. -20555 -

Attention: Docketing and Servtce Branch ('6 F 3P

Dear~Sir:

Pathfinder Mines Corporation submits the following comoents ln respons. to tbe "License Requirements for Land Disposal'of Radioaetive Waesze

proposed on July 24, 1981 (46 Fed. ReA. 38081). Pathfiinder operates two

uranium mills in':hV Shirley Basin end Gas illls regions of 4yoming. ;eappreciare-this opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

r '5t Icour underatandn that the proposed regulations, if adopted.

would establish licensing procedures, performance objectives and technical

criteria for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Our comments

Irelate to the potaertial application of the proposed regulations to uranium

milling activt:ies. ClarifEicationn lxneeded regarding the proposed rule's

appl!cability to the .dispbsal of %irantui mill tailings or wastes (byproduct

material) or contaminated process equipment in another mill operator's

tailings disposal facility already licensed under 10 CTR 'O. An example ofsuch an activity would be the disposal of vastes or contaminated proc iss

aquIpment from a small milt or an in situ mining facil:ty operating under en

"ac source mst.rlal license. IRC regs atitns encourage these facilities to

dispose of their wastes at existing jill :ai!!ngs disposal sites (10 CTR 40

_ - Appendix A, Criterion 2).

Although the propcsed rulemsking its ftendad co regulate "the disposal for others of rsdioac:ive eastes containing byproduct, source and

specIal nuclear material" (See. 6l.l&a, It does "not apply to the disposal

of ... bvoroduct mactria!" (See. it.1b. 2c is nor clear. however, that :be

disposal ;'!or others"' o! m 1' talints and tontaminatad process equ!pment by * ... A...---I .A U ... A,.. .......1 $.4 4,.. .n....Oe . .

In sumnary, to avoid misinter-pretation and duplication of regulatory

effort, the proposed regulations should be revised to more clearly state the

- | Iexemption of wastes and contaminated equipment from uranium recovery facilities, whether the waste is disposed of at.the generating facility or at

another-facility licensed to dispose of b'.product material.

We will be glad to answer any questions concerning our cements.

-- Sincerely,

PATHFI5NDER #Ii!S CCRPORlXZIOM

L*Aa'. Sandman - -

- .Sentor Environmental'fnginaer

cc: E. L. Nugent

M. 1. Ritchie

J. E. Russell

;; belteve :hat any finll! lou-eve' waste disposal 4egUlations

shoul' specifically and uneqivocally extI'jde such actIvities. The vastes or -

zontaminated oqu:pmenc from uraniu-m rtoC'Vr7 ascilities operating under

separate sour:e material licenses are compatible for corbined disposal and

wcll rot inc-ease che rise to public health or the envirenment. Furtherore.

we be !eve chat combined disposal o! uranium processing waste and equipmenct is adelugcaty regulated unde: :0 FI '0.

. . . I

I I

B-245
CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS INC.

A P.O. "M. low *0 Sa~v.Dw. vtob.WO~N "gac PM 4=74l I

Octoter 19. 1"e, CFF!CJ- OF SECRETA-

=COTING & SERv;P:

SAANCM

T/~Z

-

Wt. v. Dale Smith, Octabew' zD. asI

P"gea

Mr. L Dale Smlth. QClef i ..7P!-

Loa-Lral Uste brea c h

a. S. Noclear Rmplatoar Cils_1o t;1 r S.i) 1a11ssow 6g wCZ

Weshintg. b. C. 20665

Dear M. Si th:

Mge hm Mvlad th mission's proposed rule concerning land dispos l

of radleactive wate. hiis rule. U1CtR Part 61 was published In the

Federal ster an July 24. ZM. The reglation Is well writ- add

understuoieblt and we wish to -C dthe W staff for their acdatiton

of aW of our _arlier co ts. For the st part. we feel. on the basis ow it taion of Part 61. that the proposd requirt1 are snrad,

mr_ ble e1n achiewvble. Early availability of the RCISau 3nd Technlce

t7 1s erc e"des d for the prose of facilitati

(;Xt=~, pqrorw roqwmd ln Suctia 61.66). . pefaiat, wp- o.i.-

Ye do baveafew comats hI ch are offered below:

-. he prnposed-regulation continues to raftr to identificatios of

slte. rtive situ. As outltied In a nei nt th you In goy. we

are pr5poIng a four step siting processi (a) identification

of a rsgion of Intest. (b) elimination of areas with largely u ltible condition Cc idontification of posibly suitable

areas (vs. specific sites), and (d) selection of a specific site

--Within one of the are* ft; detailed characterization. At that tim, you indicated that such a procs would probably met the

requirments of NEPA and certatnly appeared coqpatible with the

Calission's proposed aendent to IOCFR Part S. elimuinatig the

requilats-to prov1da alternative site dta In envirpvmental

reports. I141le Section C1.14(b) of the proposed regulation v"

anended to aliawinte the reirnt for Statq certification of

&/ rship of alterntive a s Section 2.101(b) still propoes

to nott-y the chief eecutiews of locations for alternative sites.

This 1=ples that the NRC still xpects that specific Alternative

sitls *1ll be Identified In the application.

2. Th t of %b proposed regulatle Indicate a post-closur. \ =5vtioe period of t five (5) years. but implies it could

M shorter If tht licessew demastretes tat the si to %as

n _ reaid * tle l7 cotion. r Section 61.7 c)(3) sod 41.29 state that this period met be for a minfimu of fiva (5)

yeers. While we do mat dispute the need for. or value of, a

/ pt-closure period, a clear position on the time fiwe is

necessary for " WeqtoW to set "aid ftnds to cove. tise

acttities.

. Section 6.7tb)(6) offers Om engineered bartier alternatiU to ) derpor bulal for Cas C west&. This Is a * dable approach D J that sbould nable Interstate DctS to provide -selfc( tsimed low-level wate _gt system.

4. W suport the requirmmot In Section 65.5 that n aplIcaut

prove financial qualifications to cooduct all licensed activities

* assJe fiading for site closure and post-closcae. This

1 _sh4 e dadeim tsa potentI for operator daftult or abanumant.

. Th s ry noe that the CInstou is cosidering seeking

n awthority to require the aszaptio" Of fiancial responsibility -ftr activities occurring after the license has be" transferred

t paragrh co page 2 of sec:tio F, 'Flnancial RIepoimibi1lty'). It ts not clear %gether this paragraph refe. to the original lice1see or the custodial lica .

6 Secti on6 62 ) requires-assurac of-institutimal care aS a tondition for licens Issuance. rs this Wn that licns

applications mat be accoanied by a plan fron the cWstodial

agency? If so. what aneemt of datail Is required, and kw can

agcy coawlienc with the plan be gvaranteed? Future Site

| wlopcnt will be severely i1acted if each lice application

gMt 1nelrde details such as cc mutioned In C;61.59 alog with

BW-som ftr a8 rcy coupliinc..

7. Section 61.3 states that ater am pcst-closere period. the license

,Al1 be transferred to th V0-rUWt custodial agency %Aen that

tgen is prepared to mum resposibIlity.. This implies that

tne a% cold delayon its earlier camitwnts by imposing more

stringent requirments than originally agreed to. This could chane

V*e ability of the licensee to effect proper closure fe to chans

beyond the fIAncial requirmnts initially establishad.

B-246

a
* I ... e ;. .

Mr. L WU Wt - _ oewi 19tw

Pp 3

(7. ItW it eio sa$y desi to 3. *6.S vqr that Is tnus t to to me &. R §0 etma ' _§ ut _ l i-l - " i lWo ath twot als l tw "91im- th watu e% I ISjt()(S) , ~ttc requvu ell"testiesbt Cst. t'~thti sisa

. .p ..F . SWUtoW 61.72. Wb<S crJj We Im be M"to dal;i s dlb a St V Or tritbe is pftvlt bltyaflucted bw * ptopows sitat

J% is terltly msvblo t ewt* rv of* li1m

s p lIesti* 3 1wt tw Pbwe ORrzt pr t sittwe

IS fta St gbbo, oe d ~t Stat i ett bilyd WSt C1l

t o* ¶,Iut but, toe _Jia ~s _ ttproiIpl ur a situ. This cewd utu * tz~ ltistmt1* u" ami cst 1eise ?wottV tlu I tlic

lIMA ym fav- the oppa tuftt to mut n botsb *wft and final wvesio - ortthMr l~ai. we are lookin I'rwin to th yelessw Om tie flU Plt smst to m thwt It pvopt iympiemet.

rea 091~ v. 40;4 syfslDm INC..

. .a-tramw . d Pmd1et

Mi~tL^, .2.

16#- 7 Ccot-EtEOcr

(9 '81 OCT26 P2:54

-1'C' OF ~SE~VIC ~

(y; -P R3 uil)

.A .l -. 1

,<= . OU 0- ar35, 

it')/s 1f11

DIJU" "4d1Aa"4k

~~ ALhsLt.

4 L u --

e4PL~:~-4C o ~

"- .J.L A ..

+^fDC,5

As S<

a a , 

4A-ezo

.gz4

te ,ds.) 4J

;.LC cAs &- 2U~

~ .

* '

&a. £4 L-J £-j'4L£w4

X __sc

b L UI4x pA

N

--2

B-247
-, " z zI. 

Z- 3-

.,i

1wve 4vea-L

J, Z PI/

dl.

!AFQ£

a I

-, - p

.>4. = 4 9

++> h0H'

.vo S'2 __ t

,eX', 2du. M(uj

I--z4;fL2~

.4 )

.,' e

s)% p, b..

4q ;5nA ; --

I. ~a f

5 Xm

Wt2,>>

XC-.4,Z 3LJ- 5Ci~sA~, 4 , - k.e __

a oS -r

-C'- . , _

B-248
Los Abaas Natrioal Labofatory

Los Ala m.&New Mexco 87545

Safeguards Systems Group 0-4

.plober 15. 1981

>5^- S41 wo (505) 667-7777

61 XtZ6SP2V3-7777

CFFlCT I.F SEC&9-11111q)

BRANCHI

R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management

Wuclear. R*gulatory Coonission

Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Smiths

t%6 rf? J931)

..

'. VA 41

4 4 -7; 9

Aj ;e~~

IT l;H<;d

-t - l:4.X~wzt. -,

Thank you for arranging to send me a copy of the proposed ruiemaking on land disposal of low-level radioactive waste (1OCFR

Part 61) and for the opportunity to provide these comments. The

following coamenfs are made with the hcce that they will help

in further sharpening the. scope of.your rule-making process.

(1) I have reservations about the open-ended definition of

wastes that might be included in land disposal. Under the present definition (see Section IV. under Supplementary Informa- D 5S-) tion), high-specific activity wastes, such as those produced

presently during the cleanup operations at.TMS-2. will qualitfy p~j, 5 for land disposal as 'Class C Intruder Waste.' A better

restriction on the kind of wastes that will qualify for land

disposal seems appropriate.

(2) The classification.- of wastes (Part 61.55) as *Ciass C

Intruder Waste" is, too vague and it lends itself to convenient

interpretations; Some 'limits could be established In terms of 'specific activity to restrict the use of this term. The waste

fora criteria and packaging requirements also siust belrigourous

to this class of waste-cempared.to classes A and 3 as defined n our proposal. - - - .

/3 Wasta characteristics (Part 61.56), 1 feel, have several

inconsistencies. It is the stated cbject've of the requirements

'D-5 to provIde stability for the waste for a perIod of at least 150

years.. Then, under item :7, Subsection (a). you have detailed

.- -I

.1 . .

4. to.. cot B. . of O ; - . I -

8-249
_ .'; * 1 . .

Q-4/81-584 -2- October 16, 1981

the requirements for gaseous forms of wastes. These two do not

appear consistent to me. Presently, there are technologies

available to readily convert radioactive nuclides of halogens,

3H, I4C, etc., into more manageable waste forms. The

D-T(O-s state-of-the-art in the management of radioactive noble gases

dictates dilution and dispension as the safest method. The

inr .d suggestion in this document to contain and bury up to

j.iUU Ci of gaseous form of radioactivity in a container at a and-burial site and expecting stability for at least 150 years

is baffling.

Q4) Under 'labelling' (Part 61.51), it would be desirable to

7 Include color coding to identify the three classes of wastes.

45) Under Part 20 ("Standards . ..... ), there is a requirement

to conduct quality assurance and compliance verification. To

have this system work properly, a variety of procedures have to $ -2.. be established and approved by the licensing authority. I am not sure whether small waste generators such as medical facilities, small industrial operations, etc., can invest resources

to comply with this requirement.

(6) Under Subpart C (61.40 to 61.44), it would be desirable to

add a performance objective for the site to minimize intrusion

by animals such as rodents, deer, etc., which have the potential

for transporting the radionuclides to the food chain. Parenthetically, I must add there are recognized studies done at Los

Alamos showing the potential for a simple rodent to create havoc

a low-level waste-disposal site..

rI think your approach to rule-making, stating performance objec- c.G _ ) tives (rather than detailed criteria), is commendable, recognizing the numerous forms of low-level radioactive wastes. This

(is also the reason why I think the definition of Class C wastes

needs to be more restrictive. Please note that while preparing

these comments, I did not have the benefit of your rule-making

document (NUREG-0782). If I can elaborate on any of these com- ments. please let me hear fron you again.

Sincerely yours,

K. K. S. Pillay

KSPcke

cy: CRMO, MS 150 (2)

file

OUSNR [Bechtel National, Inc.

Eng;neers - Ccnsorucors

81 OT 26 P2 :55| "Y It"* sa e.t iJ

San Francsco.CalftrnMs

' ('; w d E , ~ P a l i S. S ~ ~ ~ . C A 5 . OFFICC OF SE*:-TAIV

BOCRC October 2I, 1981

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Ragulatory Commission

Washington. D.C. 20555

Attentica: Dockating and Seruice Branch . c PR

Subject: Proposed Rule for Licensing r 5' Raquirecants for Land Dis- 06 FA3V?1J

posal of Radioactive Waste

Geantleamn:

We appreciace 'he opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule

for Licensing Requl:rents for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. We

feel that the proposed rule is an important step towards sacisfyinj the

need for additional lov level waste disposal capacity.

Il general we concur with the content of the regulations as written. However, there are several areas which we feel should be clarified to avoid

potential problems during implementation. Detailed coents from our

review of the proposed regulation based on our engineering and construction

experience are attached.

If you have any questions pleas&e feel free to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Qjr

Ashton J. 0' 1neLl

Vice P:esident

S=:sis

Atcach.

::t.0l

B-250
0 C.'-rs o IO~f1CF61

LICtNSMG REAJUIRMSNTS FOR LAND DISMOAL

CO!e=rS 0N TBS SLPLE-MaaY tnmnikon

The following comments refer to the issues raised in the discussion section

which precedes the regulation. Te troman numeral and letter following the

cosment oumber refer to the section to which the commen: applies.

I) V C A classification system for low level waste is proposed containing

four classes. Specific activity limits define each class. Uhile tee desire

to provide a level of protection counensurate with the activity level is

recognized, it is not clear why class A and t wastes need be distinguished.

The basis is apparently that "it is obvious that if these (unstable trash4t type wastes) were disposed of with higher activity waste, their deterioration

could lead to failure of the (burial) system aid permit water to penetrate

the disposal site and cause problems with higher activity wastes." If this

is demonstrably so. would not it be better to define classes A and B solely

on the basis of stability rather than on stability and activity concentration?

Thus, all vaste up t6 tie class B activity limit would be separated by whether

was solidified or unsolidifled.

2) V C lt is stated that the Commitssion recognizes the need for a "de

minimis" classificatien of wastes, that this "should be determined on a

specific waste basis." and "Part 61 will not establish a generic 'de

p -552..mnimis' category for waste." The "do minizis" levels need co be established

as soon as possible to prevent disposal of large volutes of oaterials which.

ain hindsight, would have vet such critria and could have been disposed of

by other means. This need is especially critical in view of the limited

t~apacy of the existing disposal sites.

(3) V T The discussion states that'active institutional controls such as

periodic surveillarce and controlled access cannot be relied on for more

/ than 100 years. The implication is that governmental institutions would

be aware of the necessityto caintain che site. Bowever, in the following

paragraph. credit is taken for passive controls. tt seems that if a government

institution is available to maintain land ownership and records, that same

institution could maintain a fence. This would reduce the concern about

the potential exposure to intruders.

CO;----S 0; nmC:ATI05

The following commenis address specific concerns raised by thi regulation.

The number following :he cc=oent n-sber refers to the section of the regulation

to which the cosment is addressed.

) 61 .1 u-roose and Sceee

The purpose and scope states that these regulations srablish requirements

upon which the co=:ssicn Issues licenses ' 5or -the lisosal for others of

radioactive was-es." While l0CT Part 20'covers the disposal of waste by

an individual licensee, the qwuntities Ira li-ited to verv low levels. ae

Pl \ purpose =a! scope should be rephrased to allow an individual licensee to operate a bur'al site. The words "for othe-s" and the last sentence In

61.1(s) should be deleed.

5) 61.2 Definitions

a A "near-surface disposal facility is defined to be within the upper

15-20 meters of the earth's surface'." Is this definition intended to limit

-e maximum depth of a trench? If not the definition should be rephrased

o clearly indicate that 15-20 meters is an approximate range.

b) The term "stability" should be defined since it is the basis for the

-peration of class A and I waste.

c) The use of the word "isolation" in the definition of "disposal" implies f) degree of absoluteness generally not attainable and its use in this context

(,E) ~mplies f that the disposal facility is not part of the biosphere. The definition

should read "'Disposal' means the placement of radioactive waste in an approved

isposal facility."

6) 61.7(a)(1) This clearly limits the depth of individual disposal units

) r trenches to 20 meters. So justification for the limit has been offered

by 'rC. At some locations it ray be appropriate and economical for individual

trenches to exceed 20 meters in depth. She statement should be revised

accordingly.

$1) 61.7(b)(1) The taflty objectives should be rephrased to read "minimized G 6EJ- I the migration by any route including surface, groundwater discharge, erosion

w wind erosion, and miimise the exposure to inadvertent intruders."

(8) 61.7(b) (2) According to this paragraph a msximum disposal site inventory

w will be established for certain Isotopes based on the characteristies of D-55-rthe disposal site. 7owever, no criteria on which to base maximum site

D '5 Iinventories is provided. The criteria for setting maximum inventories

should be provided sinec this will limit the capacity of the site. The

criteria should take into account the site conditions and locations. Also

the criteria should reflect the fact that if a site is propertly selctced,.

single large site nay be more desirable than a series of smaller sites.

3) 61.t(c)(31 ls indicated in paragraph 61.52(a)(9) closure and stabillzation

measures 3ust be carrsed out as each disposal unit is filled. Paragraph

61.7(c)(3) states that the site is in the closure phase when closure and

stabiliration activicies are being earried out. In order to clarify the

intent of this paragraph, the work "final" should be inserted between the

/fifth and sixth words so that it reads, "during the period when the final

site .... "

0) 61.12(d) Among the specific technical information that must be included

ia the license application is: "(d) a description of the desitn basis natural

V-eo-l ~events or phenomena and their relationship to the principal design criteria."

These events require further definition. The definition should include not only e types of events but also the time frame over which they must be

constdered.

(11) 61.24(h) This appears to be inconsxscten wich IOCF12.105 which provides

\ the applicant an oppor:unitj to petition for a hearing on any additional

W-f requirements or conditions. The ". .. or thereafter.,." is particularly onerous in that it permits the staff to bypass the rules of procedures as described

in Part 2 of the chapter. The Comaission already has methods to require

(tesdiste action by a licensee through either an Emergency Order or a

Compliance Order. This requirement should be deleted.

B-251
2) 61.25(a) This paragraph, which appears to be directed toward safetyelated f atures at the facility.q i reality prohibits any facility :hange

T lhicthout undergoing a notification and approval procedure. The first sentence hould be modified to permit the normal flexibility to modify office buildings,

( 3intenance structures. parking lots, etc. that all nuclear licensee's enjoy

l4 holding licenses issued pursuant to this chapter.

13) 61.29 The requirement that the licensee maintain responsibility for

the disposal site for a minimum of five years is an open ended requirement.

* specific tim period should be set. As currently stated the criteria does 7 not provide sufficient guidance to establish adequate funding. Since wastes

will not be received during this period all fund'-- mut be derived from

iees charged during operation. It is necessary for planning purposes to know the tIme period over which the licensee will be responsible.

(14) 61.42 As currently written, this requireament is too absolute. The

C-t +sentence should be rephrased to read "Design, operation and closure o: the

iland disposal facility'should not resulc in conditions....

(is) 61.51(a)(3) The words "and improve" should be deleted. The siting

D...s/' ScriteriA will ensure that only acceptable sites are selected. Rance, the

site will nest the criteria without Improvemenr.

16) 61.51(a)(4) The word "prevent" should be changed to "minimize".

Gell 17) 61. 5(a) (6) There is no way to completely "elinate contact of water 1with wste " owaever, it is possible to minimize the liklihood of water

contact and provide a water collection and treatment system which can be

used as water intrusion monitoring shows that it is necessary.

S) 61.51(7) This paragraph states tha the disposal site shall be used

exclusively for the disposal of radioactive waste. This seems to be

unnecessarily restrictive. It should be acceptable to allow disposal of

0 ther waste types as long as there is no comm',gling of th waste types

with a disposal facility. Once an acceptable disposal site cas been

found, maximum use of the site for the isolation/disposal of any environmentally

dangerous materials whether they are radioactive or not should be provided.

ED - C19) 61.52(a)(9) The requirement for "adequate" closure and stabilization L leasuras should be defined.

D-S rio) 61.33(e) The last sentence should be rephrased -o read 'The mcnitoring 1 system must be capable of providing early warming cf migration :f :adiozuclides

afro the disposal units before :hsy eS:sss the site boundary."

4l) 61.5; An alternate method of determining the waste class:'ication should

be provided. Provisions for classification by external dose determination

should be =ade. For cases where the types of isotopes of concern are known,

this maethod would allow adequate classifticatioo. This alterna:e -ethod would

be particularly helpful for nuclear power plant trash. Generally. trash

has a very low specific activity compared to the class A lii:s. A determiation

of the radionuclide identity and concentration, as required by Par: 20.311.

would require the purchase &ad use of a portabla spectrum analyzer. lzstead,

a contact dose rate measurement of the containerized trash could be made

to shov that the acoivities were below the class A limits. Also, sinee a

radwaste classification system is already established in lOCYR71. Is it

possible t* tie' the two systems together?

Z2) 61.55 Table 1

The logic behind the mumbers selected for this table is not apparent. It

would appear, for example, that carbon 14 which contains less than 0.8

microcurles per cc may be disposed of as segregated waste but that any 5 oncentration greater than 0.8, even if it is only a tiny increase,

imediately requires that the disposer seek special permission from the

overnment for disposal. The abrupt demarzation needs explaining so that

the logic of it can be understood.

23) 61.55 Table 1. Footnotes

The term "significant Sa radiation" should be defined.

D-;S- 4 Pow is radium treated? A value should be established.

(c) The foototes place a restriction on wastre containing chelating

-6 - agents in concentrations greater than 0.1:. 1ls this limit intended to be 0.1: by weight or volume?

(14) 61.56(a)(5) The inconsistency between parsgraph 61.56(s)(5) and (7)

:D ~hould be clarified. Wastes in gaseoua form, allowed by paragraph 61.56(a)(7).

Lcould be considered the-very waste disallowed by paragraph 61.56(a)(5).

5) 61.56(b)(3) This paragraph requires that '"oid spaces within the waste

and between the waste and its package must be reduced to the excan practicable."

This requirement should be deleted as being too vague unless specific acceptance

crlearisc an be establisbed. For solidified liquid or slurry wastes, 10-

15: freeboard in a 55 ga:lon drum is appropriate, but a coantaine: of devate:ed

resins nay well contain 50C voids. If the S dimensional requirement is

D-i&-I ?applied to the steel container instead of the solidified monolith, most packages would not meet the criteria since the packages are typically only

30 filled to minimize the potential for spills. This requirement should

ae madified to be consistent with standard practice.

8-252
I. .

BRUCE YIlNG

STATE OF NEW MExico 00MtW NcS CABINE

SANTA Ft

S750M

Secretary of the Commission

October 16, 1981

Page 2

Cmo S. CGowwr PeLD. ffowr P LTh &a on *-c

OO~tKtETEO U'3N7C

October 16, 1981 '81 - .P33

QFF!Cj OF SECR F1'e

SOC TING & SE. 7 Cr

BRANCH

Secretary of the Commission

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, U. C. 20555 -

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch nSEO

Gentlemen:

we have reviewed the 'Licensing Requirements for Land 01sposal of Radioactive

Waste (10CFR 61) and offer the following comments for your consideration.

'Page 38085 Col.' 3 (Institutional Control)

Some 7rovision should be'xmde to require more obvious passive controls other than

public records. A permanent -type of identification monument should be

J constructed describing the facility and its boundaries. Unlike individual trench

markers this should be of sufficient height above the ground surface that It will

remain visible for many hundreds of years.

3Page 33C96. 61.50 (a)(5)

* Lower flood plain frequencies of 250 to SCO years should be considered since this

Is the ti: e frame required for radioactive decay to Innocuous levels.

rPage 380a96 61.52 (a)(6)

1J52-S 'Exoosure rates for garira levels at the trinch.cap.surfaces should be some

(pecific value above background so that comoliance may be readily determined.

(-Page 38097, Table 1. footnote 3

IThs footnote does not refer to any waste class but only to Class C intruder

wastes. For clarity it should read: '*Yaximwn concentration for near surface

. disposal.'

-I'

Page 38097, Col. 3, Line 6

It would be more technically correct to have this sentence read: 'Waste that has

a radiosotope concentration that exceeds the numerical values showi in Colum 3,

Table 1 .. It is implicit, by definition, tat the concentration of H3, C-14

and Co-60 cannot be in excess of their respective theoretical specific

activities.

(Page 38097, 61.55 (Waste Classification)

it Is not clear from the draft whether Ra.226 will be permitted and in what

(concentratlons.

Page 38099, 61.70 (Scope)

It Is unclear what the role of an Agreement State would be In the lIcensing and

F - I regulation of land burial of radioactive wastes as opposed to a non-agreement State. -

Page 38099. 61.72 (a)

Rather thin relying on notification In the Federal Register, it would be more

beneficial to State and tribal governments if the Director specifically inform

the appropriate State and/or tribal official if a near-surface radioactive

dp sal fac1ilty is being proposed on lands under their: Jursdiction.

S ncrely. -n~--~

.. C \1

Ge 5.(ldstein v'h.M.

Secretary

GSG:teb

8-253
t. * . : '

=&ElU wite BL e

PROP=~ AUER O SZCGNOFF rM7_77-r0AQ1'A LI OM$ Aea&.-I No. 22-R021¶ .-- I -

I FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

I . _ _ . ., _

J AapI aL. Naaa 4IAZ 81-bO-O3 A-ikts. -1*4 -6 -

I li s.- " ts. I*. V.., de,vh I. Tv. 0f Q PreS4.lc"onf , r. N ,- 11 , SEP n q 1 9

IRO" El Nirafkawn Of Inment t0o.li Sool 0 Anionz Of Federal Action IF.1 - OCT I g -

Iget __ __ -( L" 10- . 11, -_ - - 4. Logst Aa54.IjR..WS S. Pad" Elaw', utk" No. U

S. Ao~flcWt Mua. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. b. O'Pu Unit Low-Level Waste LcnigBac

C. 8ranIhrV scwtM.O. aN.., 117 109 la 19

0t. City . ae mih ,viw f. 

IL R. 0.19: Dle mith P0340 'CiefU.S. Nuclear Regula- 0;Me w #FqAe~ao4 ____tory ___Comm __ I*11..dmaaf.it.pt'soe,ooce Proposed Ral innaking on L. ?rndml...oJ....aLan Dt~,sa1ofLow-Level RadioactiveeWaste

Ths otc rinvitesjpublicccomnlient on proposed a- medmnt t teiCmmssons ulsto provd 1specifc requirements for licensing the land dispo. s.,.rd~!&ee ofradioactive waste. soriawaatp'44 ) ~ l~

saJ. ofwasteT.*. ofe

AnG-t ICQN A-I0. -. ca

f..*Anger.W RI &9at14I . lS..,afd e.W I 2 TV"e at a..4.Ua.l .ta9a. A-h. C-A.t.. E-A..e.,av..e

Statewide, Arizonab~m 8-Raw,. OZ.w-ao'w

13. Praoa F.ad-~q IA. C.ey-Wa' O..vM Oft IL Tip- at ~P-g For 1Ic 12.

a.ioam5 9. A6p.CB 45. hole" A .1. D~a-a F-u~wfro*

1.~.j01.02.03 04CI~.O,.ral.a ______

IL=V 9:0-= ~Obaaoft' £a.I A.Can SW, .. "-IL * Pami C-C..answ

id. Local I it Fvh lettwo rT71i

*. OSW I I is 1. LW.-a. o- Yw moifk atte 11. (.a-,q leavel 4emnw'"e "mowa

f. ine, i s I isl~4.~q~fC 1

all. Fo. .wI N. q ~ CVa'.4 e 21. RAa.-Irsaid I v nif`1No

. aWaq 'IOia5 maa mia a u .~, 5.0155 CM. . .01 .0-MGsu. Se fieviis.

'aw .,. 0, Sialad,-R Q,.CfAs a, .,o.r g- "'rzoaState Clearinghouse 03 2 V TS j o"5 S ff50 -a roICaa -554,U 1 2) 0 r2

S. 1Vie .Pwae S*V4a1 .9 us. 1 . c 

126. Aa.-V Ya,

U 2. O~a~~e nj27. "d.-VS"aean noff-2. n~s~v

I*A~. T.,..v.IWna., 4 Y. 'o j My, :3A. rep na-s laY

Qo. A.rcne * n0aIISt :2. An.. naV 's 'to. 

C:11. P 4 rd 00 25. On~wowna ea~ge..Sa Inn.S 34a . Yer ~.( Jo)

.4 fo c. C..... a.00 * o.Oae.0"s4 7 A I C-. Llui: .00

~A-,5an.. it .0-. C.. y -on c..'"S 4a A

B-254
DP. Pr *D.AULE rt-4,

thre .Tedford, Director GAF0\?

"daio egu~acorY Agency *dalnl.A acyi~P 4

Tompe, Arizona 8S281 Hat

Land

ON::ArI~nA S.,w l~3r:,nlouj

1700 West Wtshilnfton Streevt. room 5C5

Plhoenix, Arizona 83S007

' I,-1,

MEMRAN0UI

TO: Charles F. Tedford

FROM: Dick Blanton ;t8

DATE: September 14, 1981

SUBJECT: Proposed NRC Part 61, Rules for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Wastes

Thits proeect is referred to you for review and comment. Please evaluate as

to the following cuestions After completion return THIS FORM AND CNS

XEROX CCPY to the Clearinghouse no liter than 17 WORKING OAYS from ii' date r oted acove. Please =ntactr the Clearinghouse at 2;; CO' I. you

need further information or additional time for review.

SEP 2. o IT?"

ONO eo~','ent St, .'s wojoect A Precotal is suctiored as w.Oni t 

5 ons~ent Oitt~t in yur cv -. is AMC! cijt.4.intiaqtj, 0 Nio 0 jet solatiye to tltirageecy

2. ofs vot 1C. flrtr-bUtC C1slewjOO src.'Zf if U O oat 51S ct2 C;tetIvl3 of 4~ncm you are iar~ie-r'Cqes 03 No

a. it trefC merino or iucheitilen -1ntnlOle, stICI age'cy or local fttoltz.filtifs 1Cn//O ;OaiC are 5~ieOe J

t

r Will -FC'e- ta an, i ad,,#rse effett on ex rzlng -r;rosr' .. ti, Your 1;encv Of ry -11 tl ect :,-caca.i'ligves Q'o

, Cea x2'ect DAOYC Iny es of 'nial-Ct.C of yjar age~cy'l V Vf

: ces :'onee amev acco'sni,. rif ntdm el'e-:.s c.. tar;r. ocullt.or', [Sy's 0 Jo

Is O.5*ect -M Itt-oiS e.1tt Met-Png 500'cc i~llvawl riles ot 'e;,latiols #it- mcnYcyu ale a 0a' s 0 Jo t 7"~

tO -Z,,I ff'l'4ts C l.taSck s oftet. :f mecetuarylt

- .. 'e~s SriCIV# '~:e:

I have reviewed the NRC proposed Part 61 Rules and Regulations and would like

to suggest several comsents for 7our consideration.

eParagraph 61.7,"Concepts", subparagraph A, essentially defines the

term "near surface disposal' of radioactive waste to be disposable in the uppermost 15-20 meters below the earth's surface. This Is

consistent with conditions found in many states, wherein the water

table may li t S0 meters below surface or even higher. In

Arizona and other arid states, this is not necessarily true. Cata

collected for the hazardous waste site study in Arizona denonstrated

the potential sites to have water tables at depths of 350 to 700

feet below surface level. This is not unusual. The nearest water

at the 9ealtty, Nevada, site is in excess of 300 feet below surface.

In view of this,Arizona regulations should retain flexibility to per- mit ceeper burial, If economically advantageous. For this reason, I

would like to suggest that the definition of 'near surface' be extended

to S0 meters beneath earth surface.

The proposed Part 51 regulations categorize radioaCtive wastes into

three classes: A, 3 and C. Several of the regulations require that

each class of waste be buried separately. I find two problis with

this approach. First, if the NRC believes that specific characteristics of each waste necessitates separate burial, this has not been

ade'uately demonstrated, either by their own evidence or by history. Further, there is a substantial tradition of allowing a lower level

category to be upgraded into, and mixed with, a higher level category. Applied in this situation, It would seen that more evidence is r-ces- sarv to deronstrata that the mixing of Class A and Class 9 wastes, and

burying the resultant mixture as Class 3 wastes, is ill advised.' The

second potnt to be considered is; that althouch the Part 61 re;uations

require a physical separation of the separate classes of wastes, it is

imp1iec, but not clearly stated, that such setaration must be horizontal

in nature. The question thus arises, Can the burial units be stacked?

That Is, can one put a Class A or 9 waste layer at a depth of betteen

5 and 1 meters beneath the surface level-over a previously buried

Class C waste disposal layer at a greater depth? It is to be suggested that allowing such a strategy, parsicularly in conbination with -e deeper permissible burial levels as sug;ested above, may provide two

.q

B-255
Ferv to Charles F. Tedford

'Septembar 14, 1981

Page 2 Me m to Charles F. Tedford

September 14, 15381

Page 3

dvantages. Firs:, a more effective use of land surface area .ay be

achieved and, secondly, by placing the Class C waste at a depta of .T) T * 35-50 meters below ground surface level, covered by a S meter over- burden layer, on top of which a layer of Class A or Class a waste is

buried, will provide additional intruder protection to the Class C

astes.

3) The Part 61 regulations place obligations upon the license holder

for certain activities to be conducted after the operational period,

specifically, activities related to closure and post-closure monitorIng activities. The NRC proposes certain regulatory efforts with

respect to the financial affairs of the licensee to ensure that the

obligations of closure and post-closure activities will be met.

Authority to Investigate and regulate the financial activities of

licensees does not, In general, exist in State radiation control

programs. Some urndesirable experiences have resulted from this since,

If a licensee fails to meet Its obligations, the expenditure of public

funds Is necessitated to correct any and all deficiencies. Court

action Is the only possible method of recovering these expenses.

5) Paragraph 61.57, "Labeling', requires that each package of waste be

labeled with the words 'Class A, Segregated', 'Class B, Stable', or "Class C, Intruder" to identify its contents. In view of the result

v-Sq7- |- which labeling Is intended to produce, I question whether the use of

the terms 'Segregated', 'Stable' or 'Intruder' will provide any

advantage. My previous experience suggests that the use of labels

specifying "Class A waste', 'Class S waste", or 'Class C waste"

would be less confusing and more meaningful to the individuals likely

to handle the packages.

4)

B6-l 5

Since there isno profit to be gained as a result of closure and postclosure activities, It may be economically advantagous for the licensee

to seek legal maneuvers, whereby its obligations way be avoided. In view of this, I reco=nend as an alternative that a long-term care fund

be established at the time the liense Is issued. Monies would be paid

Into this fund during the operational period of the license, either

from a tax or a fee structure imposed on the licensee. Obligations of

the ,cense At that

time, the state, using mcnies contained In the long-term care fund,

would take all title and responsibility to the site and ensure proper

closure and post-closure activities by means of open bid contract. The

former licensee would be entitled to bid on this contract, provided his

performance during the operational period was acceptable. In any case,

the cost of closure and post-closure monitoring activities would be

paid for by the tire the site had been filled.

In order to further ensure adequate performance of the licensee during

the operational period. I would suggest a change in the orientation of

the licensing; from a single license that is generally oriented towards

tte o:eration of the site, to a license whicn is more specificaliy oriented tz the burial units. Uirer this licensing s:reme, only a lnmi:ec nun'er of burIal units snoulo be permitted to be cpen at any

civen tire. Tne licensee would not be permitted to open new units for use unless, and until, filled burial units were ade;uately closed and

stablized. The majority of the work of closure and stabilization

should, therefore, be accomplished as an ongoing measure during the

lifetine of the site.

B-256
. ....

DUzZ PoWvmn Go-crpA.r Po . 5=2nm

4z2 So"N Cleu" SmarM. CTZLoLr, N. C. sa.

00KETED

USNRC

Secretary of the Coemission

October 23, 1981

Page Two

S-C. V V

October 23, 1981 '81 MT28 1203

cm-FIOF 5tCR 'I; '*03 DOCKETIC S ERAV;C E 9 RANC

Secretary of the Commission

U. S. 11uclear Regulatory Cotission

Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject: Licensing lequ'rements for g.n.F P - :LI a,-

ILnd Disposal of Radioactive Wastes;

Duke Power Company Comuents co Proposed Rule (9' TL R: ra

Dear fr. Secretary:

Duke Power Company is pleased to take this opportunity to coment on the proposed 1OCM Part 61. Further aemments will be prepared when the associated

Environmental Impact Statement (NMRSO-0782) has been received and revieved.

The proposed tule seems to reflect Comissaion attention to previous coem nts,

sinee this draft Is much Improved. However, certain parts still need clarification or revision in order to make this rule workable. Sone general coments are discussed below. followed by some specific clarifications and suggested

revisions.

- ' ' Cenral COnmCJ '

Classifioation of Vistest a

Unless fnterpreced in more detail in the regulatfons, :able I could present

severe sampling problens to the lieensee, i! the licensee had co demonstrate

by analysis that each container of waste met the requirements of the Table.

I: would appear that various general types of waste could be stated in the

regula:'on to fall within one of the three classes under normal condidtons;

and thean only under unusual or abnormal conditions would the licensee have

to analy:e the waste or the precursors of the vasta. or perhaps calculate by

tnference to determine Into which higher class :he waste would fall. 7or

example, P. ion exchange restna night be said tu be Class 3-Stable Vaste

under normal condittons of reactor operation where there is less than X:

f ailed fuel in the reactor and -. ere the total activit7 in the waste cantainer is less than r curies.

-hurtber, in regard to the Table. we believe that the 10 nCilg figure for

D 3 L5T' the transuranic radionuclides is excessively conservative. It could easily

be raised to 100 nCi/g and still be technically defensible as far as the

protection of the health end safety of the public is concerned.

2. titutional Control

requirements in this proposed rule seem to imply that the disposal site

following closure is to be maintained within a fenced area vith extremely

- o limited access. However, the purpose of the period of institutional control

ia to prevent among other things an intruder from excavating, drilling wells or performing other activities that would erpose him or lead to possible

increased migration of radionuclides offsite. Since the radiation levels at

the surface upon closure would certainly be less thean 500 arem per year or

even 25 nrea per year under certain conditions, the NRC should not preclude

the site from being made into a recreational facility, for example, during

this institutional control period; providing that all of the aspects of

concern to prevent exposure, erosion, migration and the like are appropriately

asdled during this period.

3. De minimu&

.The NRC is encouraged to develop in these regulations, listings of radionuclides in concentrations and amounts that are below that of regulatory concern. Instead of handling this on an individual basis, the regulations

should clearly permit, for example. 53-gallon steel drams of de milmus - level radioactively contaminated compactable trash to be disposed of at a sanitar7 l ndftll, for eample.

A. Requirements for * Hearing

In the supplementaxy informaton section, page 38087 of the Federal Register

Notice, the YRC has listed a requirement for a public hearing and a license

renewal application every five years. This requirement should be deleted f3 3 since the regulatory reviev is continuous and the licensee is subject to

regulatory control at all tines. There should be no necessity to renew licenses every five years and to have a public hearing at these times. &

full-:trm license should be issued instead. The full-ters should be either

the tine to fill the burial- fcility as described in the original application

, or 60 years whichever is less.

-Specific Coonents

1. Stability (Section 61.7 and Section 61.44)

fItability as defined is applied to the waste and the disposal site. This

C~ 4 ) item needs clarification to show that the more important aspect here is

really the stability of the trench, not the waste.

8-257
Secretary of the Comission

October 23, 1981

Page Three

Secretary of the Commission

October 23, 1981

Page Your

Site :nventory Limits (Section 61.7b (465) and Section 61.55)

It is more appropriate to limit concentrations rather than quantities. )-T5-D Te 500-year period assumed as the effective life of the intruder barriers

implies protection againsc deliberate intrusion after that tine period.

Limiting concentrations iniiatlly buried should provide the protection

required.

. Changes (Section 61.25)

This section should be modified to allow the operator to make changes under

certain conditions in a silar manner to that permitted by ICC1 50.59 B during the operational period of the burial facility. The requirements as

|listed in this section are awkward and would prevent necessary changes from

being made quickly to handle a given situation. Or, as stated In Part (A)

of this section. the exception categories for this specific license condition

should be stated.

4 Scability o: a Disposal Sits (Section 61.44)

cl- : he NIC should make clear that this section applies to the period of insti-

(.tutional control.

spo so! Sites Suitability Requirements (Section 61.50 (6))

The mani of ths word "upstream" is not clear. It is assumed that the

X_ C means onsite.

Disposal Site Design (SectioO 61.5'1 3))

The meaning of miust be designed" s*c'uli be clarified. It would appear that

additional requirements would be necessary only if the site was marginal.

G f(6) it would be almost impossible to design i: to eliminate contac: with

( sa:er. The sracement should read "desg;=ed to -1nimzae" instead. L (7) The .eanIng of this item is not :i ar. The 'MC should clarify. *t is

assumed that i: means the site shal; not be used for chemical waste disposal

a lon with the rasdoactcve waste, but even that needs an sxlanatinc as to Liu tations If for example the wc-cr::al' waste is :cdioacc:ve.

(; D!spasa! 'ac~t7s GIpersci i1t 'c::rj:5. 6))

St:ike the word "orderly" fzcm tho san:tnce. As is Ay not be zost beneficia'

to stack ce::ain types of waste an ::et :hey certainly can otherwise be

loaded rcto the trench 'n a zanner : c: za:ntains :he package inueg:i:y.

r

I2 (5) Change sentence to read "void spaces between waste packages must be -S2-Z filled with earth or octher material so as to reduce future subsidence

within the f211.

. aste Classification (Section 61.55) Table I Notc 4

)-SWhaIt Ls the basis for the quantityr l~iui that enables one to mak the case-by-case determination? As stated previously (item 2), it would

appear that concentration limits rather than quantity limits would be

appropriate to control all hazard aspects. tihat Is the basis for the

0.IS chelating egent concentrations?

As stated in the general coments. our cacern is with the values listed >s Table. r The basis for these values *hould be stated.

(Section 61.56 (b) (1) This section appears to imply that drums of compacted

' trash must be scructurally stable for at least 150 years. This would 2)35c 1 Probably require that such waste be solidified. The BRC should clarify

cthe intent of this section.

9. institutional Requirements (Section 61.59 (b))

7This item requires an environmental monitoring program for 100 years which s cee to be excessive by about 95 years. The environmental monitoring

-_J progras should only continue during the five-year post closure period if

Ienviromenl oniortting is intanded to be a period of sampling of wells and

other environmental samples for radioactivity. If environmental monitoring

is deemed to be required for the period of 100 years, it should be severely

linited to occasional samples of the ground water pathway.

Vary truly yours.

Will'am 0. 2arker. Jr. p

SAG: scs

8-258
- by t .

HowVA12 UzrtERSzzr 1WAZZN*of. D.C. 900M OftETCED USNRC

COF, VICURJY ANDO APT`~ 1IfnCEI 21 0ctoher 19S4l t 29 :33

washcngtcc. re. 20553

Dmar M. Smiths

This cTes ines rpote to y=u letter dated Auis~t 7, 198i

com±nq the Propsed Ruileie)k.z en LvAd rispcsal of Low..Level,

Radioctcive Waste.

Listed below~ ame c.= -mts that I would Lum for you to

csider Ln regarf to "-'ansfe.- for Dlisposal wAd Marifests':

20.312 r-wisfgr fr Disposal end ngdfests

(b) . Aprdmetq cbte(3) of the was"e

- gm-ertia -Ad tle Lenthi of the

period of storage before pick-%v.

give soTe idea of the radjoactive dea~y which m~qft I-ave already t"ken

place, and the :eal actilvity at the

tire of disposal. This is zr~sidered

irpcrtanLt infoOrat-a1 .

()5Six-y (60) -drys- is =risidered tobe

t1aI* a period for the ad~ssirq radioactive ratarial. to gere-rate concszn bef-cre bear4 c-idered

mlssiLr. It stxmld be red¶.rd

to thirty (30) days.

Your coperation in this raard wLin be apR=ed:ated.

SL- ely yours.

rireec=

6 e$~~3ifJ)OCT 2 ig

a T

40-

B-259
'p1-

US?4RC

700 Lnrwveray M'eflue. Torono. Omano mSG lS xG MI 29P 3

October 15, 1981

Mr. R. Dal& Sith, Chief

Lowlevw1 Was. ensing Branch

Division of Waste riafagemnt

Office of Stoleer laterIal Safety

and Safeguards

Us Nuclear Regulatory Coiission

Washington X 20555

United States

OCITN ~ SERVICE

- h0

. tz~ tik)IUR I'70 ~ OQ(-;;3O ;);

616 Fe.3 ?,O- /

-2-

Secific Points

p 38083 The proposal call for a 500 amr/a maximum indiridus.

C_- exposure ltmit for irusiQo. Onut:io Hydra supports this limit as only a few people could conceivably receive this4 do".

/. p 39084 Und- r cplexiy,' th- disposl site *muet be C-b10-

of being investigated and analyzed. 'his seems vague. Will

there be specific definitions derived for *ccmplxdty- or vill

D-I 5 daciion on complexity be purely subjective (i.e., will £ site

be mled our simply because It is harder to analyze thn ocher

sites)?-

p 38085 Tbe rules do nor actempt to esablish a generic

) Aminlmu category for waste. This L unfortunate as iL would

undoubcedly be a greater economic advantage than case by case

* decis d o scJ. wover, as teze r s noo as yet & conc a~ 03 a

generic demini4 s level, any level chosen would be premature.

JD -S

Dear Mr. Smiths

The following are Ontario Hydra's cments on the proposed rulemaking for

10 CrR 7ar 61 for *aLd Disposal of Radioacaive Wastes.

General Comments

{1. he general philosophy of Part 61 is that overall performance

object..vss axe stated and the applicant has flexibility in

choosing design features and operating practices to achieve C 1 A these objecrives. .-prescriptive requirements are stated as

/insuscriteria to afford some flexibility Ln meeting them.

This approach is stpported by Ontario Hydra arthn having

specific detailed criteria ard standards.

. The geotechcal siting revirements are sufficiently general

for inclusion into the Tederal Register as rules. They reflect

the rS preference to found dispoeal facilities above the

groundwater table. While hs is feasible in many parts of the

- US, '.t is simply impractical LI ODario, vwhae the groundwater 2..' table is often close to the surface. :n the latter case, the

NM :sq r-es that diffusion be conclusivey *oson- :o be tie

predominan= aeans of radionauclde movement In ground.atxr.

(Pege 38O96). hsS means than the disposal sites will be

limited to those with subsurface permeabilities of less toan

10-6 cm/sec (i.e., till, clay soals, etc). Such geologic

mater:als are, Indeed, included iL our investigation plane.

4. p 38085 rederal or Stats government ownership of land used for

disposal of radioactive waste Is certainly an easy way of -3 guaranteeing proper sage use of the land. However, I &a

uncertain of some of the implications. At what point would the

n tevrn over control of the land? Would the government

/bleally responsible for maintLaning active control if the

eansee failed? Would.%he govem=aet be legally rusponJible

t- for a*ny halth problems arising from the site after ective controls a have been removed?

D the case of federal ownership, would this not stop the

(sucler Regulatory Commission from regulating the site?- I

understood then one department of the fede:al government could

Dot regulate another.

S. p 3808 Under disposal site closure phase, S do not unders3and

why public hearings art held on the closure of a site after all

the waste has been emplacd.- The public bearis should all be

done before thb original license is granted. What happens to

Jte wase If, i - after the sine is full and ready for closure, the

public reacts negatively to closLng plans? -his would place &A

unfair fnAAci-al burden an the licensee.

6. ( 3893 0p Why must the licensee sign the license under oath? S

- CA- not familiar with US legal practice.

ty card. 114L..4o6

B-260
|

- 3 - DsCFO.

.P_51t,_4 p 38891 C"Ar wase. eF raxetax1sties, wi. must wetees not benackaged hn eazboard or fobrJboard box-e? f O bT se

spe=erutad te.n thasq Tynee of vackaeQ±-nr should he aceentable.

Yours tly,

i9. e. ___eIX

- ARKANSAS PvWER S UGHT COMPANY of p4 -csr CD-CE9 BOX 55 ULM .ROKC AKWS 72Z3 reO¶2 371.40P;

October 21, 1981

Sy of teComeissien t~E j-C70 -'t|

:lear Regulatory Consassion L8' 'f

97 Or-WIT ons

OCAN108l

Secretar

U. S. Nuc

X.G. ?LC

Sutlelai taterLals Managemete

Depaznesat

7.J. Ars--onsg

Suprvtsing Design tniineer

uclear materials management

Depa~rz.nt

wasningwon, U. C. 20555

ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Not. 50-313 and 50-358

License Nos. OPR-51 and NPf-6

Comments on Proposed Rules on Licensing

Requirerents for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste .

(File: 3905. 2-3905)

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to submit Arkansas Power & Light Company's

comments on the proposed rulemaking on land disposal of low-level.

radioactive waste which was published In the Federal Register on July 24.

1981.

Ccmment ho. I.

As Mr. R. Oale Smith indicated in his August 7, 1981 transmittal letter,

waste categories 6ased on radioisotope concentration and waste

characteristics are Drtposed. and it would be the shipper's

responsibility to dettrwine the proper category and comply with the

minimum requirements of the category (Sections 61.55 and 61.56 of Part

61) .

Oue to.the heterogeneity of the isotopes Present In the waste, we feel It

would be highly impracticable to positively determine a given activity

level as being characta-Istic of the presence of a respective isotope. D-55' 4 GConsequently, it would oe mest difficult to use Table 1 to assign a waste

classification category to the waste with an acceptable degree of

certainty and thus maKes Impracticable the proposed waste classificaticn

methodology as being a ~eflnitive acproach.;

ic4e.s' by card.II/V/,.f

'4Meee .COLS o m. ur. rts S-V.

B-261
. . '. t

VO''!ET°0 H'~JU

Conent No. 2

In Section 61.56(b)()h c it states that iStructural liesigtyc raln be D5,/ provided by .n . plcn h s it disposal tonta.e or s tructure

no contain any technic al ociptria weandards f th dis - eanpTal at

_h ue nlrr~^^+ F-^" w~j he n aeenatxle method of

provdin stuctralstailiy, fr eam o Dli nn xciange resins.

Comment No. 3

We agree that the current general regulations for licensing materials do

not contain any technical standards or criteria for the disposal of

licensed materials. and that the need for comprehensive, national

standards and technical criteria for the disposal of radioactive waste

(has been well stablished. However, we are concerned from a cost/benefit

I standpoint to our customers that adoption of the more restrictive burial

site requirements may not be justified. We do not feel that the

perceived safety benefits of the proposed disposal regulations are worth

the added cost to our customers over and above that of the current

general regulations.

Sincerely,

David C. Trimble

Manager, Licensing

DCT: DET: sl

'm cMT30 R2.50

October 27, 1981 B y_

Secretary of the Commission FaCX ; SiRVIC-E

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coemission 1:x-J

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch . Cr.' i

Gear Sir: 86 X3fot/)

The'American College of Nuclear Physicians Is pleased to coa ent

on proposed Rules for Licensing Reouirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste; Federal Register 46, 1142, of 24 July 1981,

pp 38081 - 38105.

The document is an important step In the process to achieve much

needed facilities for disposal of radioactive waste. we appreciate

the work Involved and applaud the efforts of all who contributed.

Our conments are primarily general, although specific comments op,

a few sections are included.

t Is disappointing that "de minimus" levels are not yet included

1) 45-x In our progress toward a rational approach to the handling of

radioactive waste. Recognition of a de minimus philosophy is at

least Implied, which is a welcomed step. Clear delineation of

de minlius standards Is badly needed - this would be an appropriate

document to make this advance and it is reconuended that they be

Included In the final rule.

ow level radioactive waste frequently Includes, as an integral

port of the radioactivity, materials which must be handled as

7 hazardous waste without rescect to Its radioactivity. The document.

>5-) - i specifically section 61.5(a)(7) of the proposed rule, makes no

prvision for handling of waste which Is both radioactive and

requires special handling for other reasons. A "combined hazards"

approach will ultimately be necessary and Incorporation of such

nto this document would seem appropriate.

Responsibility for waste appears to be retained by a shipper until

the shipment reaches the disposal site. When a licensee chcoses

to utilize a shipping agent it Is not possible to satisfy these

responsibilities. The licensee, especially small ins:;iutions,

do not have the authority or capsolllty to monitor or interact

on training of the vehicle operator, route of transport, repackaging

or movement of the shipment within the vehicle, etc. It is strongly

urged that procedures be established such that a licensee can

transfer custody of waste to a shipping agent and upon acceptance

of the material by the shipping agent, further resoonsibility resides

with the agent rather than the original licensee.

'(,no r e)

American )College of

Nudear

Physidans

1101 caw"=A

Wag. 5m,.% Or.

-1IeS1 17

- D.n.P

c- CS. L. aI-Ia

C8-262
Secretary of the Comuission

October 27. 1981

'age 1 1

(ection 61.41 - The ground water concentration limit should be established at r. e ihe boundary of the disposal site. A "nearest public drinking water supply" I,/) ,criterion might change after establishment of the site, causing potential

Ldanger on causing retroactive design limitations.

- I {Section 61.70 - Participation should be limited to Involved states.

Cverall the document Is liveable and an Important step forward In providing for continued benefits derived from use of radioactivity and radioactive

materials. Further improvement can be achieved by Incorporation of these

comments.

Sincerely,

Carol A. Livel

Executive Director

CAL/smt

'81 .tNC -5 P507

THE NATIONAL ASSS NOF INSURANCE BROKERS, INC.

31 FINST ST.. N.W. SUITT '00 WASMINCTOC. DC. :MOOI T.EL 102234880

.1cveber 5, 1991.

5 S. Nuclear Req-_latory Cc=ission

Washb gzton, D.C. 20535 (o f? 1

Atetrticn: oceketing and Se-Hece 3Brnch

Yercsed -: r-ale amendq 10CW Part S1 S subpart _ ?irancial AssZ=ances as zublished in the ?ederal

2egister, 7Vlume 46, '.o. 142, Priday, C24y 24, 198!.

Dear Six:

rhe financal arranqements scught by the Muclear Regul1atory C:o=isstn axe Ce suzoty nat=re and are des'ned to eosure *hat f-ds are available to prcperly close down :!adacz±te

waste dispcsa. sites.

Several'ceo'tcns for zrzv'd'-c ''aar.cial assurance are spec' '- ically prorosed-suretorzds cash deposits, certifecates o'

dercsit, detcsits of ;cve-rsent secu-'t'es, *scrow saccouts.

'revocable lectars or lines cf credit, and t-st .unds . addition, the proposed -'e wou2.d zov'de other eopt-ns by -e :tt.nq 'such ry-es of ar=:arqements as =ay be approved _1v .le Cc~rsson.; .ne Natioral Ussociastcn o' Znsuzt-ce

1 | 3_z'cs-s -e.aves th's !lex' E'tlly is cr.cial i' t'-'e Trccsed

ru'e Es to 'uncticn Ln a reascnable raane:.

.'.e :A3 represents3 majc -ese:z' a.' ' .-surance ':zkers in the "-':ied States.- Our menbers deveylcc mce than hal' of the

Nation's bus'aess-=elated insurance co-e:-aes. The pro!aaf-set'cn and resrsibility cf a c-rmercial broker is to 'ezelop insur.ance ;rzq=z=s and r:vi-Lde related zroducts and

se-ries o cr tc the assets c! clients =ar.q-n f::: la:;e

and s*ral': !s-nesses tolzuS!!: aind zr'vate E!=stlo=oins zf

!A_13 belIeves that the :eso'i of ad whetner o: not these fInancial' ass=r-nce prtvriicns are reasonable depends cn the':

avala-illty a&rd c'st. Tax 'nsoance, today -here Es some ..estiznr whether svrety Sonds wcu'', Ln fac-, he avaliable as ;ce sety Market is not interested !: Zroviinq bo-end'n; a-. orices t: =:ate i An cytn c n. A-so, the C:r_'ssitcn shcu:d -.ete that r t isd'-Lraa:! :s .a.a_:oe y:. _o financiallr

stiaes !'ras wi.Lch :::ud T-u -y for an! of the othe: opoicns, :: is taaolLe :z -cse who nay have a ;,ea:er need o! i:.

,/9A/4/

B-263
J-., 1 .

MAIB azendiag

'.0 C? Pa rt 61 ;a-e 2

surar.ce is not nentIcned as an cpteIn he:e and. in the Oad'-Ional sense. may not be appropriate because Lt could be

azrqued t'ere is no risk taansf r invoLved when t'e reed f:r closure Ls a ce:raanty. zcweve:. Lnsurance could be a vialble

|eans of financial protecticn agaist *Ze ;rematu e closure

of a waste disposal site, '.a.. Lf a site had to :a closed

dcw-n before its cperators had planned to do so. ', howeve:,

) 1 - the closure Caee about as scheduied,' th-en 'izusance is not K I \a viable solutIcr..

Soday there axe ao 'iuraznce prcdu:cts on the z=ax.'et which

would cover the tyre of clcsure whrch cznceas the Y.A in

th-s proposed a-'e. := the fut-re. hcwevez. scme fcrn fc

iasuzance may be cffaxad, and cae SQ 3fees such amn cpt:In

sao4uld 'e favorably considered by t.e Cc--mssict.

:a s %.In-y (A3 belLeves that t-e s'^,:.e mcst -c:porta:

facto: in t'e feas'=L"ty o' the 'inazc-al assurance ;rovLsics of the p-cpcsad uie* is that the words '3uch types

of az_-zeraentz as nay he approved by the Cmmisz':r. be

re-tined. the CoIssizn or staff have addi-':ral craes- i- oos, tht * a would be p'eased to -espcrd.

SL:cerely,

3arba'a S. Eaugen

GQven-oen. Az 0irs OffIca:

SIIIATI 9ILIUS

A..U. L £M " 

a- 'A. I-Y.MJ

GWu 8. . .M

Oa~oL. _~ LEGLSLATIVE RESE, -AMCA. -Cus u-w SC c" g wl ls,,

1,,_w T. Imae

CN...4=, WWe

November 2. :81

*-e Honorable S- ^! .Ca'lk

Sec o:erT

S.4lear 3A.gu!azoo Coi=ssocMa otcmi 3uildig

:7:7--: Street X.7.

Wash:zcn. '.C. '0535

.a05 S4Cracar-7 Ch'Lk:

:RCH COMMISSION

I. x*,oe T,

.9,

WOUSIM WL1S9

C 1. w 79

S466V M. ,adf

S...... Sto Ta..

AMW L S;MW

A Ct C.""w.,

'48-i$ W... 01949c

U4."5" Cests Quaam19

W-ar M..

WD999, AA9,

hfi591r Who

C't. A-,!

B,1-

'-I.c.

. ~.-,_ .... . . . '.'I

('4-1

This l2:0:tr is iaur- _s'ieree ra *ro - at-iLcus in

;30 Cflo-?a= it rsLacLg to Lcensig. re _iaea:ecs- --. lad zI sposal of .ae;Lae:Lva salta.

Zn 1930. :ae Xan-..Ck7 General Asaeob-7 estabLishad a \ Pecial Advisory CarL::ae-ca N.uear.'ssujes.as:o osad oz lizgLslaczzs o r.- veasi:7 Md indus 4.t'QerS. and zitizens

D•~sZ. :a 5 ocae: gs - Lre n a::s-a:Lvas : aagiga- Xe:ua:wck7 ;enera-ed law levgl .. va~.sce. Du !-g ':s SC; dv a: was ::-uiu ;: :--e a::ern:i o :h'e Cci:ae :.a: :'e

aszab4!snaer: o' -& -: !.±:s s:,ndards fz- ea:- radL7~osotoa

in air, soLl. vatT oasoUld waste by :ze.attclear Rag:oi0

Ca-3Ss .= o ;:aher ap:aa:e federal apencias wol:o .e fz'

g:ea: -bee::efit in ragi '- aveL! nclez wasr . -he

C=.::e v; lika :o e cu rahe :re Lrcz a:L:: ' .. e de n CnlCus conco:t io. e..: - revisi-r sc :.Q C:. Part ?a .

aSa: bch

III..41. 1A..*.

on ~uc~ear ssuo If. I- -asP

W/l--cs

B-264
&'!VZALL %I =GG

?SV CM , P.C. ZCX u

OAK~ nxc 1r 371!0

wreeder Reactor-Corporation _. l

'81 '0 -6 P2¶12

R/A SERVICES. INC. ,sct

P. O. Box 73AS * Odessa, Texes 79760 * (91 5) !6! E~Il- t- SM4C4

Ootober 29, 1981

U.S. Electric Systems Supporting The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Projer

Act :4r?., . . .. "'1 ,-

SZ= c;Z F -Th1 C2A'MS.=7

U&N2VC 81 ,W --d A8:!6

R. Dale Smith, Thief

Lmw-tevel 71sts t-iomnsimng !:snoh

Diri~slen of 'taste 2fAngenent

United Stites Nuclear Ittulitorv Cca±suiO'

Dahntn .C. 2.0553

De~ar ~!r. Sm:

it,,;- 26z34v Jed-r) WJASHtMG70M, 0. C. !1555 oCrF ;r:~

Cs/b F1? 37Ž

I S SE '! !V2 ~ UCS ~ ! ~ S UR. W ? -'C ! ZU E K .V G

10CR51. I POW~ NO MBCLEZi. -.4E XCCLME' A?'!flS %C MST

d!(C ~ZrWMA_. S 4-TS MU'CH CLART/.

A PL!A.se ouI U! Ar7 vCtr& :_-v V!NC!E A C$vv oT -! c.. .S o 4

"a voersta xader Taxas ladioactivt Ceteria~l Lictase # 12-3010. Ve received the

capy of the prrosed ruaai- en land disposal of tow level radioacoivt vista

at a '&-.a date And as a remtd: vere uzable tc :1717 earlie..

ae ;:Vosed rarmlatans a-,ear to 'e more than adequate to cont"nl !ieeosees

whic-h operate disposal sites. 'out theysxae inadequate for requletims smalI processing o;enaricnts,- cuttimg !&atii:ias. =adiaxl researh ctateri. and OIaum!OIOs

othe: Thtns e rseaso that 2, nake such a strenent is that co enssiderarion appears to* have been jivtn as to what parztculsr isotope is beingW

disposed of. t- seems a Te5t*55sz. to Ove! c~ ur vests sizes *, hshort

al lfe isoet:-es uten !be7 *ai2. be asseotially aon-radicaetive vases Ln a

2)-~± 5 II hort ;ericd of tinea.

.his regu lat!o n, is we see it, w il ser-70 fr-- a t a;- fi :oal r Sts r Small oper2atios gMu a at the s&ae ti--e encourage the:S4 sma-'', pegrations to

disvese off thei- wastes in zther fashicns. Ve ould llset to* see a revised

reT~garco wi would deternine t.ha vasta disposal critzria for :afdi*!oeopes

acoord!-g to s-;ecif!c 1'oulf-LI~a. This would a;pesr to b~e a zaSt bg n2 o

tien si-cs the fuzdamental prn~l ehinmd radiati-cm is the dacayi-g of the

,sacr-Va.. f sma'"ar operationsg aret :* o - Ply, It ias e e et that allow ncess

2.m afe for sbort ha!!-Lilwed :xeiaisaiopes.-

T k70u a lotr 7our sie t oc . An-7 c-oenzs per:1a1img to7 oun views on

Is~ =artar voen 4 lbe A-ppreCisad.

* . . 1',.

1la -SMVza-S. --C.

1// 9~(/ _'IPresldent

= : ex zs e'4 art:o nent i o c s* k z - e

of t-elllh

!!/41

B-265
I . ..

CCRRECT;CN :OT1FTCAT7ON

To Recipients of PR-2. at al. (46 FR 380al) - Li:ensing Reu~iraetnts for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste

Comsent Yos. sa, 0.9, and '3 -trs 'Is::cat. 7-tS -u.s.:e6 i:" nt: be

used again.

*> RD. HAnu LAv-Rcsia. nC

CONsV.UL-4T -. 5k X't~t ssara.s..'. .. ,51

lso his. 14so 3350

Peot (51 524-:M7 '81 NY 19 P3.23

Novemcer 13, 198f-: j ERVIC I

Cocke:tng and Service Branch

Office of the Secretary of the Comruission

11/18/81

mr. A. Dale Smith . /

Sranch Chief, Lo.-Level '"aste Licensing Branch

U. S. '4uclear ARgulatory CGMsnisslcon

wasnilngton, 0 C 20553

Dear )aie:

As 'e OiScussed in New Orleans, I suggest :he ,ordings in ;a CFA

Par, 61 on pages 24 and 98 be changed from "Cnencaman; of construc-ion

prior to such conclusions shall be gr:unds for deanal to ,cssass and

Js- ss-cial nuclear'material in sursi 3lant or facility." to "'mmracement

of rsns:ruction arior to suth conclisions 5hall Se a: :-.e rIsk of z:e n~ -3 .coolicant and snail not he a factor in de:eorining tia ac:aptaoili-y of

n:e application fcr license."

Since timing for opening of disocsal sites may be crItical, osme. tcowght

should be given to li;ited work sutnori:a:ion permits. nhis would sllos

work in selact areas of a potential sit..

ncI e :hesa sors will be heltful.

YIery truly yours,

harry ' awroski

CORRSCT!CN N0Tl1:CA7!0N

To Recipients of PR-Z. at al. (46 FR 38C81) - Licensing Reouirements for

'.jno )1soosal of Radicactive Waste

Ccenz No. 61 was tiscoded. This number wili not be ;sad again.

Acl -h'cwlee;ad ; y = -d..

Cockating end Service Branch

Office of the Secretary of the Cocmission

12/3/81

B-266
'. I ;;:; . -

.. DEPARTMENT OF THEARMY

OFPTCZ OF THE~ ASSISTANT SrEC3aKTARqy WA"b1144?ON. .0. MItS

~'I M:,-2 P4:28 l LFC -2 25 F R3 9 ovorber 24, I983

liuelet -2 MIatr Cersso v :5b:

Washington, D.C. 20555 55-_D RULE 6 60

Subject: Proposed Rulemaking on Land Diapossl of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste.

Secretary of the Comission

US Muclear Regulatcry Comissiin

AT7?I: Occketting and Se-vice Iranch

Washingtn, XC., 2^55i

2 ~4 N %'9 A 

Dear M'r. Secretary:

Thi5 Is to provide you mith coordinated Army cornents on your geincy's pro- pcsed r-ilenaking action regarding land disposal of Icy level radioactive waste

set forth In the -ederal eg1ister, /ol 46, Yo. 142, July 2C, 1981.

7e Arny tas reviefed suibte. ;rposied rule for micact on the current Arny rad1oactive waste ;rograo. ;n parti:lar, only Ptrts 2.311 51.- 51i.5.

Lid 51.57 will aff. ctre Art y at this time.

{art 51.3. classified lo level radioactive waste into Cless A. Class a. and

I Class C cattcries. Class 3 concentrat1ons r-uire packa;ing t3 nest the Ieuireviitts of Part 61.55. Since waste ,h1;zed rAW AR 383-lI are already

reorred ,- by Headquarters. US Arny Arnient 1iterial Readiness .cmand D 5 !- , :o neet nhese recuirrents, this part hs no affect. Hcwever, ?art

i .- reou!res in additional lbel s;ecifyirg e1t-er 'Class A segregates,^ 'l!ss 3 s or )ole, litss: itruder' ohlch A11 reculre cnanges i; existing shilnpng fzr.s as outlired tel-w.

anrt 0.311 reouires scoe-wcrk to acconoany each shioxent to sucolt-ent ex stIng recuirenents For record <eoaing. The cur-n X-5 wse dis1osal frm use. zy t*e site =trict:rs Lid RCN already co:ntn nest ^f the roufred informci:n. Those itars not now -sczrded on t:'e 'orm, su:t as sod'fl!cat1:n

Clascs-, V its A, 3, o- t oun:s, et:., I11i i e Included :n 1R2C74 shi;oIng dor~ieits :nd for-s when -equired. All :t0ar reluirsennts f':r :4e ;enert r L-d,!r ni-ioer .e., :arto i..3111d) 2V.3::'), and ^1O.':;(1)) are :ef

ac- tosi e 1P:d O 7y. J dlt Vor";rlend.' '- tie . !1 a-ove', Ut,14 St

.u:ltir C.r:.

In my opinion nuclear wastes, both high snd low level,

14 - $ hould be pornanently disposed of in underground geoloric repositories.

a problem should not be left for future generations to resolve.

As nuclear worker radiation- doses rise, the lon; torn

iirlications are frirhtenin;, Given the recent estinates of cancor

risks associated with low-level radiatlon expoiuro. Theroforeo,

efforts should be rando to for.n a now partnership rmong federal,

state and locel officials concer-alna all decisions of the dipoerl

of radioactive waste.

Sinceroly yours,

22iai. Jcen .iJ

i.tout I Box 86A

Grar.dview, Tennessee 37337

Lewis D. 'Jaler

Oeouty fir Envirorzenet, Safety' Lnd cotini 1 ati

cwied~n'I I C~~SA F71) iveeibya

B-267
DEPARTMIENT OF PLANNING

.AND ECONOCMIC DEVELOPMENT 9-* ._5.. 1 --. S 4...; S -_ . ... V an

. -cr: 410.0

;.. 7ri MC11

. Si. 303

Linion Oil Conr.r.any of Catilcmia

Union Cil Carter. Box 75CC. 1LoS Angeies. Califormia 10051

. tleonone (212) z77.6810 .

.

unien 8 1 n£-II4X O415

iSr 1 ,Le;; -, r 0

U.S. Nuclear Re r Cz ission COC54- =WSU nv

oice of Nuclear Yaterial Safery _ _ _ _____

Was ton, D.C. Zosss ( ;

Gent:liten: Fe IS2 4/s

Sutject: Draf. L eaumnta.l. 1: Sct a:Seta t on 1D0 G Par: 61 'licensiag Requireent for Land Disposal ozf ioacive

Zhank you for the o r._ t to review the s.:ject d-st 'S. a s~uo as the proosed regula:icas provifd coale cpportuniry for c.e axarssicn

of Stats cczcers prior to the Licensing oi a disposal si:., -d fedl that ary

_ casal :=.ae YXzagenint (C=O pr; rrm concers om _e addressed a: that tis: . r Mcr zver, should a !isposal site be ;r:pcsed within tie "-I areas of the Sta:e, te federal consistency provisicns or the Natioal C2 .I rscuire that te

licensing be stiJect to State review for czrssenc! witha Hxwai s ddrily

aporoved CXtrozgram.

Sidertl 6Y

Careton S. Scott

0~_. &_**1 h

toceaber 2. 198a

Ir. Samuel .. Chilk

Secretary of tie Commission PR - 2

C.S. Nuclear aegulatory Comm'ssion VmnE 1'JL_-

Washbngton, D.C. 20535 646 pR3g- 1)

Att: DocKeting and Service Branch

Cear Sirc

Cnion Oil Company of California (Union) takes this opportunity

to Present comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission (NRC)

proposal published in tee july 24, 1982 Federal Recis:er (46 FR

28081) to add a new 10 cRa ert 61S to provide licensing

procedures, pe::ormance objectives, and technical c:!:eria for

!lcensing faclities for the land disposal of radioactive

wastes. Set forth below is a summary of Union's nine major conce:ns with the NRC proposal.

_ I t - D-SY-k

4_

A- - It

'e-1 P.

ZYxiting facilities holding valid licenses for :he land

disposal of radioactive waste should be exempt :zrm the

add:tional licensing requirements of the proposed regularions.

A 'de m!nimis' classification of wastes should be established

to give relief to those facilities handling material whose

radiation leoels are sufficiently low so as to pose no threat to health or the enviroenent.

ahe provision that binding interpretations of regulations can

be made only by the Commission or the General Counsel is

overly restrictive. Negotiations wivh the NRC will be

hampered !f all other NRC agents have only apparent author ty

and not act"al auhC:.otY.

Provision should be =ade 'or an 'interim s:atus' which would

allow present disposal operations to continue legally until

such time as licensing can te considered for them.

Self-insurance should be permitted 'or those who qualify

based on an annual asbmittal Of :!narncal repCrts.

1-1 FIJI , ze - -/ :4:. , X.., -

-

e01:2:70071 6111202 PCR PR

2 4sFR2aca: Prps

B-268
- 2 - - 3 -

The procedures for waste classification should be clarified.

1 t The list of radioisotopes in Table I should be expanded and

reI ~^ detailed instructions should be given for class'fy'ng

material not explicitly listed.

She proposed exposure limit of 25 mrem/yr at the boundary is re zitiL~ve and fails to take account of background C, -3 radiation. The limit should be set as an increment above

background with total dose not exceeding one-third of the

-Occupational limit.-

>.:.L. Provisioa should be ade to allow bulk shipment and disposal

of Low level waste.

An applicant havinj all the required permits to construct on

a *site except an NRC license for disposal o! low level waste A 3 should be allowed to commence construction with the under

* standing that he may not be allowed to use the site for low - level waste disposal until such time as appropriate app:ovals

for such activiuty have been received.

Union's specifie, section-by-section comments are set forth

below.

Section S1.1 - Purpose ind scove.

|xist:ng facilities holding valid l'cenises for the disposal of

r:dioactive wastes should be exempt f:om the licensing - rquirements e propoted in Part 51. -his exemption should include

disposal It licensee uranium mill tailings and low level waste

disposal !acilities with an approved disposal plan under 10 CTR

Section 20.302. Requiring a licensed facility to signIficantly

amend itaslicense under Part S1 or apply for a new license, only se:ves to discourage consolidation of wastes without any benefit

to safety or the environment.

(~ection 61.2 - Definitions.

g V A de!irition o' naturally occuring radionuclides should be

included. ..

Qection 61.3 - Licenses required.- - - -

ft Qegulate A proposed, Section 61.3(sa (also 5:1.0 and 61.23) would

the land disposal of any radioactive waste containing

source, special nuclea:, or by-product material without

establishing a 'de minimis' classification of wastes. Wastes

containing the most minute amounts of radioactive material would

be requlated irrespective of the level of radiation. This

places an urdue ourden on facilities handling material whose

radiation levels-are sufficiently low-so as to-pose no.threat to

health or the environment A de Minimis' classification of

wastes should be established which considers two factorss

(1) the volume, amount, or weight-of the waste and (2) the

concentrations-of radioactive elements in the waste.

Section 61.3(b) and Section 30.33(5)

An applicant should be allowed to commence construction at his

own risk prior to a final NRC determination, provided other

approvals are deceived. If an applicant has all required

permits to-construct on a site except an NRC license for

disposal of LLW, he should be allowed to commence construction

with the understandlng that hi may not be allowed to use-the

site for LLW disposal until such time as appropriate approvals

for such activities have been received.

3 or exanple, assume that a company wishes to develop a new mine

and;processing plant, and. the plant will produce a LLW. The

company has the option to dispose of the LLW on site or ship it

off-site for disposal. The mine site is found to be acceptable

for a L'W disposal site. The company has other facilities that

produce LZW and disposes of such material at commerical sites.

-he conpany chooses to consolidate all L1W for disposal at the

new ste- if approval is given by NRC. The company wishes to

proceed with development of the 'mine and other facilities (some

of which will be used in processing.LLW). independent of NRC

approval for LLW disposal. The overall project construction

should not be held up pending a ?art 61 license, since if it was not approved the option txisst to ship the waste to another site

for disposal.

Section 61.5 - Interpretations.

Under this proposed provision a person 's not entitled to rely on the representations of anyone from the Nuclear Regulating fr V Coammission (NRC) unless the interpretation 1s in writing from

.he General Counsel or is specifically authorized by the

=omission. All employees of the NRC have only apparent

authority and any representations which they make in nigotations

are not binding. This means that the only, way to negotiate with

.he NRC will be to negotiate directly with the Commission or with the General Counsel. This appears to be unworkable.

- . -I

B-269
- 5 - - 4 -

Section 61.7 - Concepts.

Section 61.7(c). The procedures to obtain a license are both

costly and lengthy. The analogous RCRA regulations provide for an 'interim status' which allows existing disposal facilities to

continue to operate under minJmum standards until such time as licensing can be considered for them. Under the proposed NRC

regulation, existing disposal operations will apparently become

illegal overnight unless an 'interim status' is provided or they are made exempt.

Section 61.10 - Content of application.

Under this section an application must be filed by anyone _ |\ dealing with a waste containing a source material. A material

is classed as a source material if it contains more than .05

weight percent of uranium, thorium, or any combinaticn thereof.

in the case of rare earths a material is a source material if it

contains in excess of 0.25 weight percent uranium, thorium, or any combination of these.

The ter= containing Ls overly broad. The contamination with a source material could for example be one percent. This means that some waste containing source material is covered when it

contains one percent of .05 weight percent. This is only .0005

weight percent. Shis is probably far less than the content of

most naturally occurring ores. This is an ext:eme example of

ahe need for a de minimis provision.

Section 61.12 - Specific technical information.

The requirement in Section 61.12(a) to provide a descript'on of

geologic and other data for the disposal site and vicinity is

unduly broad in that *vicinity is not defined. This provision

may require surveys to be made on neighboring property which may or may not be accessible to the applicant's personnel. In any

event the perimeter of the survey should be more precisely

described.

Note that 'land disposal facil:ty- as used In Section 6..12(f)

includes the buildings. If the buildings a:e an integral part of the disposal process the inclusion of their description is

-reasonable. Eowever detailed descriptions of auxilliary

buildings such as offices, cafsteria facilities, etc., should

not be requied.-

Te Section 61.12(h) requirement should be limited to an identification of 'known' natural resources. The applicant

should not be forced to undertake expensive resource evaluations

of an exploratory nature, such as deep drilling, etc.

Section 51.20 - Filing and distribution of applications.

B-13 hbe applicant should be required to provide onay enough copies

f the application and EIS to satisfy the distribution

requirement.

(ection 51.23 - Standards for issuance of a license.

This section applies to a radioactive waste containing or J contaminated- with a source material. Regardless of the

4- I smeaning containing', 'contaminant' clearly suggests the mere presence of very 3iaor amounts of source materials, such as at

the one percent level or less. This ties in with the earlie:

discussion (Section 61.10) that even low levels of thori=m and

uranium ase included within the scope of these regulations.

_ec:'on 61.28 - Content of application for closure.

explanation should be provided to define the data that are ertinent- to the long-ter= confinement of emplaced radIoactive

ast:e. The requirement as stated gives undue breadth for

nterprtat:on. -

Section 6:.41 -2Protection of the general populatIon 'n a

releases of radioactivity. - -

:he proposed limit of 25 zrem/yr at disposal size boundaries is C - 3 rather restr:ctive in view of the occupational limit of S

*a em/yr. Zn some locations the background :adiation levels may

esult in exposures above this proposed limit. Either a higher

it would be preferable or one which is based on a percentage

of the total background level for a year, providing this does

not exceed one-third of th. occupational limit. The limit might

be stated as an'aount or percentage above background with the

increment above background being set on a case-by-case basis.

Section 61.50 - Disposal site suitability requi:ements !or land

disposal.

n Section 61.50(2), the crIteria to determine I' a site is

pable of being modeled need to be established. What role will D-50I sdeling play in the licensing process? What site

cbaracteristics and events will be modeled? Co NRC approved cdels exist?

D 4°',,_ (Tha Section 61.50(4) areas to be avoided should be limIted to

(areas having known natural resources.

B-270
- 6 - ,

D- ;t-3 ' Section 61.50(6) is interded to provide that upstream

d rainage must be diverted, it should so state.

he ter= diffusion is unclear ln Section 61.30(7. There are many types of diffusion, including convective, molecular, etc.

The desi;nation of the particular type of diffusion is Important

i':: an ind2:szanding and enforcement of the regulation.

P-•b-L The Section 61.50(8) language is unclear. Note that in other

regulations 'disposal unit' is defined as the actual disposal area while 'disposal site' includes the disposal area plus a buffer Zone. it is not clear from the language in this section

of the regulations whether no groundwater shall be discharged

f:om the disposal unit or from the disposal site.

Section 61.53 - 2hvironmental monitoring.

)The term 'information' in Section 61.53(a) is unduly broad and

D-.53-| is subject to interpretation.

In Section 61.53(b), the type of required monitoring should be

specified explicitly. It is understandable that monitoring

snould be required during operations. It is not clear why

monitoring is required during construction.

Section 61.33 - Waste classification.

A detaiLed set of instructions descrIbing the use and

application of Table I should be provided. the instructions

ontained in the footnotes to Table I are incoMplete, vague,

confusing and difficult to apply. The list of radioisotopes

explicitly listed in Table I should be expanded. In ?articular,

thorium and the daughters of uranium and thorium should be

added. A class D should be established to cover radioisotope

concentrations in excess of the values shown in Column 3. In

general, the procedure for determining the class of radioisotopes and mixtures of radioisotopes not explicity listed in

able I needs clarification.

Section 51.S6 - taste characteristics.

g-4o gi f' tf.( h ..,,1t >* 4t DOT and NRC transnortation -eculations allow ahterialm 1ertain tO be sahooeA n

,,"mifl r-1 t a Ve A Packaging). r cett'll low 1.vel

waite use of cardboard or fiberboard bcxsae ay Ia esuitable for

) v~ehcing and dispooal.-Ti eemnto h~dh d

Lna..caser-by-case bas-is. A seerPon ehouI i added to allow

lk shmn of lov level ase based on a ,case-bv-case evaluation. easi'g Into consideration such _actors

/ he natr e o te wase , xethod of disoosal cost/benefi:

lvsts sa'etv etc

Section 61.39 - Institutional requirements.

T'he proposed'rule requires state or federal ownership of the

site before a license may be issued. Provision should be made

to insure that ownership would :tver: :: :he applizant if -:e

site is not used as a final low !evel lasze -isposal si:e.

is easy to foresee occu:encss wh-:-, even though a site is

approved for low 'evel wasze disposal, the project is abandoned

prior to disposal due to adverse public opinion or changes in

economics or need. Itis also very possible that a comoany may choose to remove low level waste from a disposal-site and use

the land for some other purpose. Further, if the NRC subsequent

to title transfer determines that use of the site will not pose a radiation hazard, the applicant should receive the right of

first refusal for use of the land.

Section 61.62 - Funding for disposal site closure and

stabilization.

The Section 61.62(f) requirement for surety without proof of

forfeiture Is very unusual. Needless to say, this type of

surety will be cu'ts expensive if not prohibitive. There seems to be no justification for this provision. The surety should be

available If there is a forfeiture, perhaps also in those cases where forfeiture is L-imnent. It shouldinot otherwise be

available. - . . - _ -

; |\ u;fre: the :'an- ate: Act, sea'-!nsurance should-be permitted

for those who qualify based on an annual submittal of financial

reports. Financially strong companies should not be required to

furnish surety bonds underwritten bv surety companies that are weaker financially than they are. Furthermore, it is our

understarding that the majority of surety companies will not

o:fer bonds of the type being considered because of the long

term obligation which would be involved, and the other

alternatives, i.e. cash deposits, certIficates of deposit,

irrevocable letters of credit, etc., are quite costly.-

(Bection 20.311 - Transfer for disposal and manifests.

e recuirement of a notification of receipt by the disposal 11 -I facility to the snipper (generator) might be satisfied by using

a signed and dated copy of the nanifest.

Section 20.311(d). The reference made to meeting the

requirements of Section 61.36 should be qualified. Class A

3egregated waste need only comply with Section 61.56(a).

B-271
f~ection 30.32 - Application for specific licenses.

EI- I ') On 46 FR 38203 column 3, the fourth line should read 'months

/.rior to ccmmencement of.' The word *prior' is omitted in the

(referenced line.

We trust that you will take our comments into conside:at:on in

promulgating this regulation. Should you have any questions

concerning Union's comments, please contact Cr. Allan A. a':ata

o: my sta:' at (213) 977-6720.

Sincerely,

Carleton 3. cott

3 all,"

. \ ->G EA;1U

--.. -R.-- ,_ C .^--

Ccowncer 17, . t

81 EV22 P3:44

Secretary of Commisslon

U.. Nuclear Regulatory Coamlssion

Washington, CC 2055C

Actn: Dcocketirg and Service Branth ' 4.

Re: Proposed Rule 10 CFR 61 - *^.

Cen tl emen .-y 

Stock E;uipment corrends the Commission 'or he draft 10 CFA 6 a star: toward criteria for proper disposal of radioactive wasta. ConsMstent criterIa providing required safety for the general puollc

and radiation workers will be moast .eczme in :he Industry.

The following czsents are Intended to assist the CoamisslIon In !ormulatlng well-defined regulations which promote reasonably ac.ievable safety

standards employing the best available technolcgies. They are Inteanded

to provide background and cor ent supportIng your overall saferv

objectIves.

1. Aegardless of the ulioate regulation and as:!e form cri:erla, a key to any orogras Is Irsoectlon ard enforcement. A number of documents

have been Issued In the ;as:r.omst of which have provided sound criterla to Improve safety and tuh overall cuality of waste ranaement. Reasonable

programs and definitions nave previously been issued in Appendix I and

iis3 11., cal ling for permanent. In-plant slidlicijrcn cepab;li-y.

saITulfication of all wet solids prolr to ship and process :ontrol progros

to provide reasonable assurance that solidification IS achieved. These

documents have not been seriously Implemented or enforced. iThese requirements are Innczoleta with respect to the whole of the Icw level s.te

n.. b8 management Issue, but could provide a seund,.unlforx basis from which

the segments of transportation. Interim storage and shallow land burlal

could be examined. The results of failure to enforca the presently

existing criteria have been the followIpg:

a) A significant portion of the waste processing equipment

installed In nuclear power plants today cannot meet the

present requirements as outlired In EC-M 11.3 and many of

the waste generators, due to the uncertainty of requirements.

are reluctant to Improve the situation. An exarcle of this

Is the recent occurence at one burial Srourd where ins;ectlcn

: ct. !uE-: Co~~ry. '.snns c iiorg * 152 E': :8enut *Cvtart hcr.C 5515 f LS". ;2:5 f'05 f-4'u. 0eL s

*29R 9 C 1 i 5 A11217 P!R PR yU 2 46FR36SC P:R

8-272
.. " . ; l.I

S.ecit fowornenM Cormpany Sleet 9Swomelt Ca~elfv

Pase 3 - Decerber 17. 1'!1

?sge Decsrber 17, 13 V

-as acccroblished on a nubcer o' c:f:ainers e' elidifted

D 5 waste whicl resulted In this uarti:: ar solidification

agent being withdrawn from the farket.

b A number of waste generators continue to utilize portable

equipment which does not meet the ALARA concept or provide

consistent process control.

fc Surial ground states have taken the lead In developing their own, but often Inconsistent, standards for disposal. These

programs are reactionary in nature, In responee to a wide

range of III-regulated waste management progrers at generation

sites which typically employ less than the best available

technologies. An example of this Is the recen: acceotance

of "hlch Integrity containers " by te. bun not all burial

sites. (The high integrity container Itsel' is subject to

difrfi'ng ;uidance as to whether 1 should provide 150 or 300

year service, what the transportation soplicatlen Mlght

require or whether the lilfe requirement can be credibly

proven.

d) Designers of waste processing ecuipment, plant designers and

the waste generators. If permanent Installations are Installed. are forced to design extreme flexibility Into the capability

of the equipment Installed which significantly Increases the

price as an attempt to be sure that ti equiclent will, in

fact, meet the changing regulatory clmate over the life of

the station.

a 'ased uton cur rarketimn studies It ts o.r -::ni-n that a high percentage of the nuclear react.rs in cperat:cn and

currently building will re-uire retrofit of waste processirg

equlpoent to meet criteria In part due to :he lack of consistent

asta form criteria and entforzemen.

2. Th; philoscphy and Ideas expressed In 10 CF'A 61 are significant

steps toward obtaining the objective of consistent sRfe criteria. Conversely, It is difficult to resoond to the document In part due to Its

omissions. In part due to the uncertainties the document creates In the

validity of Appendix I and ETSa 11.3 and In part due to otharrergulatory D-• -14 cocmnmams issued since Part 61 or yet to be issued. The overail waste

maligement 'puzzle." if you will, Is really the sun of aii the Oiects,

beginning with the generation of the waste and cearrying through Its

tresatrent,.tandllng and disposal. To reflect Intently en ore piece with

Incomplete knowledge of the other pieces and their Interrelationships

cannot result In an Integrated approach, excebt by chance. Part 61

neecs to inwtrelant wslt Appendix I and a,3 11.3. It addl:ionally nuM:

actouMt for:

a) New Regulation ;12

D-5S6-It b) Draft 8TP - Vaste Form

c) Amended 10 CFR 20 Section 20.311

a) Aaolological Safecyauidane. for Cn Site Contingency / Storage Capacity

a) Leachability Tlst Standards and Criteria (If any)

3.~ Ve strongly supoort the NRC In taking the lead for basic standards

\nd technology In the protection of the public health and cccueatlonal

workers during transportatlon and disposal. For some of the reasons

listed above, It is our belief that there Is an lesedlate need for this

criteria and encourage the Conrmisslon to adcot same socn, rather than

allowing additional work to progress over a number of years. Ve also

suggest that after the standards are established, enforcement be Irmtediately

established to insure compliance. T`e criteria should be based upon

ALARA and use the best technology available. it Is our opinion that

10 CFK 61 In Its present for'm Is more concerned wIth the long-term

migration considerations rather than protectlen-during processing, transportation and disposal where the ha:ards are the greatest.

do not believe that the basic standards and technical criteria should

be delegated to the individual states. Moast states have lImited technical 1)- 'l.b and economic resources to evaluate new or Improved technlques and to

establish and enforce standards and criteria. Some states also appear

reluctant to act without guidance from the Coeiission.

4. In addition to the three general categorles of waste estabilished,

it Is our belief that It is In the best lnterst of the American public

that the document also include a definition of 8iilnlrmous radiation level.

S. we agree fully that a key to overall present and leng-tern safety

Is to plce reliance on stability of disposed was:. as indicated Ir

Subsection S of Sceie6n .. Waste foro snTability must be well defined,

hew-ver. ard enforced duriqg the distosae oceriilcn.

9lease rote that polymer and cement waste forms In use today greatly exceed

the prooosed wasts forml strengLh criteria. Some containers and solidified'-)

waste formc In use today, conversely, will not withstand a static 50 p.l

load. In addition, the dynamic loads due to refliling trenches, compacting

trnches and handling containers can, In some cases, exceed the strergth

f the containers and waste forms.

6. vaste form and characterlptlc r4utremnents as set forth In Section

1i.56A will permit packaging waste which Is In a readliy dispersable form

and which contains significant volumes of liquid that will contribute to

radlonucilde migration by groundwater. We suggest that 140 curies of Cobalt

S0 In a 55 gallon drum Is of significant :encern during the transroratien,

disposal and first 50 years of Institutional tontrol. There are waste

'-

B-273
S::ck =ziZcflent co'eoany

'4 Dcw citofrQ

ARGONNE INTIONAL LABORATORY .. C' ; r6 L- _ 45 : kS .E, 4.: -% Iu~c -;-5e _ _ .

Page 4 r

:acamoer I7, Icii

olldlficaticn tochcnolog;es availasle and in use tzday t."a :n ::n- sistently plaze this ;ateriel tnto a s:ale easte form. 1i Is our opinion that the use of these :tchnologies can reduct the trans;ortatlon nd a disposal ;rcblems as well as redu ce te - !-! : . z_ * uture Intruders at tne sl:.

7. it Is our cplnion that to meot the purocse of this regulation, all ) classos of waste should exclude the presenca of liquids. The practice .o of f3 disposing of Ion exchange media by dewatering. for example (which 1 contains potentially, relatively high radiation content) vs. solidification of the evaporator concentrates containing a relatively low radiation czntent

is noc logical technically or politically.

8. Stock suggests considering In-plant nandling. transportation and

isposal proesses that all wast* containers should be constructed o!

materials that will not support combustion. This term is applicable In the recently received RAdIological Safery/Suidance for On S;te Contingency Storage Capacity for low level dry waste s orage. We concur with this *pplic tion, but suggest thv need Is even more ir;orsAnt when considering Ion exchange resins or waste solidified in organic combustible solidification

Thank you for the opportunity to cocrsent upon this doc=.ent. Stock stands

ready to assist In any reasonable endeavor if you shculd desire It. we will also comsent further regarding other phases of VII ;regraz wnen draft docinents are avaliable.

Sincerely.

Paul C. viIiames

PCW:rr

3 -2. ...1 g, Yl

V ) t;} ' \ t a n sW;! <. - rDa

-a-, 23 P 3'G

1eoercer 14. I2s:

Mr. R. Dale Smith. Chief

Low-L-vel Waste Licensing Branch (0

=G RVYU

Division or was:e manageaen' . ~.* U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consissien

Washington, D. C. 2C555 - *

Dear Mr. Smith:

Suoject Cortents bv Ar-onne NatiCnal Lacoratory en NRC PrOcosed Licensi n -Reuirenents tor-Lana uIsoosad of Raoloactive .eSte ;.! C; S1;, and Suacormlno tnviror.mrentai oa:t StaVe8en INREazi

Argcnne Naticnal Ltbortt:ry has revieed t-e S!ooed Licensinq aecuirevants h2r Lvnd Disposal of Radloactive Waste (10 CFR 51) and the sucporting Envircr-oental lcpact Statement (NL'R!G-0782). Our :cooeits If!

attached.

We believe that the proposed 10 CFR 61 rule will provide a workable regulatry frameworK for licensinj and ccerating new ltw-level radloac;Ive disoosal sites. The site requirwents and criterti, coerating and closure

practicks, and standards Ir conservstive out in our :oinion ar- generasly

practicable.

Very :ruly yours.

Howard Kit:tl, Manager Cfflcs of Wasti Management Prograos

Z?1 nSf?

-nclosure

ACb--idid'y card..51 W. M C i

=1422903a5 511214

V 4oFRZ3CBl ?DrP u4f~ j x

B-274
C^ ents cn 9-ooosed Licensing

.Ze:uirarats for - : s::sl, :f f ?5 :t:t

Waste. 10 CR Part 6l, and on Suoccrtino Craft

nvironrmental Icnact StaTae..t, HURfl-0782

Argonne National Laboratory

- Decerber 10, 1981

1. 10 CFR 61

A. General Ccmnent

Cur general impietslcn of the proposed rule 10 CFR 61 is that it Is a

good docunent. It should provide a workable regulatory frariewrk for the

successful licensing - and ccerstin - of new low-level waste dispcsal sites.

Wde do not find any serious flaws. It ,roposes reasonable site reguirements and

criteria, operating and closure practices, and standerds. It implicitly and

explicitly states, cy virtue of its performance standards, that zero release

or zero migration Is not expected.

8. Oef'n151cns (61.2)

The addition of definitions and discussions of several terms which have

been omitted frcm Section 51.2 (COefinitlcns) might eliminate some anbiguitits

in interpreting the regulations. The suggested additions and the reasons for

adding teem are cutlined below.

1 *tcr:-,_erm_ Im 'cp21 sn-ttary !nformation, Section 7.',lC'germ'

.n1sCef2e !5 ;n- -*- ft_-er c:t10ns -- se (;rts~ativ the ;.-st-clesurt

period). It Is not clear that this Is the Intended definiticn to be used in

the many raferences to "leng-tern' in thte regulaticns. If so. further subdivision of the time followirc cessation of operations may be appropriate

because the Impacts and problems for different intervals of time beycnd

closure arueuite different. For exeiste, the problems during the period that one can rely cn passive' institutional controls (deeds, records, etc., that

allow the owner and potential user to be aware of past use) are different from

the problems beyond that period, and also from the problers In the periodosf

active institutional control.- A claim ESection 61.7(b)(3)] that Is reasonable

for a period of the order of ICCO years is that future occupation and use of

the site is unlikely;.It 1s less reasonable for a period of the order of 104

years or longer. It has not been established that the allowed concentrations

of very long-lived radaiosotopes are low enough to permit unrestricted use of

the sfte (which must be considered probable after all records arelost), and

there is nothing In the regulations that limits .the period-of concern for

ublic health and safety.

Nw iumers in ( ) refer to Sectin Nos. in .10 CFR.61.

-2-

2. 'Oisoosal" The word "dis-osal is c:r cnlv interrreted to -eau

permanen: o-sposition of". If this 15 the Intended deflinticn, it should be

so stated and noted that ner-surface disposal Is not necess rily a permanent

| 0means of disposition. Gver a time period of the order of 1C5 years or

longer, one cannot exclude the possibility (or even the likelihood) that the

waste will be dispersed into the envirornent. The definition of "disposal'

raises a legacy orobles. and the i1-lications of this for the hazards of waste

with the limiting uranium and TRU concentrations need to be addressed, or at

lease acknowledged, In the regulations.

3.- Stability It Is not clear whether the word 'stability' is meant

to be volume staoaiilty, so that the waste will not degrade, slump or collapse

after burial, or also shape and physical stability, so that an intruder would

:DS%. lb clearly distinguish-it fro soil. If the former definitien is allowed, then

FUS1 P anid similar waste Is stable, if the latter definition is intended, It

(s not. If volume, shape, physical stability are r-quired, some time limits

may be needed; it might be difficult to ensure shace and physical stability

for IC4 years or longer unless rather expensive rmens, such is those proosed for high-level wastes, were used.

C. Protection of Gereral Peculation from Releases of Radioa-ctivity (61.41)

1. The performance objectives are given In terms of radiation dose.

D - Since r chemically-trx1c, in addition to rtdictoxic, substances may also be

present in the waste, we believe that a general statement, at least, be

included to the effect that releases of cheically-toxic substances shall not

exceed any local or Federal standards that exist.

'.2. Two sets of 'radiation standards have been specified - one in terms

of annual dose to any member of the public (25 nres whole body and any organ

except thyroid) and one in terms of drinking wate"'concentraticn. The latter

standard is based on 4 mrev/year for man-made radionuclides. Although it

is recognized that the forner is for Individuals and the latter Is for

oooultions, It 0pears there are tw oEirrerent sets zf stvndards.. It is

ccn-eivaoie that releases to the general. envircnr.en: oy cause exposures to as

many Individuals as contaninaticn of the nearest public drinking water supply.

3. Regarding the statement. ... at the nearest ^ublic drinrikrg water

susply...' this supply may not be the one most likely to be affected by the

C -3 disposal site.. The fntent ef this performance objective Is certainly meant to

apoly to any water supply contaoinated by waste migration, and this should be so stated.

4. It Is possible that the last sentence In this paragraph might be misinterpreted by some to rean that the national drinking water standards are being applied to groundwater in general and not only to public drinking water

suppltes. We suggest that this sentence be reworded in somewhat thfs manner:

'The waste disposal site shall not cause the National Primary Drinking Water

Standards to be exceeded in any public drinking' water supply.' Additional

clarification is needed to make the first and second sentences more c=opatible

in terms of allowable dose, since in the first sentenee drinking water could

B-275
-3-

C 3( L a Cosc .. o a. :J t:e .he t,- L:..a st:l" - ::-;'IL-:, hele in -he second sentence It would not.

S. The evaluation of in annual dose to the individual r*;uires a model

whicn allows one to calculate dose from an environmental rad oactivity ::ncenG2a-7- traticn or source term. This model can, of course, not be ;iven in toe propcszd rule, t;1 t it : ; ..sd th : *=-: i thi -az w'xl to ;a-1 d

later in Re~ulatcry Guides. The rule could give Some indica~ton as to how

Ihis performance objective Is to be met.

C 6. There is typographical error in the spelling of 'radioactiveO In the £D-I Qsecond sentence of the paragraph.

7. This Section is a general statement on standards, although not speci- /fically directed at these.. Standards are fixed absolute numbers, regardless

of the uncertainties In the data en which they are based. itasuresents and

calculations made to assess performance against these standards are subject to

uncartainties and ta analytical and statistical errors. Thus, if the standard

is S pCi/I, is a measurement of S.1 + 0.2 pCi/l in violation? Probably yes, C _3 but Is a measurement of 4.9 + 0.2 pCT/l in violation? Promably no, but the two

measurements do not significantly differ. It would te reascna2le and useful if

the standards could address this prcblem In some way. We do not have a clear answer at this time. but it is a tecnnical rather than a legal question, and

this may ma"& it difficult to resolve. Possibilities are (l) specify a dose

standard, e.g., 25 mre3/year, and the probability of delivering that dose. (2) specify a concentration, e.g., S pCI/l, and the standard deviation tolerated

in a measurement meant to meet this standard and the method by which it was calculated.

Proteotion of Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion (61.421

1. It is-cur belief that the ina:vert-ent intruder scenario is given too

/uch weight nd leads to s:=e un:resonably low :zncentrztions In Table l, for

exeople, in the case of 94:ib (0.CC2 uCiYS). This may not cause any impact en waste disposal, since 4 Ntb is not LI abcncant radionuclice, but this does

establish a precedent that could be unnecessarily troublesomre.

_ 2. The inadvertet intruder scenario is tenuous at best - it requires predicting soteafar. dAstant future event for which the uncertainty Is-large - nd should not be the limiting or driving force in determining the hazards.

(o. Disoosal Site Suitability Recuirements for Land Oistosal (61.50)

1. We believe that the intent of tots r-cuirement is that the water

table snall not cyclically rise into and fall beneath t-e buried waste.

Burial beneath the water table could be satisfactory, if diffusion is the

controlling rate (as stated in this paragraoh), if the travel time is very

slow, if the performance objectives can still be met, and if the water table never drops below the burled waste.

.4-

l. It is not clearly stated iJ thos section that toe radiological and/or

S3l nonraciological (chemical and biological) characoeristics of tne envirorment

D- shCol be determined to estaolis baseline cocentrations.

2. ro_1l be a reportl..,t. ,ulrareret t- den:nStst :e: r-:e with applicanle standards and discuss results? This is implicitly covered in

i1.8O (h) (1).

Waste Classifications (61.55)

1. The proposed 10 CFM 61 specifically mentions two waste categories although they are outsi: e its intended scose. These categories are: (1)

wastes with radioisotope concentrations that exceed he limits in column (3) of Table I EPart 61.Sd)]; ard (2) wastes that might be exempted from the

regulations (Supplemen:ary Information, last paragrapn of Section V.C). on the other hand, no mention is made In t.e current proposed regulations of the

category referred to as low-activity bulk solid waste' althoucn it was

included In the preliminary 'raft of 10 C:R 61 (issued November S, 1979). Waste frcm the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSR.AP) *ouldi 9)-5s-2 presumably, fall into this category. FUSRAP waste Is within the scope of 10

CFR 61, but it Is unclear whether this was intended or incidental. It is of

consideratle Interest why the lcw-activity bulk solid waste category was eliminated and whetler It may be re-introduced at some future time.

2. FUSRAP waste meets the requirements of all of the 10 CM 61 waste

classifications (except possibly witi regard to dimensional stability - see

below); It is mainly soil contaminated with very long-lived radiolsotopes (mostly uranium and thcri= cres and processing residues) at average concen- trations th*a are smaller than hte uranium and TRUPlicits in Table I by a

factor of 100 or mcre. Waste-specific requireatnts for Class A, 3, ard C

wastes may not be acprooriata for such wastes.

3. in raising tnis question regarding the fate of t-e low-activity bulk

solid Waste category, we are aware of tie recant publisne! Branch Technical

Position on Oisoosal cr Cnsita Stor:;: of Thcri= o, '.ra-lum Wastes fr= ?PasOperations (4t FR 52C61). The question concerns tne waste identified in -

category 5 of the position paper, i.e., waste for which long-term disoosal at a site other thavn a licensed disposal site will rot normally be a viable

pt:cn.

Lattelinq (;1.S7), and Tests at Land Cisoosal Facilitits (61.la1

_ l. It is not clear where the primary responsiblity lies for verifying

the chara:ter of a waste ship;ent. Is it the responsibility of the generator / (Section 61.57), or the site operator, or toe C=rmission (Section 51.31)?

ehat means will be adopted to provide quality etsurance?

8-276
-@ I...

xt .e .1 . k

A. Federal u^<: e >Cct MJit 2.!* woY d

be rout .lv -ecsurd cr~d the conc-n- 1. Ire rcr r: eetra8 NAail' 4O'wCtI5!0 5nsib5 l5itl of

1 reenent state- tJ3 ican sr9rt=a 5e e C9p t to the :r:posed

rq e5 e e nct cAS-l 5Sjeiwss, j9 tRe~f nonagreelent si te-owned d~ss5jt 0 c bfesOC1~lef acceptable to ^r:vlC- su elilance dtdide d.2eret ecl edr; dzeatnittuticnal control

ph es? Samples may be takcen for analysis either

from (a) the final waste form, or (b) the

2. If thwzsdte Ets:e y m~ta'd, Vibupm 4 der-i should pe-it

tr sfer to feti fte clcsure. Such a .io0n could b~e t45q g fua~rC tt ree the license was Ysued. certa n action level}, then other radio-

?-•5'- 4 . nuclides would be =easurad. The actcr.

3 Other IssL4'Av`P.Stqe4 Cffisl olea n~lt~!T tcsed

-r..___. y---- r

I. The i.~bhffogt,3e~itit*lSegad n L@@AW, tut - no S that MPC4 '4evt .helesspD

It s desircl. on nq 4M. 'censing aIplicant mu t take 1 *cfc4. o m .ot is lo t or cheiical hap:rds In : .LW and frc e;.acent or ccolccated a- ar;acus waste o1s5csal site.

* p2 ~ tA MO q o'p hj gt: is near 0 taeow back;round levels., The need for 5uchia lassifcl;cin was noted in fors'eu-1asifr ionwa aoteion

Sec Apo. C, Section S.1.3). Suppcrt for a 'de-ainimus" or c-orarenle classi1 ca=*:bes criz.bwe persex d X c b s ia mo~p±s~ 1clud Ing the I w-Level Waste Strategy Task Force (Ref. 1), the Conservation Foundaticn

t gt ard the

tat! ?lanning Council on R!2ioactive ^aste . '-.-n: !. "

sampling Ld more extenslve anslysis be 'set ws: * a '

Rt *-.e -noe Dis~os:l Faoiii tV Costs ' .6.5^.-' . - _ . ..._ - -

The direct oseralon ::st for envirormentl. .- nlt-rlng (Itcut S2i,7^0 * per :'eir' shown ln Table 3.5 ls believed to be inafequete. We estimate- tsat :-e cost of .nly the radicchenlczl analyses listed in Appendix E. page E-;5 is

about S40,COO per year. In Cdditon0 the cost f*r senole collection, sanrle

;reoaratlon. cuality *ssurance, and other factors mi;nt Increase this cost by a factor of two. - . .

Alternatives to the ;ase Case (5.2.d)

-1. The !IS mentions use of hieh-intorl ty codfainers. but Ctfines

hlch-1n-e-ri:v only, in suojective terms; L!W shippers and site operators wrll nee a jf the H finition ef 'hi-onth' ch-lnt-eritv- if the use of_.

such containers is specified as meeting NRC technical criteria fcr disposal. 4i11 <NC providea cuiantita1ive definition of 'hi.h-Intecrity container', or willnis be lft to enersl such as stat- *utior;:ies or tne oriva sector?

C~assf':o'or !e~ 2ecu-e-ets I

1 yin n mil areas.i The Prooosed soproach of recuirir.; struc:Lral statility or hi~a~tr~ ~fgf' PZNerTht rt4kd" from a sit oraional stancpoint, Is 2.he d.econtalnerized di$sOosal of low-activity

waste generators Lid site c to f wI -I aS.e sch as buidldn

trash. AirbcneL.... ,~

can be minimized by use o.f u- ;r t s

(LcL/.%) at Rarniwll- Table l Col 1 Allowable by 10 cYt 61

I. "Th-z2a8 in Tables 6-3 is a .ttLg;neicaI error-.

Ti-i2:1ackcr-curd Izn~iation (AaoendIx a24tA.7.) 3.59E-1

Cs-1-24, 4.6510 4.37F-2 1.05Z-4'

1-l1llIhe cre-ope'~-M3,al triti=s con: h 1

.;Vir of 350 p;i/l4-Sf~aout three limes

47re~far than it 141Z~lour (northern tMO~ifl, area. The P%09-4lpha and beta

rOtton 4rsnbe. 4.374 L.05T4

C-2' 1IO14.37EE+2 2.50T-4

M-51tferences 9 .2E02. 4.377E0Z2-L4-CE-2 4.37Z~Z1.1OT-4 ~'t 'Yanag~i e~.L l Wastes: ~ '7-12sed Approach 1-i-T- Idah'o, LL.VP-l

~;~ Augus. 4 .74 ~cCe-i4j* Tw 4.6~-V2; 4 'k7,.2 *-' L -4 ieWse A-, Twrd3 j~'E%.Ional Policy fo V aI~ang L Lew-LUve tv Se. ~ Te c eti on Foundation 4.gl)

RU-14-6 4. C- 0

Tc.993. 'We~~dOctv aste f% nents n o 1. 0 sessnmet,l

C-14 L 5tte :Lrn E:uro' :' V Wst attI: 'an e4(.uly 1g9t).

*Allwi"th'~al! lves <5 yeaos

*-Sac dezrslt 2.00. lb/!t3

shows the aieraqe ccreoentritions a! a num-iber of

lsotores which records L-ndicate are bried' at marnwell.

These c=*ontrations are compared to the valces from

Col. I. Table 1, of proposed 13 CYR Paz,: Sl. Al3o

showm.- are the ratios of these average ctroentrstior~s

-'.1

* ?Tuoers In ( ) refer to Sections in 4iUS ;-07Z, l1:1. 2, unless stated otherwis.

B-309

B-277
STATEPLANNING BUREAUI 5OJT 4A<

St* ca. :. l 41, O.' office f 1

*errt* South CA~o-a 57TC1. xecutive mono~emeiti~

a' ECC -9 P2:35

Deco ber 2. 'al 981 . S i P -2 £C 

(kJ(6FR 3SO"!) ^ .:.w-Le:el ~as~ea L1css1ng 3rancn -- )

Zff fiC of Nuclear Matarial Safety and Safeguards

:s:etar Regulatory Comm1ss1on . i .: : Wasnington, DC 2^555 - RULE r LJ

RE: SAII 5DM1020-E1S. Volumes 1-4 0 f2 5 1 7,

CRAFT 'IS on 10 CFR Part 51 'Licensing Aequ1rimanits for Lard CDisposal

of Radioactle Wastel

Dear Sirs:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft environmental impact statement on 10 CFR Part 61 'Licensing Requirezents for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

Attached are some notations rade by the South Dakota Department of

Water and Natural Resources during the course of their review. You may

want to take their comoents into consideration when you prepare your

final report.

Ove S-outh Dakota agencies felt your impact statement deserved

r-_metdatioon for approval.

Sy/cerely.

Tong C. M4e ryl

Comolui son rb

STATE PL..i'XiNG BUREAU

... :..-.. ... fA.T

C017tIENTS: 10 CFR 61 PROPOSED RULES

The South Dakota Capartment of Water and Natural Resource's Radiation Program

has reviewed tne sumoary volume of CEIS 10 CFR 61, and we recomnend approval. The following are corroents relative to minor discrepancies.

1. Volume 1, page 5 section 2.1. paragraph 3.

The word 'generated' should be replaced by "produced' because it may create

confusion regarding fuel cycle power "generation'. and the 'generation, of

LLi. Therefore, the last sentence should read: Institutional LLW preduction will account for about 19: of the non-fuel sources.

2. Volume 1, page 9. paragraph 3, line 12.

TThe most important . . .". The use of *geometric means' should be justified

In lieu of arithmetic means.

3. Volume 1, page 19. Table S.S.

The column heading 'Costs & Imncts' should define units in column

(i.e. dollars, etc.'

4. Volume l, page 27, paragraph 2. line 8.

The use of the term 'daughters" should be replaced by "progeny" likewise

throughout the proposal. '81 QC-9 P23

The following ccrients pertain to Volume I Attachment A, Proosed Rule 10 CFR 61:

Licensing Requirwments for Land aisposal of Radioactive Waste.

1 Volume 1, Attachment A. page 38082. column l, paragraoh 1. line 6.

ED-I The word 'numbr' should read 'number"

. Column 2, paragraph 1. line 11.

Wncnradio-active' should read "nonradioactive'.

Volume l. Attachment A, page 38084, Column 1. paragrach l, item(s)

"Stability - I The statement appears too generalized and vague. It should read: Stabili:y - Stability of the disposal site cver the long

ter: (100 years) is mandatory to prevent loss.of sit;e ntegrity; The

potential for migration and transport of wastes to offsIte areas should

be virtually eliminated. (As an example).

r. Volume 1, Attachment A, page 38084. Column 2. line 24.

The word 'if' should read 'it'.

kl)| S. Volume 1, Attachment A, page 38085, Column 1.

The classification scheze presented covers present waste streams but contains

no provisions for future waste stream developments. If a 'miscellanecus"

class "C" which is characterized by activity can be included it should

provide a time-buffer for future amendment needs.

B-278
: PI :5b, Z

Georgia Institute of Technology -% rj;

A u* uNIT on-?1.6 L*r u VS9fr C'S"M CR 0E 3,L

_ .4 CW Nt.JC-IEAR ENMNEEMN3 AN= " I - P'AL 4YSCS

A'L^NTA. 0eCM0A 30332 51 Ct'- 14A0 :4

(7* 4.2

) ° : I~tEPR-2, 19,20w Z1, 0,

,1,lrTo, W -3 11X0

1ecenbr 1.18

the Secretar7 of the C0S0F 8 1 ) . r 4.1

U.S lepla:ory Cc=±suiou9 Sutear 

Tasbht g5on, D.C. 20535 (46 P s77?s

A:tenticn: Dckeking and Service Rraich

?inal Draftt IOC. 9art 61

Dear St:$

I am enclosing herewith various coments on the draf: of

10 CM61, dated June 2S, 1981. 1 hope these eosents can still

be considered aid incorporased before the issue of ehe !inal

vers':n o! this regulation.

Yours Sincerely,

Ceof!rey G. Zi:hha.

agenrts' Professor

GGlsur

Enoctosure

CmMITs 0s FINAL DPWT, IOCTR6

dated .une 29, 1981

Geoffrey C. Zichhol:

Ceorgia institute of Technology

Ceneral Remarks

This proposed regulation has Sene through so many drafts and public cosents

that it may semn invidious to introdue. further criticism. Par that reason La

Oae following emphasis Ls given to maJor points of philosophy of regulation,

operstiotal criteria and anticipated problems £n adninistering the regulations.

it had been my iinpression that ICCUS1 vould deal specifically vith lovlevel vaste, but that distinctien does not appear In the final draft Ccompear

43& ag9811). -here clearly Li a distcnction in emphasis in dealing vith nearsurface disposal of lov-speciflc-actIvity and deep disposal of high-level vaste

in mined cavities. Subsequent cocents address themselves primarily to lov

level vast.. This point is, in fact, covered Lnd£:ectl.In J61.2, Defiitfon of JE _ "waste".

I do not find the argument Li Section r7 for dropping the LU7 designation a

compelling o*e. Somewhere else, possibly in Parts 30 or 40, provision ay have

to be made for performance criteria and licensing of ILM incinerators -ad other

volue reduction schemes.

Soecifie Co=ens

(. feel f the description of performance objec:ive* is good, and i£ Is L-po:-

tant to stress these over "prescriptive requirements" that necessarily

reflect the current state of the art. Row ever, the phrasing of 8 61.41 nay

be too concise to permit ready Implementation . In particular, It Is not

clear bo such cnnual doses vill be estinated, uhether they will be based oa

* ,. - H i i * . , e-. I1'I~~.

- a.:, =LC erC: -w C-C

B-279
C- 3 -e: r' obse: att:ns c: oro priorive =Coels, in por:2:r: "r1.z:2

"' .Ja : t; is no: cles:r ua: :no:i:_:ea oaoi i*y 4! i, g _ 

I it

stabi11ty. the Conuission has proposed to characterize a struc-

,. . l iW,1'-s ~ 1[2fwj5 l 3^re W 4Uct o ail 1~i.tat 1i :iys iC5,alE5 j:.Z dimensions within St and its form. under tne excecte; dsoousl conT)-fo2 *15 Zemtoi~~cit~~ingstabirtt't1 te Inappropri&fth)~vai7es s*&

S i ,;11 d-i*nitic excluces many. tmermcolas-1c b1noers

rngoljtt 111 gtrajuallycrjeep or flow upcer a ;0 psi compressive

/ a snificant role in soil suesicence. Experience shows tnat SUethe manner in which waste packages are placed In the ground and D-Ta~so" baoo itaeger ~~a'~c~ ~~ 61.52(a),(4) and (5) in which rtauiremants for order y placfnent

ierner I Pfluicerar contends t~uat uxitn tqa ae utTdn ' . i 

) Org- vRC i\~ f r-pCr 3nrd.!g Vie ;- s raq c-baSte ). e;tive, I

cmoresslbili'! -f the mrnol th is , mcre am;,cprjata measure of

me; tsstx wr '^<St rest ; '7 e h t. .

5 ;V$,haSU fth: sotive

will behave In zuch the sere manner as an Incomoressible component _ c ** -. 4i-i1A.-drUhdi's#X:.;A etsaeAha-naswsri~emnctnale i;ng

p_.uces en environment =ore amn to a hydrostatic environcenz In

S * 1d t;p%.*fas1~qzxasiradcr: r lat C iSS"Bi&*alt &aWies 6t~i 5Pi~.:r'.

foregoing rationale and the fact that ther=oplastic binders ofler

urn ertif 4cl - rt 4e,1ia3rte^ft5J1 r~~ez gg >ie-g1 cement. ierner I ?Plideerer Cartoration retuests tVe Cogiss-. 'n

guidance used to Ca ine w o 0.s r ty hn' iA Y

f 0 'tAfinil-q wn1icp req1izes volumetric inc:moressloili:y of mono9 5; i C 1 S . g r 1 ^;S for -3 aed C-I; acoa1:4 :o

C, 9 l a disposal Contairer As a zeans to provice stability; i.e. conflnesnent and Isolatien ca:azillty. <. C 'alt..Cai : a:naX fteegsr1±a 1l dBd:4 gt.i ~/'d4esgr ~2 O'f - :: ;oration ssumes the: vnis is a tacit recogni1ti etf the tfi ty

_ ) I a garture previCus C;ssir6 rn isoony, ge."er a

2i VThe o r Jrtr&lr c -- } i tgrity or tairCer

ah c howeter v ;e serious reservations regarding hign integrity t Um'1c i*JZey W&& - nt 35used. For exarzle, Min Intaur1ty

containers are struc:urally designed to withstand normal O:nditlcns . e ntainers 5r routinely suJecze: to t &r m an

/a2o I x.C cesisn basis py a consiceratle rar;in. This oozmoneo citi - n|e fact ona: nign Integrl-y containers ire ;reiominataly u"c: to

c:ntain axtramely disocrslble -as:a for-ts wi1t poten Mialy nigh

( on .r:.C.iY:ic atouracy of _eaou:er-:. Z it: = - :

A-i J.r. 'iuclr Iuluat~- 1S c: :-!:i ';-LZ .;--:

, Zanuary. 13, 14Z2 the ; i Zt_ 7 ; s ed b =_r

ItC;o 5w ss ci tU eite ;ailfsa 9i; ael1n:gE.;,isdcro cf the ^urrently establiSned desiSn criteria. :n -le ;as., t.e -nmiission

for dispersion of radioactive materials due to handling ac:14ents.

-i:e re is.eti e. ta *venatl.°. 4ifJ ca fla.;,scst3 . *~ / 'iJ~. Iguard to dispersion of radioactive materials in light of the / i e nonconsersative design criteria imposed on .11in integrity C.n-

.4.1 7 Uners. Isi erner & Pfleiderer Coroorition requests tne Caission

' * reetrnin the design criA trtja fg nigh.1.irx.cri^v 9 ctafinrt' -_

roi ,:yr~epe mie atk el~ex

proposed rAleraking and 'zoit forwaro -a te Camnissicn's *:ns!:erat!:r of

avo-feazagoing LAcetispcsal or storage c' l:r: q::i:Les c' ::ci: ':.

scb'e ;ases should be tc::sidertd fsrx and ar dra:o:tx: i3 prc_.-2

less deasi:ar e disposal optioca. g I&a5&0 - lJ4 .

c -nrazv:e the ?povisions o' b(l)

II. I si49?c:: :;.e ea-l' S~e a c~=ir'is" clasei.'::

(7- huz otaous daste Treatm-en: Sjs:ans

(:hushi n: that tc--) CZ avocid z u? ex~ao:i-e UCUIlctie: uizb :.i.

t.|:ily onhazar:dous .as:e. This shuld cZe dome as an early !dZt :Z

:ha provisions of I :G.306 irta Pa:: il.

iSl.5:: hcse responeihility is i: to provide sortiog sod l:hr_ ;

vaste pacageats? .he ain value o! this vauld se:= to li: i -

C~ )~~l :er:soos vic. transpo::rl :uiraes:ts, ti:Ia ;p ar.' x.:.;t:, ::

aIASchssi.7i:, the vas:e cr. sitl.

1I 1 il.5S Lazd Cwat:ship: AI:houch in rrapsoi:.

dasirable, it is :ess c'es: "h :h- lard hFs to be actually pub'..:..::-.¢

-3 \ as Lcag as some lien is =Aintai-nt :: pride !4or oi: l s -. =Cri

Coring ar.C i:specticn as ratedC. Does this parapraph rule cu:t

G; o.-aed lcS.ta

14. 151.2, ei.5;, Sl.c.: The t'lr- u_ ai :~ =-.s: zr:i

B-312

B-280
-... : *.'

S.xSae and Trib&2. Governments: PL.S-573 a-f I1SI.70 ore the finst Los ns

~ ~ C ivitits or. a pS? with / .*. **,.,.t* .. ,i' s ,. vt overriding;

* sU!41,L. sod ,ar tict2orlj. ~imbil fib'v, 3on: 6c~ts relevam:

t)ribal law as quoted in 161.72. I aT a of coan'Uc: be:t.en zzda~

trib positicns does uither prevail au Q: -ettuira 

Seratary of tha Comnisuion u1 IO .

&PSbhngton D.C. 20555 C6F 1I. liant-fest Trackina System: 1 20.311. is liable ca*to a .tje f * Attencion: Docketiag and Service 8:ancrn

w ork if not properly applied. ?:ovisio-a should 4be61d:

f.u b DuMM!$T tot type, subj to

tesubj p t p - opa eed ruenaaki; g ::ras. publ .shq d Ln e'Tedtrai

* on occtober 22. 1981. , 3UGI-0782 a rf ofrcomntoal - ~ mds~ aS b~i~u~fbe sutject

st;or:t toa 1.0 C71.61, bowevir, ~.C7lhen nfot seanthp:hckc~ae'_-hVs*9 e!D rleaCeZt are- isted September !5. 1981, and vers,.subn::ted tOEm ( o~t ,- i4j!er~iifj hi! than &!te 4 caar.etr s,.&'c's ri dLin.connents WI-. et gut-

..31A HjY.ce1ojl, rts .ac 1 2opaorvnoiia$ arise. -

4., m1ha;. nx~des the aonoant ;ertee for 13 CTa t:

__ ?b D F, Cnt reved az-073~ 2 toel,

~0d34L)oc a~rar~p, ~1~ :1ns ~licenses,

should stare the type of fos'e eiethat a tirnittd ninens

A .e~rt nst beflie, o- al:ernazively utfder what conditicrns the Cc~issicn (On Sages &., I. ad ofrt coooints saten Septeoser 15,

.~ ~ 19~ 2 1:,4~ca~.y 0 t~~ ~ -'72 a.., be placiog zoe ~.,.5 oul~i*opha ;2!.' sea Its?. aod .Ov4:1o'*OC±O ta Cien-

,ft itXLAA and best avt %te:cnooizozp and tjnerlo;

:nto needs and. obj c'ti-fts of assuring,?rorc4:iq3 0: toe vo rlzers. %ae generalI population, aoa the an!oo: urI~i;

the operation C!.-h*-d1SPoaSA !8CLILft.

54v1ew of X2XZO.;35 bas zon!Iviez :ha :aa C20cero is -aIall

8"? on ',aste Torn

tov tonens datod 14vemb er Z!. 1131.- vira s$bol:ad to

Mr ?mobtr ZP. 5:awaimi, Deputy Direc:o: Division at 7asre 'lama%&gezz. Capits of t.he 3-p ttz 3*ev :rxehts &ar azazme:.

?Ilea. :onidar toez as par: of th4 :iv tonnent~s ia :J :7. 0.-

Rt 3e:x 526 . 0 -. ~J~ouzry 12. 158 'ros-r55le:Z: '^j5' -2-

es.zer 2', ^^

ae~ret rco~fa UFe eSir^n1opporeunsry to consent on 10 fYI 61. i

U.S. j Cg he con sipn nov has 3sufiient1 technical Lanform t2oisA0 ! - ID-'Vj;.Q;ra X justify establislrenet L~.t_1A:_ of,1

j latory standards and technical re~. tbW55 Cv0

AT-ti. cO.ce"I&Zad r - &t tI a5dCh s s ..nowOne a Conniesion to :tke Insediaco actions oa 1OtS.-cScil __ C. . Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, L0, 51, 61, 70, 73, axd 170

LicS.AS oP~t q± Dents for Land DispCsa. of i1adloactivt :ste

e lack of cozerage of soceo-econo-ujc L._ac:s :f 1oW lev4l rae' ct±;*

waste (4d ,4 -11-is upcnr a cz-.n-ni~t is Zost disappoin:ine. C=: ( ccur:uy the& rouzh the ?.xprience of teinc ornsidered for

a t2.:-, rtiu r'&3A1.ff .sa S:e.4'eIee a greater inoight i-to the

current 2;acti:e of licensing procedu-es. As * is cne of the 26

a Cfl~e1r6eo4t' would be respo.rsible for reg _ating suc:^ a

facilit7, but it becare clear t:at the criteria bein. developed b.

t:e state :t: thG assistance of :ao :_dah: ZCZ a-so tdI r.ct n:leude

sccio-e'tO2O4: inoacts either.

/ :n-.erland cunt7 's a rural county, so i: oeens it i3 au:tC:n±ic1l1r

42a trine candIdate f:r a wtaste facility. _ut mos: of its incene or-er

the nast tan years :ai ccne inoreasinrly 'ron tour-ism and second ho.-.r

dev-ec-aent. Zarn the slightes, sugast:ion tha:t the :cun:t-'as bzeinr

considered as a du= site for 11_: crea-ted Xa unfavorable climate for

^.:e:::'} i.estors to ^^nsider the cou-.y for ur-her developtrn.:.

- sees:s that certain la.nd uses :',ithin a rural area are not cnCa:-2.lt

wit.h: a lr.r facility. For our county's experierce, it is cer:tnr :r.:

tour-s. ar. secnd hone develcp.er.ot are :tc: er.:reeA by su:h A '--

a:, 3u ore that there are other land *ses that. :ofi: :'.-.s':: sitin; t

i the vitinit:y: recrea:ion, .-:ne ss areas, :rme _::_ a~ q. ' wV~ OP 4 oJC- t. .c. c t..... v

'2!7" . I6I O%'"
land, ndneral reserves, a:.n ot.hers. Sens:tivi'y to the goals

of a cor=unity be'ng considered for sz a facility will °o far

towards find'ng a cot-unt:y willing to host such a facil'ty.

Ca the reverse side, so.e currer.t land uses seen to be =ore arpropr'ate

for the placement of a lL-w facilitys sites near or en exdstin;

nuclear facilities (nuclear plar.ts; NCE reservations - Cak Ridge,

Hanford, and Savannah FUIver, among others.) The ccrcentration o'

such multiple nuclear uses, if other technical criteria are -et,

certainly seem a practical way to £° as the sUrroundine connuzity

already made an earlier comnitmen; to a nuclear facility and might

be more willing to welcome another phase of it.

being turned over to a state that is genera ': uable to ad;.:aely

q :3 ad cleanp c.peratilcas as needed.

' appreciate the cpportunity to present these ccen.ts.

Sincerely,

Lou'se Gcrenf lo

The gther area 1 would l'ke to comment on is the long term care

of facilities oace they are closed. The U.S. Zcology CcrP. has a

rather messy history of abar.dcring -1d facilities i' one state and

opening others elsewhere. 'n the case of Xi and 'llino's, these states

are left with perpetual care of dumps that are becoming each year a

clearer publIc menace. :t seems rather shortsighted for the government

to allow a private compan- to -ake pronits of: of a ir.adequate cpera::cr

thrn for the state to assume perpetual care for it once the s::ua:'on

becones too hot 'or the company to handle.

I belleve that sc:h facilItIes should be operated by a quasi-publlc

corporation that does not have profit -akng as its pr' ary motive.

. Perhaps the level of competency would be h'igher than that experisftced

In -he past. Perh.aps not. 3ut the issue of perpetual :cre would continue to be the responsIbility of this publIc corporation rather thar

s-282
Oswald Lt. Anders

°01 Linwood Dr.

.tdland, lioh. Ie63 '- '"eicm=ber 30, 1981

CORRECTION NOTICE*

TO: Recipients of PR-2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 61, 70, 73, 170

(46 FR 38081)

Conzent Number 72 of the above rule has been miscoded.

Please remove it from your file. Nunber 72 will not be

used again.

Docketing and Service Branch

1/7/82

Secretary of the Cco-isscn ' -4 ?;:09

U.S. .clear Pegulatory Coz=Ission attn: Decketitg sod Service Branch ,r -:

Wasbirncen, D.C. 20555 -; - i-g;

(g) s c. §r.i3 P Iq 20

3 sutE rlzfl| 90e

51, s8,lo 73 'lid

tH6 fR 3io;\)

Sir:

This letter Is im reply to the notice published in the F eeral leg s-er Vol. 46 Yo. 142 of July 21, 1981, inviting public e-.ent o ;ro;seds et - nemdnerts to the huelea.r Regulatory Cormissioe's rules to provide specific

requirements for licensing of land disposal of radioactive vastes. I uIer.

stand that the ecr-ent period has been extec4ed to December 31, 1981 aee hasten to submit these coants with the postmark of that day.

The proposed rule =&king stands to become a '."a---k governing the disposal of low-level raieettive vistes as it, together with its detailtet 4-yvobe

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, represents the fruit of considerable

and l-g-tite effort of the Conmission's staff, embcdyiog their ;hilosophy

of goveronert end experience with controlling the nclear c uty

As a -ember of that ccmity l'have personally felt the heavy han of this

cetrol, its slow actd Inscrutable working, vbhch, vith all the good it tetiaos

At byzantine ritual of decIsion - g, discourages st kills p rivate L-it'a.

t're due to the mismthb of relaxatioa times betveen leg.a"stto guvereit

action and ~a t '- sbillt7 of the 'regulated' to sirvive long enough to

benefit from the action.

The ;resent document substItutes reBOt"meep an many 117ers :f s rveillance for technology kvailable yet poorly 'ersO:-d by bot: retala.:rs aa!.

the lay public. It-substItutes "comon sense' and ;roof by !elay and survivea

for soun technical -nerstanding and wil invariably succeed to kill vbht

it ;ur;otes to regulate and make safe.

I sh"t direct my ce-en-ts tesrd t*-o areas: The licensing process and the

Waste disposal technology, both subfeot ef the proposed rleki-g :h Is with;

detaillae emphasis overdoing the former what it lacks with res;ect to the latter.

Te establIshment of a disposal site tAC the cperstioeate va-disvosat facility for low-level radioactive wastes is a serious emterprt suilreig rus-2esible - J peole7. The requirements for establishing such facil1ttiijtuYtlj seeeed; by GEa - the nuclear utility Industry ead others, as laid down bytbe 7e6~osed 4icu=eet,

vill de facto eliminate any private enterprise from the contention end reserve It to utility consortia and branches of the 'gover=e-.t' which sem piooye fInancial capabilities for the long ti2es contemplated and can efford the finaeing of the legal circus-surely to devtlop upon the sioitilgation of the ;ro'o.

set document. 'ereed ruch emphasis Is placed 0n the establish-ent of this fi-

.tamIal car bility which 'e clearly seem as neededt to keep the hordes of la4ers a e experts' in business who will mrate, like a -Jnstral- show froc hearting

t o hearing as site after site in emaless revolution attempts to attain the reO~ quc 5-yearly extension of Its existence permit. Personal ixoefience ren--- dina to these types of public hesrizms' carried out ;resently by the Cozissico

tecouraes me to nothing but scepticism, as such he:arngs *picaly. dcra. on

A t C2 I' -t zrt...

B-283
- 2 -

.'a. s::- Z. 3Cz%:isj -3- Savzatsr 15, Lid!

rot fOr =onths btit yesxs, coreu~lt 'experts'h ~. a oe::es:t 2f it or house

-jives eaoA ;eople cct .tall..2. f11'l with ttt issues, v-ho tCwever ;"'f7 is

cvce,:.:ed otieiaml &iscu.ss subjects fa: aftell. .0 agrees V~ta CeSLZZIzg zOemfanizal szrtngtO

R4,,Vqf-t -e i~sUlte:feCtuz&ly -,-; Ca

Z?7 r-1il ~ rgico-'h ea=ne vtthe 'eventual. A ~ie4the&..1d1 FinoKr &ahzzl cf tioe the eaPft. ra w ba~..s beh~

bh Ltf3%a.ww U ereo14,F4 04e .ezaa2. eCator.s ~z

'dilsCOzve7 pase' etc. dra out tbe ;rocess for =oaths, say :t±;About the

&2t-_16,i&&gp stegwc radiatioa staotlizy~ abcoodoegra- &*datiam p~aparties smoui be :zasi44r&c. X&C

Sabio~A&Vz64- Jjua~ji&~t~ -A, U tSO-eauoo1=d ts;csaL fa~cility is ca:n. s~~4~.!L ~Aa6t~i~~e ~ zaxns . At izura2.s

*a'~ ~ kj ~ ceeterI~ licertses is zurt-ly 3 years, t

3*il u__ iedl 0 suboit a liocoase renewL.alp ato.. A scblic

% - e. - ~e tt.± t n 7 ,1r t Ld.. tk= _~he faoilmy Qow. te ctS4n -e a A I seg o h

L

id

M_

hevi silb su fera th iisus th ±:heei ' el goveratoe0t Tha~~a.-z~~fth~a ',~=Yab%.-uae t f te ts

he i~lSt bee~a I&reo=Asftr tho s uniessC ;C5-A it~see **tZ s cl s At...S ftzazz *4.--,a

ta- o clia:ial tteS., fo.r whia:' the mulee: oo..---y k.&s be3 : -ai= i

fzr =re thz-i a ±so. :tleves the !tope:azt1aio cf this se forever

Ce Cie AN ie ~~~eg rm~ se. Sua:

;:se SC=% fracttca Cf teS;acific aomivity of scr* :c==zo;2 =.=Sioe Lua-o are,

Sin r e"vas; to tha h±-stcC~-±ty ;soi?. accussilb to e'-

pubiio .4; mth2 ccz;±=eota1 Un't.3 States, whereby the e;u±-alen-cy can be 9 ieie pe ci!f±:11.7 for eaoh isotcpe and =Ixtu:m of ±Isoto;ts. Suoh a. siz-.e

±e±;i: vo.~A --;. 'he q e:*ttom once azi fzr &all soI put, sc= IO:.~c

.t..Iats, oitlyat thea ex:,e-se of th~e legalCtha.

yt iave et CaZ be *.Ad zo dee- itse_ -' &=o am be Steorel I: suCh a vay

Or Sa.1 ;- bf?;te:aras--' ¶ boui, aI to te of to CCoseaueZ:o.

on stte zA site trretare

3~rifo~eythe *.site foa= itsel-f :ould. be oa.,n hol be oa-Ie -I

fa va o sto calize the rallcactivity end -:0; reiase it, no =2ttar v_ th .spslste hyarol 5 v aaffs;s2 ;ractize. --e oethad zltel io the ~ i~u~rt±styically to- =ost unaellablean!- ciaolte =a thC4 of sci'afyj±=;

i~uis ie *Aol1iuif±tiz With u.-ta fc ~lfe:7_d*, a tech-milqu jeri reCZ;-

hed s a.sfa:tzory by the teehojoal. .* y Slifa: o;f aquecus

*Jztsby±Crosa;±o i--to plastic =a;:ixes,. reaf.rs the r a1;ctivity Sol-,-,

virtually ± ooill--d. zod. ucLeaS:hable, re;uirlmg -'ass strni..*=% SI-za r ra

If foroad. io 2.:ge a:=';#blckts, - lt7P o5U P 3 ouft fla :&-, t!:2 ~ Vcull also discourareth itLaver-~tez otouf0e:, as It wouli requf: ooait al

ef =tC ova o.r braa± .;?e- vaste Zca:I. usaste treatos` by volvm eiruzI~ca a sof ausequ.eat sclil ficaticz '---to plastic coo effsrtive2.y leal Vith -

quid. vastets.: tI oso s.2so &czcc;*aae vastes cmcz~ced. cf~ p lvenied .or aur

* oz.C=d~hc st be given to sufficenet cress 0:o-o %toepat~

to;iVettt StUtUre.Siuf _.itist rigidiy sod C-_bUS.'e StZearh to io~ta: CS-

* Oh. tssuro sof: se1.i rhioh 050 &OstZcyth effacztivs,9ess Cf zs;phalts eAj4.

(-tereak zatrizes. -AbSCrbeatsLas =antiooeAiat 6l1.56(a)(3) axre daefizoitsiy

D- ~1 -( ustsfaztzry, represeactoo; ctsolete tschoi-_ue. iezohIng .ater j.1.' :aad-7

the ralloactiveozattrial from such :azziaes Lad :ezle: the= =bi2.e

('s :croosel sroles place scome eI:-'t. coto the _Ccmtaior of wasai-Eti)

Tte typicaL. CCatatztr for .. vw-level wastes a:. St.eel barrels. la the disposzal.

Siat. Zvi-:C-t. t-eSe Cco~tatntrS are prcr~e to rust, eve: I= the: ieSerl.t: ifuried,

Lzi so thus cszoot really be rellaie on to not lath, Cr ;Iye structu.ral strezr.:t )th te *dastapila 1.o the buria~l trenzh. :Ic Adefroabil--ty C.f the- waste form i-tforoti- se sir barato!aterfso aufc~aars In be~ ;,:a '4 :to thel siftlle8

SCfcr t' Cff±C±Co cusn tar Andi sufathe rolste toe'. f;imel vin. e 4t0 'he Clt

trim:bss. -

aI so ver zuch so5pPc:h of seCre;eatto Cf vastes by relative tox1:ity and

hlard. I be-"eve tha~t a smcewhat =ore sophzis;±za,4, pnoe=%tt.&Ziy CC=-pUte:nteI, sheme, than that suggested In the document, can s ;pif rooed...res, save ler Ad rezder lees Cf it in net! of pex-petial care. TCT Classification~ ~ £~u~t e:paha!s.d.haljflife aS Weill LI type of rafiatlon. eItte.vud

-e the- iopcrtazt pa.... .tes. 71t eeet eoges the re;ui1.e=Ae-z of stability

aod. ageabil-ity. -or so±f ;to rodlucts the cacpressi-m Stren.gth, eh - &1dls-.C2 resistsroe oza b.1*iajraabil'_.it should: bz tablt-ishtm prior tz O = t=Amt to prtla :or prCte: cl~assif::ztion. CZay usuitsbzy ;ak Wafvstos :ee lo be pLaoed. into aepe'esive vaults. lbe7 rte vzul! d-our~ he por.

-ron seafiin Such to0 the disposal facility.

cf t elieVe ttZ !OZCZ-5t plaCt3 tCO =- CCSdeohC CZ ::e ~v-et:r-

, 1 . cc...z3 . O..aa ... cu q -~~s_ - s_;--%v -- V.*-p-a pt's-sobuf £-at his Cov site till he dies.

. Aoo:e, iany Vay i:volVed i; this actirity, has to be preareda tz face the

,_bureaucatc _ _a-cc=__ what ere ri-ces associated. vith syza:'o-:

eg cC :eo;j--- er that ro huts cam fufll. *r : verrantef becarse

A-S And the t'ereest

.CCC way Cf sta,71n it

aj d C~cthe pla-c2 o ::.a C! poe-- he =.:St = s be ir-saoe to sbit: tC suCh to :te vrthouttend

N-ro, ahy dces the reiUltnr ageoy find it necessary to pro;ose these procedures? It clearly stems frcr lack Cof elf-ccrfdes:re of the ase-ay relative

to tae technical eatter: Its ;arno:d :dea Cf th'e Z-_ac IC' I- e:e: 4'-

trust, potentially justified, cf anybody Crazy encuga to try to submit h!osel:

thesse roles.

rcv let us look at the other side of the p':t -e. I a re tlami ther

as radlccteaist.

-e doos:t states:....rema:ri0g radCACtIVit7 Is at a level that Cces ro *p-~ JI e a d anger to ;ubcli health Lai safety. :t dol''erate;7 avoils t:_ c:'-

3-316

8-284
O- I . ByI

=-. 4A?uS34xr, SY l' CONFEDV1ATED T71ISES AND BANDS

e Vid-67r1 11diatm X1amei, is oeef=!s ar --eAl y tL'~n ---re of boy 7lacl=; the re ire ea nto the -,.%. .rro ~ hcteo odivert surface vater Pard ost fet-ed f by the erete: _ .bav ry:cle. -o truly "ioadvertemt; intruler viould turcv to =ore than -7 ft %i-Ier .. eg-ound elhout considerable itliberaticLe n - ~n vhzt h'e is dit=. Ee

Lesli " I a;2'

~earetary ozf t~e C~,,4.esion 11 3 V~. Cl I. f$.

:am~ary 12, 1917 December 30, 1981 ?ts;e -2-

?P'S AL Cf-t %M:

.2 J- P3:11

fl-Y"- 2.1

ite aidts ;royer use e.g. as a G"-f aRWo! 1902 R. Dale Smoith, Chief.-

I hope that the'above cooaetts can still be coesidered for rakig~ the ;ro-,sed ___ visio4 of Wfaste M~anagement . .- adAdltion to 10 Cz?, a vo-Lable doc--ezt vith vrbith free entoz:e d a tuen- ~244~clear Material clear establisbhet can live. . e e d , I*

_-_ e _5 &ticr

e!!trtevery Cz t thesoheai ine atit frsm * .,215Sotcedo ;*n-4 I ,4z M -. ~'~oi o~t~~'a~5a~f ~ 7A "~-~~P;

LL (405RWUk I- mrooxmt 0't.. t

C axtesiie.--= - t~mt mn be hnavzeda Tratyw ith: the Federal 34" a L!)rl* - ~el tlth of L0S% fO.veers Viscrw u. f~ Las roso'-sal cfr ..oss act~or'latlC- vm Gm, :-qtat__.

a 'fea mor±- '.eo siiitn n h cess 4

u fit eaain oofn d Et~k'tre ie

entonyrqetbtcli Mm'sk h iet std -and sabet

t1... ) -2 tatsicL se y is i ocs ar str±m c ftmm

-Ir h acoles -uith -t.e Crunies stm "SU), theeill a ree CI ar".s lsie~- usLlJt,7cir -- .g rx 'the ulethat nd fact taken part in

l"UMM aYaksima 'ztt re blie hatves a Treat wnith (the edra

(-Z-t

inaio r as shcrt_ a tirm fram~ as "_ss e.. To '4ste. :< tyres c! i.sstes. , w~ Ie -rs -hn ~14. - haZve been rery '. no reculazion es rLUioactod-, -.mmtes. 'xoger vso-tain

jc o Lincs r 1C an 21.'C4. !14 'teLle2v tuzz this reulateion tet!ia .0is' a -rCdeel (for th~e classlificaticn. !t bsd e f-=raocz1ca1 to sharcoen tdo oosaftri. Life% C, rdisi.- = a:Wly Ulce-.std eJe -4tth d-setes tl-at rruld le 1:is-czel of at a !undriremL scl-l'ast fits',ol foo±2itv. Acit-oart er!,e~rire h-mr.- heath cr t!-. evL=-oc-i--.

g!V ,N !'- %,:= =-I W OL_ ~ L NM. . ~ % A ,CJV!5 0 -' =OM MAef . UZO?.ISANA M'OW!C- L .2 - -. = =s A' -2"'OCN -. 6'N O=P "ZNz zL.3.5Ls 33s=VfC3 -

- AC4i*fC - b, tCf 

d./.78., j,

B-317

B-285
THE UNIVERITY OF' TEXAS MEOICAL BRANCH

.2 J.:.-S P3:12 GAVCSTCN. TEXAS 7755-

December 29, 1991 Oti of Enfronmettla Health & Safety

Rom^ 'Ol eie SaSet Bufdnag

* Ato ACda C7t1,5X1

Low Level Waste Licensing Branch,

Division of Waste Management - -

Office of Nuclear Material Safety &'Safequard-.'

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cotmaission- .

Washington DC 20555 - E Z_221, 2

Attention: -R. Dale Smith - 5I G ,1 Z I 

'40, 151 G 7ts ro vro-1 Gentlemen:

ztmcerstand that youi are sttill receiving corments on the proposed Part 61 and associated amendaents to other parts of the-regulat'cns. -Please ctnsider the following cc=entst -

1. Kncwing the history of licensing delays within the

Nuclear Regulatory commission and particularly-those - associated with major licensing actions, the regula-

_tions should reuire-the NRC to-either approve or 6 .) \ deny license applications within a specified period

of time. Applicants who have options on land or rsn land that could be used for other purposes may incur

substantial financial losses due to unreasonable

-,delays. Therefore,.they should be compensated for

-those losses'if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

unduly delays licensing action.

2.'. Section 6i i. lt would probab y meaore ipprooriate to express limits in teras of dose commitment rather-

£D- | than annual dose, particularly in cases where releases - may be intermittent or one-time only.

< . C6icentrations listed in Table I of Section 61.55 are unduly restrictive for beta emitters not specifically

listed.

4. Section 20.311(d)1l212) unnecessarily duplicates-the * r equirements of Section 20.311(e)(3) and 4. Shere is- -

no need for the licensee to perform these activities

,-if they are to be performed by the processer. - i

I. Section 20.311(d) (3f(e) (S) 'should be more specific n -2.1 about the items to be included in the Quality Assurance

L Program. -

* . . . ... . ,y w .. :1mV~

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Attention: R. Dale Smith

Page Swo

December 29, 1981

6. Section 61.56(a)(8) places an unnecessary and

prohibitively expensive burden on-licensees who use biological material' particularly medical users. Known infectious material should certainly

be treated, but it is unreasonable to require

treatsent of all biological specimens.

7. it is not clear whether or not Section 61.56 will

permit continued land disposal of liquid scintillation fluid. * If not, this will present a problem

to many licensees, particularly those in agreement

states that still require that liquid scintillation fluid be disposed bf as radioactive waste.

-- .hope these comments will be of benefit to you in promulgation

of these-requlations. S.n general,- I feel the approach taken is

reasonable and workable. Thank you for th5.opportunity to comment.

- Since e'ly/ -

Leo Wade, Ph.D. - - a - - Director

cci Bireau of Radiation ControlTexas Department of Health

Att: Mr. David Lacker

1100 W._49th St.

Austin TX. 7756

"--Nuclear Prograim Z.g.. -r -

-Cisen Electric Institust

11 11 19th St. N. . -

Washington DC 20036 ; . -

B-286
'82 ~;%-7 o2:14

Secretary of the Cormissioa

US Nuclear Regulatory Comission

Washington, DC 20555

I.. ., .: -:

30 December 1981

OMM MULR IC

Rom= ju, PRs l, ) 14r 0 61. _G1 301 ,I~

ta_ , Sir: - r- rVI mJQ I

.he following comments are made in response :o the Proposed Rules describing

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Uadioaccive Waste (Ref. : Federal

Else'ter/VAl. &6/No 12/Friday. July 24, 1981, pg. 38081 ff).

Pra 61l.Sl(a}W 'The dispcsal site must te designed to eliminate the ccntaet

of water with waste during storage, the ccntaCt of StanCing water with waste

during dispesal and the contact of percolating or standing water with wastes

after disposal." Comment. The word eliminate is en absolute term and if

aken lIterally requires that the soil around the bur!Al pits and the backfill G 1 over have :sro water cntent. Even desert soils and soils which have been

V 54 | h eated to above the bo Ling point oc- water and chen stored in cbe open have

finite water contents. As vrictte, this paragraph precludes any perianent

contact between soill and waste because all soils contain the compound R2 0.

This restricrion surely is not the intention of the writers of this drart

regulation. Additionally, the elimination of contacc with percolating water

after disposal requires a perfect hydraulic barrier between the ground surface

(where it rains) and the waste. 'here is no such thing. Even the best built

ship leaks. All soils have finite permeability to it Ls inevitable that there

vwl be soem contact of percolating water with waste if soils are used as the

barr-er. Tha intent should be to reduce the amount of percolation to very

small levels, not to 'eliminate it. If Pars 61.51(a)(6) remains as written, it

will newer be satisfied by the developer of a 11W storage facility and therefore unless this provision is modified or waived there will be no licenses

granted. The term "eliLnrace' is not necessary for the preservation of public health and safety. "Minimize" would be an appropriate word to substitute for

eliminate.

zPare bl.Sl1aXA1 'Any groundwater discharge to the surface within the discosal

sLte mu5: not originate within the hydrogeolegic unit used for disposal." Ccsenc. If discussion on thIs point is correctly understood frocM the Site

-_SID _: Suitabo1ity Symposium (Washington, S-i Zecember 1981) and %RC Technical Position Paper on "Site Suitability and Site Characterization" undated but distributed 9 December 1981. it is the intent that no surface-water features

sustained by groundwater discharge be present within the site boundaries and

'ur:ter, if groundwater does discharge from the receiving hydrogeologic unit

beyond the site. :he travel time masc be so slow to allow radioactIve decay to

protect the individual users and general population. It is suggested that

this paragraph b< rephrased to be more specific.

30 December 19831

rPara ?d1. 3C83. "A buffer zmne of land must be maintained between ary buried

waste and disposal site bourdary. The buffer zone shall extend at least 1Z0 feet

outward from the outermost waste disoosal site." Coeent. A buffer tone is (/ |required for safe operation however the small distance of 100 feet is questioned. Presumably. fro; descrIptions-given in other portions of the proposed rule, the ZO) 6-5.2- disposal site will be located in a sparsely populated area so lend acquisition 3 is not a problem. Therefore, it is suggested that a buffer zone of at least

300 feet and possibly as much aa 500 feet be mandated. This increased distance

will be advantageous for working space and remedial actIvities should an accident occur and will prevent close-in development of property by adjacent

roperty owners during periods of operation, closure, and. nstitutional control.

Sincerely,

At. F.RDI

905 Santa Rosa Drive

Vicksburg, MS 39180

DOW C. 3AŽKS

-- 302 Enchanted Drive

Vicksburg. MS 39180.

AcM&*1edge bycar..4'~~nY..

8-287
==-,Es ion

. 1..;. ,, ,5_,

Paralraph 61.7(c)(2) states: (4','6 F 3OS

r- _erabve ~ surface OpersRa tio-mrx seemr- ses2 ; e~ 3u~ei pg Ees renewal, at

o R?^terhi~s a2I .opritd2~i tr~eiI be reviewed and a decasitn

made to permit or deny c nacnued operation..."

: .f o -. r-e aSie understand the above requirement to mean that the disposal facility

Ioperating license oust be renewed periodically, at five year intervals.

asg ttc 02;SC W V apcaxL c ldia ' cty t is

~~ ea arfors. the

, Aes-,zs should be for the operational lifectie of the facility as Is the

current licensing pract'ce for operating plants. This would require a

- l76LP.tLerz coz:m~st f rom the f acilit operator while at the sase tine

preven -t z Possibis. ;.ricdc oerpe'on ^f service.

I Furtermore, periodic license renewals are unnecessary as YIC has authorlty to perform inspections under Paragraph 61.82 and to take app-opriste action in ins:ances of violaC:;_u;Yc;.Z.erag:aph 61.2: asd 61.33

of this rule, including revoking or sUjv1i7dUg ay license. (.ddit:onsl L coments on publ:: hearings associat t . - .5!Z-wals are povded under item 5.)

: ec:g la I .;an

3. Transurmnic .init

Paragraph V.3. states:

"...The Coomission is applying a 500 zram/7r m=axiu itdIvidual

exposure linit for this unusual csase. (inarusion) T'ha li=it "s

based on ICRP :ecomendatcons for dase limits to Lndividuals and 's

a laval that is recotaizad as providing adequate protection. Since

:D 5 -3 4 only one, or aC Zost a few, persons would be involved, It is aco

necessary to Consider a population dose. This linir is then used

to determine the aliow-able coacentrastons of nuclldes in each --Iss

of visa (See Parag:a;h 61.42) .. "

As stated above, Paragraph 61.;2 provIdes a 50C =relr acoidental

Sinsus±On dose litit for the isotopes listed in Table I. including

trazsursoics. fet this stated crieia MSOO =re=/yr) was apparently

I|noed in the development of the max'mi allowable concentration for

\ alpha-emitting trasuranc isotopes 'or C fwZste. Rather. Paragra;h

v.c. s:ates: . , j .Jt _

. r.~.?..._ _ ., ...;;

.'or most of the alpha emitting transuranic ouclides. the sax'--_

allowable cocentratiths Zzrcal culatad to be in the range of 10

nnocurls pe2winc4 doI:qY dIsposal facilit'es.

Tese calle~tiO eeSts-rciveisbA~pd in the that did not

allow ,udia w stas. lf tredirjhhr this factor were

changed, the values would increase somewhat. A decision uas cade

not to recalculate in order to com" up with higher values. This

decision is based on 73%qSq^q5. First, in the spirit of the

ALARA (as Low as Reasonably Achievable) concept, the lower value of

Th-{elAi -- ecca t c .ieYbbiol tctcration to

* jtl. 7g B s ce'has been

1e~avwi.and by rfaf5? ais .scitg .opgts b aaze7) that

ur.- Lon.".Th.4af siz ic . r a rition in

_-_Lo3 us-O. - 3i ieekI~Ifi >Q09 th stand

D-5' -.3 1- 2.at 11s

- n ; ni/>fi-am that value

_3^;~~~~- 5t£-d~ YOZL p@o:y; E-sootJ*: tnclt ut C at. of a

tVcp esS;-t~~c~s~er a roer es-not C:Ca: iziat E4E9aalirsis.

cdij~~"Avt1 4 ~ G .4smsuraun-c

gae=#s-in P,,td rP...i.56O :.*as preseCts

rh- i'25 nuclear

o 5 jta~is 2A±"on '3 ji! l~teizsasutO;4rS ~ *. t .itllues were

1= 0 tm -kav soo s1 seO of ?uCri§ I 2 3s1~ 2 ±qi t i- gdnsmhzoorE~cintc>15 >in the 10-

' nfi¢ 4 g rsm ' t £1es =Iatl:ir £4O~gSOI ti eCS'i.g li-'it on

r i'Oast <e ;ig meases t and could

1 s ui£sstufr~3z}f~ lssabi~c; $.it is a blatant

nisuse of this concept. The 'Reasonably Achievable" ccrceCt within

A.&R is just as i-portant as the concept of 'As low as...'

'.e also call your attention co the fact that -.he Rouse Science Commitraee during a recent mark-up session on SI 5016, voted to exaend :he

definition of zraasurianc wasta f:on 10 to ICC tCi/2.

?a:agrspb 51.55 - Table 1

At present the burial sites in South Carolia and Nevada w1:. cot accept

any wasce the: has transuranics sbove 10 nCi/g. However, alpha-emictinZ

tnansuraics that are found in auclear power plant radioactlve waste :ao

not the Isotopes of maor concern. Therefora, we :ecor=end chat Colcas

erat1-is bamikubesp. nd, sation. ?r-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ui;L4ctsp5^s;-4;`CP ~~~~~~=& rt:A2pb'Sl~o~ 

7' -Si~*_$ooR os :3>_&

3-2B-320
- 5-- -6-

. had)is the basis for the ITZ. limit, Cm-242, vhich has a 163 day

aragraph 61.53(d)

* .~~:~e d3:e hI:tiher ;raZtine! fnr nearly V2 years, t.:

'Ie paragraph indicates chat radioactive wastes vith concenttations that

rh~~ear~:terti. ixuv i~c ~for

D:3's:f3;. nett-s.-face disposal and shall not be disposed of without specific.

would clearly create problems for spent resin shipments from our nuclear

cr -aria the Commission intends to use in authorizing disposa- of vastes

* an4 a~aa ai?4 .qca.~oay.~lo Fed 61 an~d

ear :K e l rcifl oe un hno

a-± 2hpb'no .l V 1fl.- ..C5 a 

boder aseofthe "deas vinius"~ clsifttinvol eult ~~end

* ahue ta ,ac -IVf 382 -le 44-te .h 9 ir.cth

keaihandsaetro the public.ar Tho Wine tirhese vrnnnc~

o~ ~.Sfe~scalsh Z-mqss-lc "d '' S1

Nori% Utclites supports thsea"e =*jhiehs`oldnbet anierd byclae the C~~in

broader use of th "de t'tusit"y classe iatin woud tsl niZ conerve

mlagla -adI~ DChatci 3 1 ti &A of Atst oht~ thestenrpovd 

fo Lrea~;bl.tlaety :. tof ;ubics -aiA7' %aotior. Enirnena

--- as .. i lo-..- idc

%Men-jMn~s a:4 the rtee5frradioizti-ve wlaste dis;csal.

/

IIII

I

I

I

r1rgC 'tS i .rraen, ... the F- h'as oroducec

/ -Public qearits - - - - -c- r' ::r-er.os Ltr 5.e '_t-':", are1 r

Paragraph V.C. states: - -

nrg r Crre :CZr :hocsn; locac.I'n3 *-Sh'h w'l' .. ne life of a typical facility tan be broken into 5 phases:

:-:y:: 'r- rbper-_d:J ceratdchel;lds?'- , e A ntion. ads and

institutncoal control...at intervals specified in the license, (the

S't e r =ix!3doa y 4mef is. c ttn1rly dr) the licenses

would be required to submit a license renewal application (5 61.27).

t i j* j-: --. ; :r.,.4 | en21: pen5brPv- A~en(eRP~t.^;cs egr n' srtirquiremen : 3

vould lie *pdated *::d f nancil arrangements Sor assurance of adequate

,-_ t~haastelutj;'t p.1hs r&. ti pit4".Cut ca" -he life *~ 5S~eh)#t 0 ~t~4t~i~..~.r~revqwd tbhe ln , tht te 

c eycle of the disposal facility. Uithl these five phases there are

--- . l~ a.-.-_hetc'rstu~bliLk hgac'4j,;oacijd for~saibsequet ,:u! docketin:

xri oli-eaape are prnv a,- fl~ t each of the S

b ^riers 1_ _41 Ucves e-,eysals.. _or clypt al5P; .U1$.vtiha e 25 year life, a-t _ t - a3ldl7t fc i-l 2 'o yearis after

n-sating I e ;e-'2Pt-> rives. This aproac. ;rOv's

. b ) rl f o; site josurs, i.e.,

ie3:n f r 1 _ dr r tise of licerse transfer,

i.e., sbput 5 years-after closure or the 30th year. __!:-: 0.:_nG bcta ;en'canlI reqLr~tr*en:3 :zr s_:

Th-s, for a disposal facilitc7 with a 25 year operating lIfe, the regula- ty~!liooS;k30rra'~bti zns;:-a-:e t -^: t 

?SYe :s!:lt te rny@-~r¢rGt S=Z t-plrticipa- tieon, and believes that a1l perti-ent issues should be addressed prior en-. (he e'red eeaE~t d

tionist tactics asne parties have utilized at public hearings and the

cf the 1 Ie ^- these have had on cost hnd schedule of a project.

_se : de ". hfasteir pernicious

.I '1 tp~ntdrrt ttt'.dtr n a& ret~klltx e~lag q olgs~ Io Dportix rrLgs , closur Ilosre *ad an

: ..tL f P-f~ldt Li swt-.^rnsmqph~s - 2 r Ssn e* ~e;*,"4cztmt ro private ar ' :-mffdi55Sil fe'~3Jt te 'r aud~ Shit.4gree of rseglatory

dls; sIWte'te S -level racdoact±ve waste]. ... Per-

.frr2\a.e otJeotive require'ents , t.cWtever, require ncre eforo and tLme in develo;men: as well as in

;'0enSln;g Of S;eotf1: :aIClities due to the 12rge

-s'r aCof factcrs tS a: ruS. Ae C.nsiderdto deern're cld boe e. ... .t

:: Culd he easy for an a;-;'Coan: cr '::ensee to

i

B-321

8-289
-5-

I

d e:monstrEc.: aew'.'n. ;reso1;t:e recu:re- ments... since eng±neerinr t.i_:s a.e establIshed

which can be readily measured or calculated and

the specIfic re;uiremr.n:3 for the design and speration os a rlow-level raidca:tive wastel disposal

fac:li:y would be clearly defined and readily

apparent to an applicant or licensee". (2)

Although the Perfcrar.-ne :' s1:es ah~e-:e the@: .i.: :f

prov'':..g :cb::y-: . z:.- : :I'' fi_ t

=er.ms *.e :. .r ;S: _*s 'e:I:ed above,

c - ar. and do make demonstrating :Iplance "easy" as indicated in

'he raft _;S. In fac the technIcal site sultabill:y requtreMents will be Jus. as dtfrIcult to a;ply as the performance objectives since in most cases the re-qe!-2~nts rely on compliance w:th

the performance o:Jectivas to define sui'tabilty. -he Draft

z:3 further stated that :he size suitability requirements are

merely "co: on sense". Rather than defizlinS suitable characterlstt:s, the .IRC plans to eI.mir.a:e bad sites with the appl'ca-

'orn of its tec.-.:a:r remen:s reservrng J-:Agement o.n what

S3 *.d.._ *_* 4... *2*3 rsr. :...sS*

'NRC .as set cut what are believed to be cc- cn sense site suI:ab:l?:ty retaaeen: s t;a: can be consistently

applied throughout the c:_r.:ry. ... 'he requIrements are intended to elimInate,.. :ertaln characteristics :ha:

are known to cr have porential to lead to long-term

problems." (2)

Thus, the 'lRC has not defined a suitable site but has underscored same charac:eri:3:cs of an unsuitable s3te. However, the

CoM1ission's attempt to define unsu'tasIl::y is tco general to

be very useful In ident:fying sites whIch car:ot te corsidered for

llcensln;.

D-sb-I( A brIef review or some of the technIcal requirements "Ilustrates this point. m.n re;ulre3-a:t Is: ":.e sloe hall be captboe

Dor being characterIzed, m.deled, anr.yzed _r r .:cred." :his

requIrement does not sirnif.I:an::y narr:W othS 3 por-= .

of sItes which the 'IRC could 3usde as sI'able. P-resumably, the

INRC is implyn;g that It favors sites whIch are SeoloZI:ally

anr h::-;Ioaly "si'm-le" so that models can be

rehied upcn. to predIct and monitor the transport of radionuclides

from the s3te. Lowever, thIs requlremer.t places no bOcunds on

how sIn;le a site 3Ust be nor on how well characterIzed, relIably

modeled, thoroughly aialyzed or carefully monitored. Furthermore, this requireernt merely restates tre need -o corply with

the performance objectives sInce complIance wIth the objectives

already requires utilization of predictIve transport models

whIch themselves must be derived from accurate characterization,

analysis and mon:torlng of the site.

Anro:her requIrement is: "p;streax drainage areas must be

m'nim.zed to decrease the amount of runoff whIch could erode or

!nur.ndate the disposal calls." This requIrement, ati:; character50-3 ized as coimcn sense, relies on the WRC interprecatlon of

"mtn.mize" and does rnot ccnst:tute a tru7y prescr!p;t:ve reoulremen: stnce .o limIt Is set on either the size of the draina3e

bas:r. or the ant;c:pated erosIon rate at the site. UntIl

the NRC revIews a speciflc sloe the applIcant does nro know

whether runoff has been sufficiently mInImized for the pur;cses

of obta'nnrg a license.

Another requirement states that: "Areas Must be avoIded

where te:zcnic processes such as faulting, foCdIn;, seIsmIc

actIv::., or vulcansrsm may occur w':h such fraeuency and extent

,'

B-290
-7-

D -SID -S<

to s' r.f'cantly affect the a^llitY of the dis;lsal site to

meet the perforrance cbjes:i7es.. .or may preclude defensible

modeling and prediction of l:ng-term imapacts". This requirement

relies on application of the performance objeotives to determine if tectonic processes at the site make the site unsuitable.

Reliance on the performance objectives makes the requirement

difficult to apply and redundant. The requirement only guldes

site selection if the NRC can describe tectoni: ccrditlons which

deenm the site unsuItable independent of complIance with the

performance objectives. 'IRC Rtherwisethe is only providing

a gli-pse at which si:e characterIstics are Important to the

lIcensing decision.

- F'nally, the NIC requires that: "The disposal site must be

generally well draIned and free of areas of flooding or frequent

pending. Waste disposal shall not take place In a 1CC-year flood

_laIn, coastal high-hazard area Cr wetland." The latter par:

of this requirement is prescri;tive in that it states clearly a

or.d:;:n th'.'h is not suitable for waste disposal. Sowever,

the first part of the requirement aga'n sets no standard for

whai Is acceptable. The frequency of allowable ponding Is

not specIfied and well drained is not defIned.

4T1he technical.requirements, includ'ng those discussed

brIefly above, in practice warn applicants to be wary of certain site characteristics which the Commission has highlighted

C ~ \ but, do not provide a clear defInItion of suitable sIte characteristcs. -.his need to ma ntain technical requirements whIch

are general' I nAt.me resUlts d'-ectly rc the "sys3tem approach" .hI:h

eFphasi:es the Interactions and strengths of all the components In a disposal system (site, engineered barrIers, waste

form etc.) to contribute to the overall goal of waste disposalconfining radicnuclides.(3) Site suitability defined in this

context allows each site to be judged In light of the entire

disposal system being proposed rather than representing an

ideal site.. 5The necessity of this approach is supported most

clearly by considerIng its alternatIve. f the YRC issued

technIcal requirements.which rigidly defined an ideal site it

would severely lImIt the possible =.mber.ot acceptable siteikn the

country. Tuture sites rIght be concentrated by necessIty In

arid reSions of the western U.S. Since most low-level radIoactive waste is generated in the eastern half of the countr7,

this sIting pattern would result _n Increased transportation

dIstances, costs and risks from accidents. ln addition, as

recognIzed in the Draft _IS, prescriptive requIrements focus

cn co-cmnents of the disposal system deemphastz:ng the Importance

of the system as a whole.

However, although more flexibIlIty in locating sites for

radloactive waste disposal is attained by emphasiclng the entire

dIsposal system and identIfyIng only general technical requirements,

other problems are created. Since sIte suitabIlIty for radioactive waste disposal cannot be more specifically stated using

this approach, controversy over its meaning wIll likely surface

durIng the licensing process. Understanding the polItical context in which the licensing dec'slon will be made sheds lign:

on this problem.

8-291
'.' -' :1

t - I

-cAMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

55s Notth Kensington Avenue. LaGrange Park. Illinois 60525 'JSA

T.i.h.ab f3 I 1 352- *11 T..2$4433

Radioact':e w:ase: dis;csal is a p:::.'c2 1; c:^arged s_:r

issue. 'ow-ieve! rad:oac:ive waste cds;:sal 1±.e a"' u:ear "sues 's

a proble= With national and local tensicr.s. At :the ra:tir.al level,

It is inextricably linked to the detat:e over nuclear power. Th s

debate enters low-level radloactive waste decisions because

502 o: all i #7,1 =:4uce- by commer:lal

or ME

;pwer rea-tors. A y82 al2 3ec 33) 3r.a:ive r:te St:te of Wash

CIS ?ros=3 W0 t.. on r.oetd chts fact and attempted to ban the disposal Of

FOR

low-level ra s±e; r wh'le allowing

OF WaICAC:171_ '-;A.S=

the dCs;osal of non-rea:ctr waste. At the local level, :ra ;ubltc

*6 rTd. ae|. 38089 : .9li 1) -- - r

:s ccncerr.ed at;P;t. >0444A4k9. ' s:e because the r-a'cr

impacts frcr dispocsal activIties wxl: be corn by ::::sen. livng

near disposal sites. :ncreased :af poential ct,. leakage ;f

radionuolides, the dedicat:r of Land in tertpe_'.:y, these are

all consequences a lccal populaion '_.ea:s. The s:rength of

the senri*ents felt by State gcverrns: In deal nrg ,I. :these

problers was seen In. Octcber, 19 ;0t . 'b ! ci.s~re .--

all _n--9! disposal facl ;ties watrc Je7nrrs

;,a Crgia ?ark, ::.',*Is CScZ.,

of Washington, 3evada and Scuth 3 1:.-Aj.ss ;ackaglng

and trans;ortazion practices as threatenan; tre safety of xasze

d's;osal in their States. Temporary Olosfe :' wwo of these

disposal operations-created concern sh:3 nuclear activities

might have to cease until dCsposal capa:::y ccull be made ivailable again. 'imited storage capacity a; ho3pitals and un'versltles

received d'despread media atteni:cn. :_:h Caro:l:na har since

'alved the a=cunt of waste It x l a .: _ eCd in t'.he State ea,'.

F- I

year and the _ a:e ;r vx.C..- - n .' c::r: r.e r g.. :;

clcse down the s:te a: -ea::y, :elad. F'rall;, the ;3ssagte:

the 'ow-Level Rai:acti:e Waste ?:licy .c;: last year, ocused

natIonal attention on State res;cnsb:ility and rl;hts In prcvidn I.h enclosed c~encs were prepared and reviewed by

waste d4s1s.%;ko Suclear Socicey nncmers of the Tuel Cyz:a

end 'Wast. ?sangeannc Division.

TS_ PRC5LE:'

The 'IR' licensln; ;rocess addresses :ths cozplex social

issue by em;hasi:Ing techn_':a! requzremen-:s and prcvidCn& highly

formal and limIted opportun:t:es cor pu:lic partIcipatIon. --he

1cernsirg crccess does not ;aJ-e into ac:oun: helghtened publ':

awareness of the politlzal a-nd hea:.:h ;ues:1crs related to radcoa^_:;e wastes Tlscal. Thus, the .-a' r proclen -::h rel-n: on

the ;icenslng pr-cess te a;plx loosely defined :d::-.:a re:ulre-

=ens In the raulazizns Is the nev-:a_ e controversy that v'J:

result when :the outlc c:a:er;ages :he ace-e;ab1 y Of racda::;

waste d:s;:sa: and asserts Its r'Zh:s to he ;art of the l'censr.;

;r-:ess. :nrer;reta:i'r.s -f :-he ge.era-' 'n~g-uag3 used in -.he

rt,-'-rer.nts are eas3:y :hallenred, her.:e the eterminat:'.ns of

sIte su:ta'l:tl y based on thcse rr e.: are ke.w5lse ea3'Iy

chal:enged. Ccntroversy will shape the debate over size sultab:il:y.

The llcens'ng ;rc:eeding for :-.e _:i-o Canyon nuclear ;:xer

plant in Cal:rorn:a serves as an examp:e of :his problem. The

.a cr technrical issue is whether the plant's location 2.5 mIles

from a fault could cause fatlure of essential safety =echanrsms in

the reactor !uring a eajcr ear':-uake. Ixperzz in active faulzing

and seismology have argued On both sides while :-e ?a:r:c: tas

B-3Z4

B-292
-1_-

:ad -:e::r'c cmpany. cxrner cf the plan:, has weathered S years

|o c i-sr.:r:ticn, -' 'ecal hearings, state raear'ngs, 3 lioer.sing

appeals and ^ ^ngress'onal inquirtes.(.) Resolv'r; the seismic

issue is complicated by the incomplete fevelopment of the science

and -he discovery of the proble= after -cre than 75% of the

reactcr had been built.(4) The late recogn'tion o: the problem

F-_ \ and reliance an a licensing process which util±-es for-a' hear'ngs

to resozve ccn:rovers=al issues only contributed d'fficul:ies to

an already ±ntraotable probler.. The unoerta'nties in the techn'cal

data fuel the controversy and the :iC has yet to dev'se a way zf

'ncreasing public trust in-its decisions or Judgement.

-U3LZC ACC-?TAyC!

Lessen'n&g putli' caposition to ager.cy act:v't'es is cften the

r-r:ary cotivation for noludidng the putlic in dezisicn making.

The ::?.C recognized the need cO provide tublIc apar:tic.ation cpportun:r.:es in its l'zensing process and atte-pt:ed to channel public

:-ncern into aiding the c:ensing decision. The licensing process

tas been amenfed to include several opportunities for fzr-al hear-

_ Ings and a mechanism for States and TrIbes to pa:ticipate in the

.eohnloal review of che site propcsed for waste disposal. Rawever, zhese mechanlsrs do not address public acceptance of waste

dissposal and are not adequate for conflicc resolut'^n or !!entificatIor at any stage of the licensing proceedin;. A brief summary

f. the N?.C provIsions for State and Tr'bal participation provides

scre rnsight to the weaknesses of these aecharisms.

:zpprtunlties for State and Tribal partIcIpattcn begin after

submission of an a p:'^taon fcr a lIcense. f'o>:ng formal not-

'ifloation in the 7eleral Rerstser, a State cr Trlbe has 120 days

to submIt a proposal for partIctpat or 1n the review of the license.

The proposal must inciude:

* a descrIption of how the State or tribe wants to

participate;

* a description of the material the State or Tribe

*dishes to submIt to the I?.C for inclusicn in the

review;

* a descrtitton of the work :he State or Tribe wishes

to perform for the 4RC; and

' a preliminary estimate of the types and extent of the impacts the State or TrIbe anticIpates as a result of the waste dIsposal activities. (1)

This provision invites States or Tribes to assIst the NRC in its

licensIng decIsion but does no: give therm any decision. Making power,

nor does it guarentee them any influence over the .7C's decIsIon.

| is not' clear wthat standard the 'RC wIll use for sranmtng these

cpportunities and it is not clear how the 3't will weIgh the

| nfcrratIzon gathered in this manner in the licensing decIsion. in

| I-dtion to these disadvantages, -his rechanism for partIcIpation

appears partIcularly weak in contrast to the opportunity to particp;ate in :he Agreement State program. In this prograai a qualifIed

State can regulate radioactIve waste disposal itself and dIscretion

over the Issuance of lIcenses is transferred from the HRC to the

approprIate State agency. The possible advantages of merely assIstIng in an NRC decision do not clearly outweigh the option of attaining Agreement State status. Although the tiRC amendment allows

particIpatory rights to TrIbes -;h-^h currently can net attain

Agreement State status, the type cf partIcipatIcn proposed by the

B-293
csir. .r=ans a.:e_. a.._ _.._e.-_.- _

tne decis'on making pro^ess.

| The p;btic pa:'ziI;_acn methods pro:psed oy the .iC rein.'crce

the ex scing Fa:t:r: in nuclear fac'lity 'n g relying on

formal public hearings to both gather and disseminate information

and ini:ia:ing formal ccnta:t with the publlc on:Y after ar application for a license has been made. Pubioc hearings offer only

ii':ed one-way oaun3::aic'n. The agency present3 its proposal

and receives forma: testimony that eends to sumarIz:e positions

rather than resolve 'ssues.(5) hn!3 highly for=al process

frustrates the public which ray be hearing about che proposal for

the first :'-e and does rot erovide the aS-ncy with the type of

infcr:mao:ln it car. use in making a decision. The j;.b:c'3 comments

often seem unsophist:iated an-id ll-:'.forme a direct conse::ence

of their limited cpoortunitles to learn about and take ;art in p:.n-

.i.ng ur to the hearing stage.

A recent Ccrgressional investigatIon of Federal reglatilons

pointed out two rmajor hinderances to effectIve pubic partI:cpat:icn

In the existing reSula:cry process related to the t:.ing of publ~c

part~ctpati:n long after the beginning of informal discussions

between the applicant and the NRC:

ny the time notIce is pstad tIn the .edera3 Reglster, the staff Of the Nuclear R eglatcry _o-mIssilon typoca:ly

will have worked with the appllcar.t... for a year or two on the technIcal details of the applicatIon. Not only does this process s:7e the agency staff

vested interest in the applicatlon as it stands, buz the

public is usually shut out of the early, and often

determInatIve, stages of the process. ... By the time the publtc can get involved in a decision, so much money his usually been spen: by the

(applicant]... in planning and stU:'.Sng the site that

it becomes unecono=mIcal to chanre the course of ac:cIn."(i)

aPh ::n. *-.-r'drar.s :^r.:'rue to ft:Cw:_ e c=;:r,:n. .':3^ ;cc

late _r __anIngful _ iacl .The-et - Pub

a.-:':',at':n and t;e lack of jub'lc azztepance of agency decIsIons

stem in parz from lack of cormunicatIon between the agency and the

publIc:

F -I "Concern for partIcIpatIon arises almost entirely in

the context o. real or imagined failure of government to respor.d approprIately to tie more c:ope:titve

needs and demands of cItIzens, some of w.nm feel that

the response would have been more 3atisfaczory had

their values been given am assured fair hearing." (7)

If the NiC is to encourage public participation. it must develop

wIth the public a relatIonship akin to the one it has w'It. the

Industry :: regulates. .he . il should 'eSln informing the public

about radIoactIve waste disposal plans w.en it beg'.ns dIscussIng

those plans informally wIth the applcatr.:.

-he CommIssIon should recu-rs the a;plI:ant to identi:y

local concerns and to Ifrm the publ'c and its representatlves

in government about the type of racilloy whIch :.s being pro;osed.

.ne'2 re^^gnl:ei t;- cential :_r ear y L' parolclpatlr. In its -

.egulatIons when it consIdered an c;::cr. requiring a notIce o:

Intent tc file an applloat:on 3 to c motrhs prlor to the actual

filing. ThIs requIrement encourages early particI;atIon and could

result :In ear:y Iden:tficaticn and factorIng In of public concerns

- he a,;lI:an.'s ,roposal. The :iWC rejecte: thIs cpt::n for

the followIng reasons:

*... (1)I added an adminIstrative burden on the applIcant;

(2):ron a practIcal standpoint, :: is prSbatly not needed

to assure early state input; and ()'irs purpose can be

ac:cmpllohed by other =eans." (2)

These reasons for resect~on MUst 3be bacanced by the tene:fIs of

B-294
-15Cof the requirement. Although :t- aplcarnt r:I !'read! have

reasons for seek'rg State in;u, t.here i5 lt. irnert.ve to

seek local or citizen 'nput. o:cume.:at'cr. of :-c: the applicant

sought public participation ;ri:r to submittlng an appl~cation

and reasons tor incorporating cr rejecting these ccncerns are

important to building a cred'ble record with the ;ubl'c and in

gaining acceptance of the facilI:y. The XRC shou'd reconsider

- I thIs c;tton, in a form that w:-u!! 3o beyond ;u;bl'c hearings and

forral testimo.ny to ore whi:h would '::r-orate an interactive

approach for gathering and disseinanting Information about the

proposal.

Beyond the fcrmal requIrements and rev'ew of specific

astects of a license there axe c:her consIderatIons 'n increaslng

public participatIon in agency DecIsions. How the public contributes, who ihculd -re-resent ..e public and ;-e the .C plans

to use the inforratton it rece'. s shouli be primar7 cot dratlons

in the development of a relat:o.s:hip with the publIc. Of course,

it cannot be expected that increased public participa:ion will

necessarily result in easIer decision maklng. o-re lkely, the

NRC will find itself responding to increased pressures to-decide

issues in a greater variety of vays whIle being ;plled in conflictlng

dIrectIons by new ccnstituencies. However, Corgres;recc-gaied that relyIn& on a more varied ::nstltuenc^ and a larger information base can

yield positive results far :he agency:

"Specifically the presentaticn of alternative viewpoints which is a conse;uence ol broader cartlolpat'r; checks possible i'ba are in several ways.

First, agency declslon ma;:ers are crovided with a

greater ranse of alternrativ-s and inf.or-matin.

Second, partIcipatIon artes agency au:tn;r:r.y by

P_ I,

widening the officIal perspectIve of aSencies and

providing an alternatIve basis ot supporz." z'-)

FInally, It shuld be emphasized that greater pubc:c particpatlon

alt hough comronly viewed as a cause of delay In the lIcensIng

process, must be also viewed as a necessary means to seeking

acceptance of waste disposal. In some cases public participation

may actually speed up controversIal proceedIngs by %v idling -he

lengthy alternatives of 11t:gatior. and appeals:

'[:n the view of the Senate Ccrnttee on Governzental

Affairs], the fact, that an additicnal party participates

in e....agency proceeding does not mea-n that the proceeding will be delayed. ...Ulti-ately... the over all

time elaps.ed may in fact be lessened, sInce if all

relevant issues are resolved in the initial proceeding,

the likelihood of a subsequent court reversal to consider relevant issues is substantially reduCed ar.d aleng

With It the risk that the agency will simpl: have to

go through its paces all over agaIn." (6)

With these caveats In mind, suggestions for constructing

a successful public partzicpaticn program can be =ade. The NRC

should ±dent!.:y its primfary goals in seekIng InformatIon fro- the

publIc, for exa-ple:

*identification of public oppositIon or supczrt and

its causes;

* identification of local or State zreferences for

locations within the State or region for radioactive waste dispcsal;

* identification of preferences for State or Federal

ownershIp after disposal operations have ceased; and

* identIfication of the need to compensate the local

population for increased risks resulting from waste

disposal.

In addition, the NRC should InitIate educatIonal opportunItIes

for local, State or Tribal governments so that they are better

equipped to understand information in the licensing rrocess. K

B-295
-:?

T..' is n.:rr.a:':r. exchange x':l i=r.-rve :'.':en ;-::ta:r y

prc- Iing a tlearer concep_ _: the ts;oz5a: facility an-d ±:s

potential prozler5.

Who represents the public has aways been a proole= in design-

'.g pub'lc particlpation pr-grams. 'e ' s -s ' '

public ;ar:!::;Is:!r :: _--:. --. r-.a:e

_ I hese re;reser.ti.ave5 ' ; : : ' a : : erspective

on public ccreo.s arcnd must tremsel-es :nc:r;:r-.e ba:anc'nr

decisions in order to fairly represent :he geographic rsgicns wnich

def.ne their constituencies. While State concerns ma7 be focused

more on financial problers, lorg-term Monitoring respcnsib'lities

-e awr.e-rship. the ccr.cerns of lccal :'t::ens =ay tend to eamhasize

'mpa^ts on the z:mmunity frcm corstr_:tion, the in:f-x of :zbor,

demands on housing arn social servites and increased hea:th hazards.

The NRC should expect to include a variety of representatives of

the put': s_ tha: :.e perS e::tVes -nd 'n:erests of those both

':r.-::; --r '.'rl aff_:ta :; r__i~':a:ve was:e dtsp:sa. can

be heard in t:ne licensing process.

F'r.ally, perhaps the most sig ifican: aspect of seecIng pub::c

partlcipatlor. Is how the NRC uses public opinion in fcrmulatlng its

licensing decisions. The history of puc'lc Involvement in

federal agency decision making is so infested with fai:ure tc

consider public cpinicr. that researchers tave cc'ned the term

"coopzat:on" for the usual outcome or the heavily relied or.

public hearing :

"A public hearIng serves a cooptat:on function when

\ the goal of the hearing 3s to let 'rate citizens and

nt-eres: groups let of- steaa and ccmplain about :he

project. The posture of t:e decisi:n makers may be

or- :r rl-n'/sleSS. ':P^.'1 '5 is :: :-.a:_':

i/r.;u: rll ;ave no =^act: on the pr:or- cr c.n cocy,

|ecpe are fcra.::y g-ven a :hanc: :zo h-e a say so they

ray nr: ta3e :he agency to court for fallure :a prov:'e

put_:ic involvement. B3 attendinig --adf ;resen:-ng :heir case to an unresponsive agency, the ^jjos't:on has beer.

unwIttIngly coocted into servIng :he goals rf the agency."'3)

F-I l '.e :-=.szts' is a'le to gain public :rust in its judge- r.::: -r _:: ;..e c'' acce;ts rad'oact:ve waste dIsposal, the

:'. may find I :; pcsslt to license a radioactIve waste dlspcsa.

site ithout: tCr tlng or appearing to co0;t the p;blIc. The

NRC is afzerall a regulatory agerny mcandaed to regulate in the

public interest. Definition of the public irtergss requires a

broad dls'nteres:ed 7iew of the publ'c opinion and wel:are. The

Cc=!'s3lsn -ust seek a ,ore Interactive re'al:crshlp with a. broad

spectru of tChe publ'c before It ca:. begIn to defIne the publIc

Interes; and rely on it in its licer.sing decisions.

CNCCLUSZNS

Mte :P.C llcensing process ensures that low-:eve:. radIoactIve

waste d.'spcsal sI:es can. be consIdered ::r licenslnr In al-ost

cny area of the country. The ze:'hninal siting reulrerer.ts el'-

inate only extreme conrstlcns which com=mn sense would dictate

unsuitable. Yet the Cc=3isslon has overlooked a key problem in

Its ::icensIng process - likely public opzosItIon to decisions

-whlth are based on technIcal ade-uacy w:lh no meaningful cOpprtunities for publiC expression of acceptance or cjposition and no

provlslons :or confl'ct resolution. The re=edy ::ss in eqUcl

attention to the p;lltioal and social con:ex: In vhoh the ques;_Icns

of technIcal adequacy are arsdered. Pub'lc concerns over nontechnical Issues as well as publl: understanding of what sIte

B-296
suitabillty -.eans rust '.r:uen-e :-.e .'-ers.sng f-e:'s'cn r loi- P ?-

eet radtoactrve waste disposal is to ::r.:nue.

1. !5 Federal Rerister 33031-38105 (July 23,193i).

2. U.S. Nluclear Ccomnssien, iegulatory Draft Envirr.t.ental 1oaet 3taterent an 1;CCRart 61 "Licensin Reu_,or Land

DIsoosal of Radioactive Waste", NUpte-m0t2, 3Volumes (Septeber,

l9dli.

3. U.S. Departmrent of Energy, Report to the ?residen: by the

interazenev Review Orouo or Scclear ..2S~ e Mana!e=.enS, T2D-29442,

UC-70 (:-arcn, 1979).

a. R... Smith, "A' Seisrolo.Siai Shcot-out az Diablo Canyor,"

Sc'enc- 21, 528-529 (Cctober,1981)-

5. A.B. B3shop, M. McKee, R.D. Hansen, ?ublic ?ar:t c'a:ton ln

?u~~c ol~y Iforat~n: State-or-the-Ar: Reorrt,

y/cwSu3-77/,2333 (19F7).

6. r.S. Senate, Com~mitzee on Governmental Affairs, ad On - .Aeral Requltions oreared ursutint to Senate Resoluion 71,

*~~~~ . . .. o V_;'Les %oECeCttOr, _ - - -

. :.A. Riedel, "itizen Par:.t:';at'cn: ,4yths and Reit :es",

u?:lic Administration F.eytew 3, 2l1122Q('',y/3 ne, 1972).

3. T.-. beberlein, "Sone.-bser7.at0ons on Alternat!.ve *ieehamisms

for ?ublic Involvemen:: The ~ul~.pno ?er oll,

the Workshop and the Quas4-3x~erLme; ", 'lat:al ?esouroes

.ournal 16, 197-212 (January, 1576).

B-297
07M/1i1D 20:41 GMT DHEC BRH COLUMBIA S CRROLINR

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

A TcsON. L aRIZONA 85711

COLLEOC OF ENGINSA1ING

55PA&fjaT OF NUOLAA "WAIsNNG

January 7, 1982

Secfeary of the Cormssion

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commssion

¶Jashiagton, D.C. 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject: Proposed Rule lCCFR6i

U. ;.... li .' _I-. I

-.. :... .

c, pS 74'

SodhCaoca

fDepOatrFeS Ct| t . '!12a *2

Hedhcnd - .f

Cotd

4anuary 8, 1982

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

LON.Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comsission

Washington. D.C. tOSS5

Dear Dale:

BCARD

) Wlfegn M. WUsa.. Chanrml

d Mson. Jr_ M... VkA-Che~M,

L/onam W. Dougla. M.D.. Secr5 t

MosesH. UOren Clsrusei. L.CmY Jr. JO.

Genrl4 A. Kayd B4rha P. NU"e4

COmMSS1ONFR

Robet S. 4Je0. M.D.

2= BuU SU~t

Covla, S.C. 29

C+6 1 ge

Dear Sir:

It is my understanding that the czrent pe:±od for Proposed Rule

1005c61 has been extended un:±l January 14. 1932. In viev of that I

would lIke to make the following geneal connenc:

In addition to the Proposed Rule l0C'R61 there have been generated

by other agencies of the federal government a number of documents pertamin-g to waste disposal. It has coce to my attention and undoubted17 D- Sl- i others that there are inconsistencies in definitions of key words in

these documents. For example, in Part 61 the definition of "Engineered

Barrier" is "a maraade structure or device that is intended to protect

an intrude: froc inadvertent exposure to radiation frinn certain wastes."

In the DOE Site Desiln Criteria for the Shal:ow Land Disposal of Solid

Low-Level Radioactive '%aate the term "Engineered Barrier" is defined as

"an additIon to the geologic ezviroacent which has been designed and

ecplaced to caninlze or preIude radlenuclide transport, or human

intrusion, or to preserve the incegrity of the disposal site." There

re sany other exaples of inconsistent :erms that could be cited.'

Therefore, 1 strongly recomomnd :ha: an ntera;ency agreemen: be

concluded on a 5lossary of tarms pertaining to waste anagaement and that

6 v-; )the terms u:ilized in Proposed Rule lOCTR61 be consls:ent wi:h this

t.zlosaary.

-Sincerely,

L..l& ;. -

tJ|uc FselCycle

3esearch Program

Jai mg

lie have reviewed the Proposed rule. 10 CFR Part 61. Licensing Requireents

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste and herein offer our cmments and reca ccr-datiorc. Wo c :n the Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

for their efforts In developing these regulations. We recognize the

tremndous undertaking on your part.

'As the regulatory authority In the State of South Carolina with the

responsibility to a"opt the regulation when issued, we support promulga-

_Ion of this needec rule. and concur with the general concepts. However,

(we will reserve implementation of certain aspects of the regulation

mhch ay conflictwith existing regulatory requiremenus and criteria

inow n place at the Barnwell, South Carolina facility. We understand

the Caomlssion's intent that all future disposal activities at existing

sites comply with Part 61; however, this will be discussed with the

Ission's staff In the future.

Since euch of the outlined regulations are general in nature, we strongly

reconuend the developcnt and Issuance of Regulatory Guides whicn will

dentify and explain specific requirements for licensing. In adoition,

Gem weA SUpPcrt and recnrnd developrment and Issuance of Regulatory Guides

which Incorporate standards for wasts form packaging, high Integrity

containers, solidification media. leachability standards, test methods.

and approval guidelines nd processes. We offer our assistance In

developing these neoede guidelines.

specific c nts and recomendations are outlined as follows:

Paragraph 61.12 Specific Technical Information.

P 2- 5. J a. We recommend addition of a requirement for contingency plans for

t storage of waste in the event of an unplanned occurrence or naturnl phenomena which may interrupt site operations and timely disposal

of the waste when received.

- --.- p

B-298
07M/l1D 20:S9 GMT OHEC aRH COLUMBIA S CAROLINA

Mr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Page TWO

January 8 l9S2

( b. Provisions should be required for the inspection of waste formS

| to insure that license requirements are being met. These provi- _ 4 *0ionshould require periodic inspection of waste packages.

I adminstrative procedures, or waste inspection and preparation procedures submitted by the waste generators utilizing the burial

faci 11ty..

( Paragraph 61.13 Technical Analysis

An analysis of the impact on the Inuiediate area at and adjacent to

the burial facility from the transportation of waste should be considered. Satellite activities such as trucking terminals could hae significant radiological impacts.

P. Paragraph 61.41 Protection of the deneral Population from Releases

of Radioactivity.

C-3 S it is not clear In this section if the EPA National Primary Drinking / Water Standards (40 CFR Part 141) apply for a priate drinking water

/ supply such as a private well, or whetner the annual whole body dose

of 25mRem applies In such cases. This should be clarified.

4. Paragraph 61.50 Disposal Site Suitability Requirements for Land

Disposal.

a. Criterion 4 regarding economically significant resources should D -) 0 -2 also emphasize the necessity for considering mtjor aquifers and

ground water recharge zones as economically significant resources.

- b. Criterion S addresses the possibility that a site located within ;the hundred year flood plain could be suboerged within the time

that the waste still required Isolation. By ruling out sites within the hundred year flood plain, this possibility Is reduced. e However, there are sites within river basins which would be above

V O Ji -the hundred year flood plain but within the area that would be

flooded if the valley wore impounded for irrigation, flood control.

or hydroelectric power. Since suitable sites can and usually have

been Identified, it should not be difficult to eons1Cer this

possibility..j .s t- s

Criterion 11 requiring that no nearby facility interfere with the

envirormentl mionitoring program should not be construed so

-50 *4strictly that location of burial facilities adjacent to existing Federal facilities is precluded.

A f. new criter1on addressing the mschanical ind physlcal properties \ of the site s I is needed. This should require that the soil be:

(1) Strong enough to support heavy equipment (2) suitable for con- !J-505 paction to form trench caps (or provisions for borrow dirt or

/ ensineered caps) (3) amenable to control of surface/subsurface runoff

/ (4) amenable to remedial measures In the event of migration, and L (S) cabable of characterization.

07M/11D 2Q138 GMT DHEC BRH COLUMBIA S CAROLINA

Page Three

A proposed site must be amenable to .odeling and sufficiently Si m~ple to that reasonable nu bens of monitoring wells adequately SO determine flow patternsl that Is, small areas of significantly. increased permeability should not be present, nor should other

small-scale discontinutles which require precise positioning of

monitoring wells.

the preoperational ground water characterization should be em'oreThensive enough to determine the behavior of each zone underlying the site. For exaeple, water levels in each saturated zone should be recorded for sam unimun seriod lono enouoh to determine the seasonal variations. Mass balance (e.g., perculation versus evapotranspiration) should be determined In the unsaturated zone and subsurface flow patterns and rates determined. It is particu- larly important to monitor this long enough to detect long-tern changes such as changes In land use would cause.

5. Paragrspn 61.52 Land Disposal Facility Operations and Disposal Site

Closure.

viable option to further assure that perforranco objectives are

met in the long term, but it has certain short term drawbacks. ~ ,J Operationally. "itst pack2ama with low radiation, lev*ls haey been

b ¶. IN used as shielding for higher radiation level packages during pack- I aoe c cem:nt In trenches. thus m1nimizi a oceyatonalexrosure I xo r1Crl. wase segregation wi l requre a ea open trenches and additional handling equipment. Radiation levels at

the trench boundary will be elevated and significantly increase occupational exposure.

Subparagraph (&)(5) states that 'void spaces must be filled with

earth or other material to reduce future subsidence within th3 fill.t

S ^ 2 t nThe trm Other matertal should be specified. V_5 4 . Subparagraph (a)(6) states that radiation at the surface of the

trench cover be within a few percent above natural background levels at the site. A * ew percent'.should be qualified.

-2 d. Sutparagraph (a)(9). Inaidditton to adequate elosure and stabilization D anasuresbeing carried out, erosion control measures should be added.

6. Paragraph 61.56 Vaste Characteristics.

6. Subparagraph (a)(3) should be qualified to indicate that the addition Z | > of absorbent material applies only to those Institutionally generated, #aqeeous and biological waste forms. It should be also stipulated that organic, toxic and reactive waste forms arm prohibited from

land burial unless mitigating measures are taken to stabilize the waste

and make it environmentally acceptable. We will continue to reserve

the right to ban certain waste forms that, in our opinion, are not environmentally acceptable At the Barnwell, South Carolina facility, Irre'jardless of federal regulations allowing such.

B-299
07M1/11D qi:37 GMT DHEC 8RH COLUMBIA S CAROLINA

Page Four BIRMINGHAI AUDUBON SOCIETY

MCST OFFICE BOX 31 Is . BIINCHAX. ALiA.W4A SS:0i

cZ .J IZ ?3:25

b. Subpaiigraph (b)(2) establishes a free-standing, non-corrosive

\ l1qu10i content of l.C: of the voleus of waste. We have of course ) estaishad a ore restrictive criterionof 0.51 in regular waste

- 13 < contafivers and a limit of 11 in high integrity containers. The

indust-y has accepted ad can meet thesot requireunts which are / souncly established. We feel t1,at the mcre restrictive criurion

shoulc be codified in Part 61.

We appreciate ihis opportunity to coment on the proposed rule. Iie will be

most receptiva to mesting with you and your staff If you fael further discussion Is warranoad. If we can be of any assistance. please do not hesitate

to conact us.

Very truly ycurs.

Hows G. S.ly. Chief

Bureau of 4a1tolog1cal Kealth

HGS;tn

cc: Mr. (. acyne Kerr

P..9-

D&mA A. L.c..

MAC.T7w

DAflw?.

t-w Mae# frda

comxrns

Acem C.

rw.w 71.e

The.. A. IMW~

.aD05ZCT0SATL.AC1

WRiX; P Xa.~ite ILPor

Harmeul. Wi..

PASTPI M

LbA.. V. Li

Januar-y 4, *1982

Secretary of ti-1%. Commissiaon

tj. S. Nuclear Regulator-y Comirtssicm

Wesnintont0, 0. C. 2085.3 -

Aittii Docketing and4 Services Branch ..

Gentlemon/1-Adtess

. 9 .; ; " 0

Zj

4- 4 "' FP_irn'

Attac..ed are our comments on you- July 24, 1681

prcopoed rule enttled, Licensig Racuamants for,

iand Otsposal of Radtcactt Waste.c

While cur comnr-ems a*reas many specific points

within the p-ccosed rule, it Ls rair, to say that es a wrote

tr, rule i-&e s-rious shortcorraNs. i eeptte some Str-onr

poirts, ti-c rule neeas coSliers.le revision.

Cl' particular. corcern is t-' r at Iterm er cur comment sr-aet. Altihough your suruxnar, states t-at tre

prorosed rule 'Coes rOt eeal wltrh ctagsal by inclvidcuaLIcensees by burial of t-ltr own wastes, Clearly there

enould be regulations goveming such actrvitles. PeormPs

ti-s already is t-a case.

Mention of ti-t WeA s5ecRoC ptoit is oct to cOwfW

Play cur oter concer-ns, but to assure yOu ta&: from

rsir: to last cur comments ar" offered with serious aopreaction of row ihportart tihis preocsae rule Is.

We are gratsAhl for the orr4rvunity to Cemnmett.

Also, we ask to be plac-c on your ltst(s) for, rulerrmakrg notices and nottces o oether CommissIon activitt&e of puoItc LIrter-tat.

CopIes,

Sen. Jeremlan Cer-ton Mcmce.r, Carjervatien Committee

Sen. Nowelt hFrtI

U. S. Rep. Albert Lee Sr.th I Mr. Auorey Godwin _ _ .

. .

2 . _ -

I i-I -- )'o Ac- ' ed i p e.' . eju,, ci (

4

s '. A4 .01d&"UU Vc4:" A414.met -.d.V nm,.i Sceecy

.. ..

c-300
3iringhaa Audubon

Comments on Proposed Rule:

*Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radloactive waste'

STRONG APPROVAL

4-3 1. 6L.3(b)--The requirement for license before commencing (&nstruction of a Land disposal facility.

' i. 6l.Saac3)-The requirement that a disposal siteebe se- D O-3D lee'td so that projected population growth and future develop- (mrts are not likely to affect performance objectives.

' 3. 61.515(a) (7--the requirement that the disposal site be

ud exclusivelz for the disposal of radioactive wastes.

6 4. 61.7(C) (l)--The requirement that the State or Federal. D-5 7-3< overnment own the proposed disposal site before the Commission

Jis sues a license.

OES!ABLE CRANGZS.

1. 'The proposed rule endorses 100-year limits cn institutional

safeguards, despite allowing disposal of wastes which will remain D-S'-5idangeroua for up to 500 years. if Il-vesr saIecuard limits are retained, wastes rerainino dancrcus Sor 1orsoe: zertods srould be

g-_ ciscosed of *isevnere, wnert safecuards can ce maintained for as * 2~ ion as ene wastes remain dancerous.

t 2. ?he proposed rule off:s provisions for disposal of wastes

%hich aay be subjec: to 'criticall y. *M2aterials subject to .ft _ cr ecality ma should notebe disposed of Ln sitescovered by the e Subecrt t scitescsliy raeaateujctt Proposed rule. Sesarate stts should be recuired, and a semarats

1.ul overin sucn si*es *ncuic De Lssued.

3. 1h*e term *reasonable assurance' is used repeatedly throughout the proposed rule. The phrase a -Conclusive showing should

be substituted in the following sections

61.13(d) ,. _ / J 61.23(b) (c) (dl (e)

h I61.31(a) (2) 61.54

Also, in 61.52(a), the term iisL'rance5 should be replaced by the term

proof.*

4. 61.7(b)(S) -- There should be no exceptions to the prchibtion

aga:nst near-su:face disposal of wastes remaining dangerous longer - 5t thtn yearss e e 

D s'.( iS. Sl 6--Any exemptions t: tnese Regulaelons sbou d come cnl7

Birmingham Audubon Zomments--page 2

$~ Iafter notile to the Governor and congressional delegation of the

taffected state and i public hearing in the state's largest city.

6. 61.41-Radiat on limits are too high. Limits should be c _3 E10 millirems to the whole body, 10 millirems to the thyroid, 10

(,millirems to any other organ.

< 7. 61.42--Llmlt too high. Instead of 500 millirem per year, C' t Lit should be no more than 10 percent of background per year.

DS. 61.52%a) (6)--Change 'within a few percent' to 'within one

1•2-3 9- 61.52(a)(8)--Instead of 100 feet, 100 yards. mear-su,-face

01. 61.55d)--There should be no exemptions in ^disposal A / prohLbi:ions against the higher level wastes.

11" . 61.56(b)--Stability should be guaranteed at the site for

D-5'b-1 ~as long as the waste materials remain dangerous, not just foe CD-sr, -0 years.

2. Submart S-Licenses lacks adequate specificity. some rugges~te I3provements: B- ge tedLlib) (2)--Lis- specific qualifications for personnel. I 1.12Cb)--List specific minimum standards.,

) 1.12(l)--List soecific minimum measures.. 51.13(b) -Give minimum standards for ladequate.-

13. 61.621b) (9)--Licensees should be required to place funds _ crow to cover costs of decontamination, closure .and stabilization.

t; , rd~dltion, ) Licensees should be required to place in escrow funds

necessary to-cover costs of institutional safeguards for the duration

f those safeguards. - -

F -t ls. il.71---. the Director must make available Commission

C 15. 61.28--A prov sion should be added allowing the.Commission

D-eto require alterations- to -the site ortthe arrangement of Its contents v / before closure, i necessary to protect, public health and welfare.

16. There should be criminal penalties of up to 25 years for violating tne regulations. --

-17. it&Ju.h thtis rocosei lute 'does tct d!,l wtth dlsecsal by Irldvidual

IIosesees by butial sir tCetr- owr wasts-" (Surnrary, p. 38C91), such actvitles

soulctd be goverred by regultiotms as strtrgemt as t!cse *ret- ot r ciscosal _es.-s - -

B-301
Un1WMG UN'WM4G

Udilty Ituciwa Waste Managemnent Group

111 2.th S5reeL (LW a washington. D.C. 20036 a 1202) 828.7649

. 1; PI :13

t -C. January 14, 1982

beast Go a -

c,5 ,.,P-L4, Sec:etary

U. S. Nuclea Regulatory Commission

r" oe*,", U11 Washington, D.C. 20535

_'yua C_ 5

Atta: Dccketing and Service Branch CamWe &M C&

a t - Re: Notice of Proposed R.ulemaking, 10 CrR Paz' 61;

ai_ - censing Requairaents for Land Disposal of

MM Radioactive Waste (46 Fed. Reg. 38.081) nCM ?9 C-M0

rDer r Sir:

ram" CO-" CM:: D-- 

_ SThese coets are submitted on behalf o' the Utility Ncl-ear waste Management Group CUMMG) '- cor ection wito""he bove-referenced matts:.

ua L;SftM The UUWMG has maintained an interest in the developPbCcqf a ment of 10 CrR Part, 61 'or socn time. Z: particular, -le

cam"" CMrAG provided, oan December 22. 1978,-deta'led com= eats US A.Vt0 in -esponse to the Ccaission's October 1978 Advance

?a" 3"M Notice of Proposed Rulenaking -(43 Fed. Reg. 49, 811) Za a. addition, -eters of the Group and' its consultants ";'t""'<r respncded to the notice, published last year, announcing

tae ava'lability oa a Preliminary dra't regulatioan for

t-am jpublic review and coa ent (45 Fed. Meg. 13,104).

C-" With respect to the rule itself, the present Pin"ear S version - as a Proposed role -- represents a signtir'ant

"a C"P imp:ovement over earlier drafts. aowever, as stated in

r&aM& CK% c our coeq ts concerning the Draft nvironmental_ 1zpac: PuiiO eG"Cem( Statement on Part 61. the DnWXxG seriously questions the

A qWM desirability o' many oa the specitic requirements

SQiAMlmI enbodied in the proposed rule. Za addition, as,deta'led PbU S. -° M or in the Attachmeat to this letter, certain aspects f --'e

acam" proposed role are of particular concern trm a *ract'cal

UUCP gma standpoint, and will require modification to ;rovide a msom fully workable basis fo: the land disposal o: radioactive

bw~ C.U~ waste. %M Gov"6 COtYq %Wm~" Co-"" Zn particular, DW1X4G is troubled by the fact that

a~.~ ucld t=concentratIon contaiLed in Table : =ay not

mum N5( D.C=

Cateucte mu Owa Pa

55 cr_

KI.-

Do~

Secretary of the Co=ission

January 14, 1982

Page Two

(provide a practical basis for classification. To address

this difficulty, UNWXG recommends the adoption of a 'key D -e lisotope' approach to waste classi'ication. Such an approach

should ofter a reascoable solution to the classification

oroblem and is discussed in detail Ln ,the comments.

C Zn ad~dit'on,.the USWG is oa the view that the 10 aCi/g ) limitation on alpha-emitting transuzanic nuclides not only 1 3 uspresents dificulties fro the a standpoint o' detectability,

but is otherwie unjustified. Accordingly, the matter oa /establshng an altesnative limit is discussed Ln the

Attachment:, and a recce^nded approach described.

.rinlally, Ln concludling this let'-or the :LNW.G would

kle to make one additional observation.: The current - t y ersion ot Part 61 appears to contain nothing that would .D- s - F~revent the locatiLa of a land disposal facility at a reactor site. The location of such a facility at a reactor

site could have advantages in certain cLic-mstances.

AccordiLngly, the Commission cay wIsh to acknowledge this

fact ia prcmulga''-q *ue !laal r1ule4 -

Sincerely,.'

-J27 /1

,R.--.. L1. Stantozid

Program Yazaqar

A fbogam Adm~nlste~ed by Cson --Ct= -nsttuta

B-302
ATTACEMMIT

Con=ents of the DNrMG Re Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 10 CR Part 611

Licensing Requirenents for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste

(46 Fed. Rea. 398.01)

-2 .... ,  N - .. .1

Comnents en 'Sunolementary Lnformation

(1) SThe maximum allowable concentration of alpha-enitting

-p. 38,084- transuranic nucl'des, specified as 10 nanocuries per gram

Col. 3 £ 1 (10 nCi/q in the proposed rule, should be increased by at

respectively .

least a factor of ten. The prescribed level of 10 nCi/g

is too low to be technically justifiable and, in addition,

is below the range of completely practical detection and

neastutemnt.

Calculations support a concentration value for the

trench which is nearly an order of magnitude higher than

the proposed limit. See , Leddicotte, G., at al.,

'Suggested Concentration LI-Its for Shallow Land Burial of

Radionuclides' (prepared under the sponsorship of the

Utillty aeste Maxnagenent Group, a predecessor of the MrFAG,

and presented at the Symposium on Wfaste Management, Tucson,

Arizona, Mar. 7, 1979). The specification of l'-its in

terms of maximum concentrations causes difficulties.

-his poLnt has been addressed by others. A maxi-um-toaverage ratio of 10 can be pcstulated on the basis of

- 2 -

NUREG-0456. Conservatively, a factor of 10 for dilution

due to the waste form itself, as well as burial in the

trench, can be used to-arrive at a more reasonable upper

D-5'T -.3 limit on TRU waste concentration of100 nCi/g.!/

Even without considering dilution,:however, the

10 nci/g limitation appears to be excessively low.

Earlier works (Adam, J. and Rogers, V., 'A Classification

System for Radioactive Waste Disposal -- what Waste Goes

Wh'ere?, NCRZG-0456, Jun. 19798 Roqers, V., A Radioactive

Waste Disposal Classification System,' NUREG/CR-IC05,

*/ Camma spectrometry techniques can be used to identify

radionuclides in a homogenous waste sample. Even

the weak garmas can be monitored with appreciable resolution, thus effioeently categorizing the waste

components. Most of the waste generally brought to

the disposal site will have lever concentrations

than the maximum limit for burial, Li a su-vey of

five ma4or cOE sites by Fealy and Rodgers (Eealy, J.

and Rodgers, 'Limits for the 3ur'al of the Department of Ener~y Transuranic Wastes,' Los Alamos

Scientific Laboratory, LA-MR-79-100, Jan. 1979), it

is indicated that 97% of the waste disposed of at these

sites is only lIghtly radioactIve or is suspected of

being radIoactive because of the place at wh'ch it was generated. The authors cite a 9-sonth data base

regarding the 17V content of trash obtained roam the

Plutonium Research and Development Facility at Los

Alamos Scient'fic Laboratory. From these data they estimate that, for a l"alt of 10 nCi/g, a dilution

factor of 20-60 could be expected for these wastes. An average dilution factor of 40 for the waste contents can be used without much argument. Combined with dilt'on in the trench, a total effective dilutien factor

of more than 100 can be assigned for the TRV waste.

Conservat'vely, using a factor of 10 dilutIon, the TRU

waste disposal limit can be easily raised to 100 nCi/V.

B-303
. . - .

-3 - - 4 -

2-5 r-3

Sept. 1979) suggest that. 'c shallow land budal. a

10 nCi/q limitaticn could be raised to 100 nCi/c: or

60 nCI/9. The proposed higher limit has been criticized,

howeve:, on the grounds that it was derived on the basis

of the ICRP-2 lung models the ZCR7-30 lung model is

believed to be more realistic and, therefore, ensure

adequate conservatis3 iA the dose conversion factors. A

comparisonl o: the inhalation dose factors based an ZCM1P-2

and ICRP-30 models, however, yields some Interesting results.

Zn a recet publication by Dun-ing and Zillaugh

(Dunniang 0. and Killaugh, A., 'A Comparison of 2ffective

Dcse Equivalents frcm Th:ee bajo: :zte-nal Dose Compilations ' Radiation P:otection Dcosiatry, Vol. 1. 'o. 1,

pp. 3-9 l98l) estimates of effective dose equivalents

based on ZC3P-2 and :CRP-30, by :Lae inhalation pathway.

are cited. For most tranauranics the Lnhalatizn dose factCrs ale More conservative on the basis of the old ;ca-2

model than the revIsed ;CRP-30 lung model, wit-h the

except'on of Am-241 for which the ZCR2-30 dose factor is

a factor of 2 higher than the corresponding ;C3I-2 dose

factor. For all other aemhers of this group, the ZCRP-2

numbers are conslstently higher. Terefore, conclusions

derIved an the basis of the 2CaP'-2 lung model are valid for

the t-aasuzanics, and the higher th.an 10 nCl/g limit

suggested fo: TRU waste is justified.

-p.

co.

2a sum, 2rmAM believes that the proposed lim"t of

D -. f33 10 nCi/g for TRJ waste is unduly conservative and should

b raised to a: least 100 nCi/g; especially when patentially significant economic gaIns axe considered../

(2) Zn its discussion of waste characteristics and

38 085, classLficat'on, the Commission states that it 'recognizes

the need for a 'de Minimus' classification of wastes,

wastes that would be exempt from Part 61 and would be

considered of no regugatory conccrc and notes that it

'1 be working over the next two years to further defIne

these wastes and to provide for additIonal 'de mininus

exceptions from Part 61 requirements.

UMWaa believes that the establishment of a 'de maLnus'

category of low-:evel waste (LLW), whether upon a generic

or a case-by-case basis, would be extremely useful and

would result in ccraslsrable sav~zgs of time, money and

valuable burial space at disposal sites without any

correspcndiag increase in risk' to the public health and

safety.

We stand ready to offer the C_=oisslcn whatever

assistance we can to facIlItate and expcdite the

Azguments to the effect that an Increase in the

limit would be negated by current li-' tations In

routine measurement techniques are not corract.

Few utility wastes will exceed 10 nCi/Y of TRU,

but proving this generically may be qui:e difficul:.

On the other hand, it can likely be shcwn

that no u:ti:_y wastes exceed 100 nCi/g. Thus,

Lnczaeilng the limit by a factor of even 10 will

consideranly ex-,ed't the qualizIcation o' _tLlity

waste steac s on a gene:rc waste source asIs.

B-304
- - - - 6 -

.establishnent of such a waste category. In this conrection, we would like to call attention two reports which

should aid the cemmission's effort. The first is

D entitled 'Suggested Concentration Limits for Shallow Lard

3urial of Rad'onuclides by G. w. Leddicaet^, et al., and

is cited above in connection with the discussion of

limiting TRU waste concent-ae'on The other report is

AiP/N!S2-016, de minimus Concentrationa of Radioruclides

in Solid Wastes.' which was prepared for the .ational

Environmental Studies Project of the Atcmic Industrlal

* Forun.

(3) The suggested plan requiring that an application for

38,037, renewal of a facility license be suboLtied a* five-year 1. 2 -

intervals, and that a public hearing be offered whenever

such an application is received, is unnecessarily burdensome. The rationale for limiting the life of a license

to five years appears to be that *;e al term for

materials licenses is currently 5 years. ftwever, satisfaction of the regulatory requirements established by

this rile would adequately demonstrate the licensee's

corretence, and should enable the issuance of a full-ter=

(for the life of the facility) license.

Zn addition, the licensee will re-ain under the continting jurisdIction of the NiC throughout both the

operational and pest-closure observation and maintenance

_ 5 Fhages. Thus, the Commission will have a"ple opportunity

for monitoring the licensee's performance and taking

appropriate action -- incloding license revocation (see,

e g., S 61.24(b)) - without the necessity of a formal

license renewal every five years.

Comments on substantive requirement,

(1) r Denial of a license is too strong a sanction against

p. 38,090, an applicant who, perhaps through no more than inadvertence,

col. 3

does somothing at a site which is later considered to be

A .3 *cemmencing constructIon," before a*license has been

granted. An adequate sanction would be to require that

the site be restored to its 'pre-onstruc-ion. condition.

Accordingly, the last sentence of S 61.3(b) should be

eliminated. _ _

(2) ,- Secton 61.7(b)(2) states that 'stability is a

-p. 38,091 necessary characteristic of certainClass A segregated ccl. 1 & 2

waste. From the overall context of this section it is

clear that the requirement refers, to structural, rather

an chemical, stability.-/ Zowever, the intent of this.

sction snould be specIfIed further to avoid any possible

cnfusion.

/ Hequirements with respect to chemical stability

appear elsewhere e q. S 61.36(a)(4).

B-305
' t- ..  , 1.

- 8 -

- 7-

(3) The statement in S 61.13(a) that. 'tflor near-surface

.p. 3a.092. disposal, the S oundwater pathway will 5cnerally be the

col. 3

e% S Signi'icant in terms o' releases of radCoact:vity

ay not be correct ard -- in any event - adds nothLqg

substantive to the rule here. Accrdi-nq'y, it should be

deleted.

(4) Sect'on561.13(b) provides that 'talnalyses o' hee

p. 38.093, protaction of individuals from inadvertent int-asion must

col. 1 include danonstr*t'cn that the waste class'lfcatcln and

sog mat'cn requirements will be e and that adequate

barriers to inadveraent intrusion will be provided.C

(Imphasis added.) What is required for deronst- ratcn.'

however, should be spec''ied in terms of analysis resultinq

in reasonable assurance that waste classxficaticn. seprt- B gatlcn and barrie: req:Uiraents will be tet.

In this general re;azd, the addition to part 61 co

B. they will be met can be presented. Reasenable assurance

is the gene:al standard required.

t5S Again, the words 'demonstration' and demonstrated

-p. 38.094, are used an 55 61.23(f). i) and (j). The requ'zi-ea:s

col. 1 for such denonstration should be spec fied consistent

w:th the approach discussed in ccrmenc n-e:r (4) , above.

(6) r The absolute prohibiticn against chan'ing either the

-p 38 094, facility or procsdures, as contaired in S 61.251a),.is

col. 3 \

too resthictlve. The riizfun requirement Przvidinq that,

in aI' cases, the CommIsa'on be provided wIth at least

60 days prior aotics of any Changes dces not ac::rcodate

the day-tc-day needs o: a land burial operation.

This sectten should be mcdifled to allow modilicatlon.

/ rder certain circunstances, without prior 2Cotiicati:n.

Za this cczianectlon, the provisiors of 10 C.F. . 50 .59,

pertaining to production and :tilization facilitIes,

provide a good pata-rm 'or an approach.

(7) . Tere, again, as in S 61.i(b)(2) the intsmded rean'ng

-p 38 095, ( of th term sitability Ln S S1.44 (ie.. st-ctuwral cm;l.3

sta il ty v. ch--'caC stability) should be clarified.

(See substantvre co=5ent n=mbe: (2) above.) Z' additicn,

the term 'long-term stah'l:ty requiras additional

a section sI'-ar to proposed S 60.oOl. a)(2) (46 Fed. ReSg.

35,280, 35,288). concernirg the purpcse and natuze o'

findings, would be helpful. Such a sect-or could explain

that, while recqirmeents may be stated ina nqualIfied

terms, it is not expect-d tha: czmp~ezn assurance that

B-306
- 9 - - 10 -

(explanation. S', as it appears, the intended reference

is to the period of institutional control, this should be

'..ated. rurther, sonce long-term' is used a number of

(tines in the rule, it night be desirable to include it

inL the definition section.

(8) Section 61.30(a) (6) provides simply that 'Culpstream

-p. 38,096, drainage areas =ust be mininized to decrease the amount

col. I - - of runoff which could erode or innundate waste disposal

-3 _ units.' As stated, the requirement is overly vague and

should be rewritten to limit 'upstream drainage areas'

of concere to those which contribute to general surface

water runoff over the site.

(9) Sections 61.31(a)(4) anid (6) require that covers be

-o. 38,096, 'designed to orevent water Laniltrarion' and -hat the

col. 2 .

disposal site be 'des'gmed to eliminate the contact of

water with waste during storage, the contact of standing

water with waste during disposal, and the contact of

percolating or standing water with wastes after disposal.'

C?-_hasis added.) As now worded, these requirements

would be difficult -- or, perhaps, impcssible -- t: meet.

while eontact of Lrw with water can (and should) be

minimized, there is currently no existing technology by

which it can be proven that all contac with water

has been ccmpletely el'-Lnated. Accordingly, we suggest

that this provision be modIfied to requIre designs such

6 Gy- |§hat contact with water is minimized.

(10) Section 61.51(a)(7) provides that '(tlhe disposal site

-p. 38,096, hsall be used exclusively for the disposal of radioactive

cot. 2

wastes.' We assume that the restriction which this section

imposes coneerns the type of waste (iLe., radioactive

4- waste and not hazardous chemical waste) which may be dis-

-t f posed of at'the site. However, this provision can also

be read to prohibit any activity other than waste disposal

at the site. We suggest-that the section be clarified so as to

specifically provide that the disposal site, as defined, shall

be used exclusively for the disposal of radioactive wastes;

and not for non-radioactive chemical or other waste

material. -

(11) he iealng-of S-61.52(a)(1). which requires that

-p. 38,096, \ reeain types of wastembe placsdin unIts 'suffioiently

col. 2

separated fr-m other units so that there is no interaction

D between them,' shculd be clarIfIed. SpecifIcally, trmm

suggests that the prohibition cn interaction be limited

to that which could reasonably be *xpected to lead to prenature rear-surface land dIsposal system faIlure.

C12) r Section 51.52(a)(4) currently provides that, 'wastes

-. 38,096, ( must be emplaced in an orderly manner that maintains the

col. 3

package integrIty during emplacement and disaosal.' The

.D-s2z- Z.. word 'orderly' should be deleted fr-m this provision.

:t is not essential to -he meaning of the sentence and 'he

B-307
- 11 - - 12 -t

intant of the provision is equally clear without it.

Moreover, iS the word *orde:ly- is not deleted, greater

physical contact with the packaged waste by erployees might

be required to arrange the containers in an 'orderly'

anner. Sncreased handling of the containers would, of

7P-Z 6* course. increase radiation exposure, resulting in a risk

which -- although small -- is not necessary in order to ma-itain package integrity;

(13) As Lt is carzaetly worded, S 61.52(a)5C), which

-p. 1a,096, provides that * vOid spaces between waste packages must

Col. 3

b filled with a-- h or other material to red;:c future

subsidence within the fill, is unnecessarily proscriptive

as to the specific method to be used to minimize subsidence. It can probably be expectsd that reasonable

efforts will be =mde to reduea void spaces. 3weever, this

provision should be reworded to make clear tt its I pr' y

Latent is to reduce future subsidence and, thus, perLit

greater flex'bility in the procedur es which may be used

to ach'eve this goal.

(14) Secicn 61.55 establishes th:ee classes of radioactive

-p. 38,097, wasto: Class A segregated waste; Class 3 stable waste;

Col. 2 3 1

and Class C intruder waste. To avoid possible ccrnusion

El -Depart=ent with of Transpcrtatlon nomerclature, we suggest

-at these categories be designated Class X, Y and 3, rather

tha A, a, and C, respectively.

n addition, the nuclide concentration limits ccntamed In Table 1 do not provide a completely practical

basis for classificaton. Difficult:es wvth respect to

limitations on TRU waste are discussed in supplementary

information cmmeant (1) , above. Further, in many, other

cases, the required measurements would be difficult and,

in scme instances, direct quantifcation may be impossible.

(See, e-g., Draft Environmental ISpact Statement on

10 CFR Par- 61 iceasing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste'a' YURXU-0782. Main Report, pp. 7-23

to -24 Sept. 198l 1hereinafter referred to as Part 61

E:53.)

The MIC has noted that

Cne solution could be to rout:nely measure only those radionuclides that -

can be reasonably and accurately measured

without terribly exensive and sophisticated technques. Concentraticns of

other radionuclides would be scaled to

the measured radionuclides based upon

existing or generator-spec:Sic data.,

Additional measurements would be performed to deter*ine ccncentrations of

other radionuclides if the measured

radionucl'de concentrations exceed given

ac-'on levels. A scre detailed sat of

measurements could be cerformed per:cdcally (e.g., annually or s4miannually) or after a siga'f"cant prrcess change

to upgrade the scaling factors and the

action levels.

. wo radicnuclides which are present in 'WR waste sreams and can be

readily measured by Ga(LU) germ

spectroscopy are Co-60 and Cs-137. In

B-308
^ w.

* v

a ¢

- 14 - - 13 -

the procedure, these two isotopes would

be routinely measured and the concen- tration of other radionuclides estimated

based upon scaling factors developed from either data specific to the facility or from a set of reference scaling factors developed from existing data.

Samples may be taken for analysis either

from (a) the final waste form, or (b) the

waste after any and all volume reduction

but prior to so1idiflcation. If the

concentrations of Co-60 or Cs-137 exceed

certa'n action levels, then other radionuclides would be measured. The action

levels used may also be either based

upon data specific to the facility or from a set of reference action levels

based upon existing data. If the con- centrations of Co-60 and Cs-137 do not

exceed the action levels, then other

radionuclides would not need to be

analyzed.

Part 61 DEIS, p. 7-23; We strongly support the concept of

using key 'sotopes which can be measured externally and

without opening the waste package, but caution that

'act:on levelsO .wich will trigger the necessity of

sam9pling and more extensive analysis be set with a keen

eye to practicalIty.

The table belcw. is taken in part from a report on

the Sarnwell site prepared in 1990 for TVA. This table

Average Waste Crncentratlcns

Buried at Sa3nwell C:n.mred to table 1 Col I

rsoetze Average Cencentration Proposed 10 O; 61 Patio of Actual to

(Ii/g) at Bar-ell -able 1 Col I Alloweble by 10 CM 61

*(uigc )*-

Cs-137 2.21-01 6.24E-1 3.69Z-1

Cs-134* 4.60-02 4.37E4.2 1.05Z-4 r-131* 2.C-01 4.37o+2 4.6CE-4 Co-60 1.4Z-01 4.37Z+2 3.20E-4

Ca-4.5E-02 4.37M+2 LO -4

Cr.51* 1.31-01 4.37E+2 2.!CE-4 Fe-53* 9.21-01 4.37E42 2.1CE-3

4.6M-02 4.37E+2 l.lC_-4 Sr-a9 4.ME-02 4.37E+2 1.101-4

Sc-90 2.ZZ-03 2.5ZE-2 1.2CE-3

Z:-95' 4.6Z-02 4.371+2 l.lCE-4

Ca.141* 4.5Z-02 4.37,142 1.lCE-4

3.4Z-C2 4.37EZ2 7.801-3

Ru-1l3- 3.4Z-02 i 4.37Z4.2 7.80E-3

21 io 6 4.6Z-03 4.374+2 l.lC_-5 T5-99 3.4_-03 1.8 1-1 1.8CE-2

C-14 2.3J-04 5.0CC-1 4.6CE-4

* A1 vith half lives < 5 years

Sofa desity lO0lb/ft3

shews the average concentraticns of a n-ber 'f

isotopes which records indIcate are buried at Barnwell.

These concentrations art compared to the values from

Col. 1, Table'l, of proposed 1i CSP. ?ar5 si. Also

shown are the ratios of *heie average c=rcentaetlons

B-309
- 15 - - 16 -

to the Part 61 concentrations. Itn C be sen hat the

\ 3y isotope which approaches a Col. I limit is Cs-137

(37%). The next nearest isotope is -c-99 (2%), ain

9) - (y_ S isotope that is difficult to measure. No othr isCtope

exceeds 0.25% of the Table 1 Limit, and most (includinq

Co-60) are less than 0.1%. .his strongly sxggests that

the cnlv key could be Cs-137. UNWmG urges that a 'key

isotope' approach to classificaticn be davelcped, asd

stands ready to offer the Cc 3iseion whatever assistance

it can.

further, one of the footnotes to Table 1 states that,

Waste5 conta±:Lng chelatilng agents in concentrations

greater than 0.1% are not peraLtted except as Specifically

approved by the Cormisslon.' The bas'a 'or the 02.1

54 2 8Z Imitation, however, is acleazr and may be so low as to

resent signifIcant diffIculties 'n certain casest such

s those which az'se in ccnnecti:n with the ds5posal of

aste resulting from :eactor System deconte=m-aticn

rojects. This limit should be either 'usti:"ed or

nceased.

(15) 5 . SThe use of the ter2 'stability' in S 61.56(b) should

-pp. 38,097- clarified by referrIng specifically to structural stability

98,1

col. 3 1 (,ee substantive ccoment (2), above) In addition, ClxO1G

respectIvely s concer-ed that the 'S cImit nt 1eC 4 na, ce too restric-

) t especiaLly when ore considers that waste will be

9 cntaineri:ed to at least so-e extent, and will also be supp:oted by surronLad Ilg waste and/or earth. Further,

asphalt, which is genera'!y considered a satisfactory

solidifIcation medi m, may not meet the St lmitaticn.

I! the t5 restriction would have the effect of preclua'-g

the use of asphalt as a waste form, it should be sreoIfically excluded from the requ:emena:

(16) Section 61.59(b) statss that the 'actLve -nstitutIonal

-p 38,098, conr--l programz whIch the landowner Is to cazrr out =ust

includoe 'an onvirtne=slI conitoring program at the dIsposal sLte, anczg other. things. The ule stould provide

5 5 - an indication as to dhat actIvIties are to be included

in such an envizoroental monitoring progrm.' -Z addition,

this section should make it clear that, during the pericd

of institutional ccntrol, the land could be used for other

purposes not Lconsistent with the public health and

safaty and would not disturb the LatesgI:y of the site.

3-310
- 17 - Werner & Pflelderer Corporation

-P. 3

Col.

{17) Conoistert with suggested changes as to the length

is,098, of tine for which a license may be obtained under Part 61

.3

(see substantive comment (3) , above), we suggest that the

_ phrase before the next license renewal' be deleted from

the final sentence of 5 al.62(d). This sentence would

en reads This will yaeld a surety that is at least

sufficient at all ti'-e to cover the costs of cIosu:a of

the disposal units that are ixpected to be used.

1l3) rAiG assunes that the provisions of S 6l.72 pertain

33,099, to participation by potentiallX affected States and tribes.

j and no States and t:ibes in general. This limitatIcn,

however, os not complettely clear. 3mccorednqly, the

section should be modified to re=ove any uncertainty.

-p.

col

',2 . | H! I - o )

tanuary 13, 1982

Seeretarv of the Commission -~~~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaission

1717 H Street 3.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 F 1

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT: Ccnnents to Proposed Rulemaking

Title 10, CFR, Part 51

Licensing ReQulmewits fcr Land 01spcsa1

of Radioactive Waste

Gentlemen:

The Feceral Register$ Volume 45, Number 142, dated July 24, 19al,

invites public comrent to procosed rules regarding Licensing Requirteents

fcr Land Distosal of Radioactive Waste (1MCfR1). As an interested party.

Werner & Pfleiderer Corporation hereby submits to *he Contssion detailed

comments regarding the aforementioned rulemakkng. g

Werner I Pflelderer Is a U.S. corporation which supolies radioactive

waste volume reduc:tin and solidification systems to the North American

market. Our system's Topical Report has been reviewed and acceptted by the

USNRC for reference in license applications for comercial nuclear ^ower

plants. To date, we have sold six such systems to domestic nuclear utilities and one to the stats-cwned utility of Mexico. Several other similar

systems have been sold worldwide by a European affiliate. This business

1s the focal point of our c:rworate activities In the radioactive waste

processing market and Is the reason for our interest in the proposed

rulemaking.

Werner & Pfleidernr Corporation recognizes the need for regulatory

action to establish tecnical standarCs for land disposal of radioactive

waste and welcomes this opportunity to participate in the regulatorj process.

We believe that the proposed standards established by ICCFR61 are a rational

and viable means of protecting the health and safety of the public. We do,

however, have the following specific c=ments concerning elements proposed

in the regulation: ;

...... I..... .... W.\8., "

B-311
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cimaission

Page 2

january 13, 1982

1. Paragraoh 61.56(bl(lQ) Waste Forrt

In an attempt to provide numerical guidance defining waste form

stability. the Comission has proposed to characterize a structurally stable waste form as one which will maintain Its physical

dimensions within S: and its form, under the excected disposal conditions of 50 psi ..... 0. Werner & Pfleiderer Corporation finds

this means of defining stability to be inappropriately restrictive.

Specifically, this definition excludes many therncplastic bincers;

e.g. asphalt. from conformance cue to the fact that a thermoplastic

monolith will gradually creep or flow under a 50 psi compressive

loading. The implication is that compressive strength per se plays

a signific nt role in soil subsidence. Experience shows that suos4dence results from a variety of factors, ncluding premominately

the manner in which waste packages are placed in the ground and

soil backfilled. The Cormission recognizes this in Paragraons

61.52(a).(4) and (5) in which requirements for orderly placement

of the waste and b4ckfilling to eliminate voids are established.

Werner & Pfleiderer contends that with the precautions astablished to

prevent voids In both the ground and in the waste package; iLe.

Paragraphs 8l.52(a),(4) and (S) and il.So(b),(3). volumetric incompressibility of the monolith Is a more acpropriata measure of

stability than pure cmpressive strength. As such, the wasta form

will benave in uch I*he same canner as an Incom;ressible component

of the surrounding soil. ProPer waste placemnt and backfilling

Produces an environment more akin to 4 hydrostatic environment in

which forces (pressures) are in virtual equilibrium. 3asd on the

foregoing rationale and the fact that Lhermcolastic binders offer

significant performance improvements over more traditional binders;

e.g. cement, Warner & Pfleiderer Corporation retuests the Commission

to reexamine the rationale supporting the currently proposed numerical

guidance used to define waste form stability and aCopt a stability definition which recognizes volumetric incompressibility of mono- 1toic waste forms.

2. piriagrh !1.!6(bl.(ll 11Oiosa Ccntairer

Paragraph 61.S6(b),(l) establishes usa of a disposal conUiner as a means to provide stability; i e. confinement and Isolaticn capabiity. Althougn no specific guidance Is proviced, Werrer & Pflaiderer Ccrporation assumes that this is a tacit:recg:nition of the jollity of a hign integrity container to provide Isolation capability. Altnougn this is a departure from previous Comeission philosophny, Wrner I

Pfleiderer Corporation recogn1zes that a high Integrity container

has the potential to provide long-trm confinetent capability. %e

do, however, have some serious reservations regarding hign integrity conitners as they are currently used. For example hMin inte;rity

containers are structurally cesigned to withstand norma conditions

of transport which specifies a mxAim foot drop test. High In- tegrity containers are routinely suojected to trans;or. and handling situatIons where a potential !;pact and/or drop accident could ex- ceed tUe design basis cy a considerable margin. This comoined with

the fact that i;n intagrlt? containers are preCominately used to

contain extremely dis;ersibze waste forms wit1 potentlally h1in

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmuissicn

Page 3

.anuary 13. 1982

(spacific activity, leads us to question the wisdom of the currently established design criteria. In the past. the Coomission

recognized that solidification of waste reduces the potential

2 for dispersion of radioactive materials due to handling accidents. we continue to believe that solidification Is an essential safenonconservative design criteria imposed on high integrity containers. Werner & Pfleicerer Corporation requests the Cmo~ission

to reexamine the design criteria for high integrity containers

for use with highly dispersible waste forms.

We appreciate being given the opportunity to provide comrents on the

procosed rulemaking and look forward to tne Comission's consideration of

Ue foregoing concerns.

Very truly yours,

WEhHER & PflEM8RR CORPORATION

David N. Enegess 8usiness Yanager

Hazardous waste Treatoent Systems

MUE/'dK/gs

B-312
* t 6

-2- January 12, Lill

~ - DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A..

January 12, 1962 'c2 .:%: UJtEACAMV

Serecary of tbo Coeamissoa - Pr d : " V. S. Nuclear legulatory Comis1sion C46 C 51-7

Wshbington. D.C. 20355

Attention: Docketiag-and Service Branch nt::5 F! n

Subjects DOW COMMENIS, P!OPOSZD .zULIZMAKO 10 C I1

.be subject proposed rulemaking was published La :ae Federal legiter oa July 2&, 1981, with che comment period to expire

Oa October 22, 1981. NU1LZG-0782. a draft environmental

impaec stateent, vsas refertnned to provide guidance and

oupporr to 10 CU ,1 however. MXlZG-0782 bad not beem

published. Dow comments on propose-' rulemakiog 10 CY% 61

are dated Septetber 18, 1981, and were submitted to che

Co mission with a cover letter dated October 12. 1931. The

cover letter states that additiomal coeetics 7ill be sub2icted as necessary and as opportunia:es arise.

The Commission bat exended4 the cousiec period for 10 CT 1eo

co JanuarT L&, 1982. Dovwreceived SIUlEG-0732 oo OccobaL IV,

1981..and a draft S3ranchbechnical Position C3TP on Waste

Form daced October 30, 1981. Addi:tonal. Dov comomena are as follows:

n pages L. 5, o, asd 7 of che cometsOc dated September 183 1981, Dov stated concerm that 50IG1-07S2 zaf be placing too

m ouch emphasis oan pathway analysis a:d overlo'oklit Cte coactpts of ALARA and best available technology and tiaorIng

needs sh and btJec:ivaes of assuring proteetioa o: :to

workars. Coe leseral Population. *ad the env:oazeac durL=T

the operation of che disposal tactlcy.

lavtev of 17l2Z-07!2 has co*firmed tha: the coocarn it alid

and justified.

3-? oa 7aste Form

Dow consents dacod November 25. 1931. were submitted :0 S.r. lobert X. Browning. Deputy Director Division of Vstco

Ihanagement. Copies of :he ST.? an Dow comments are atCaC2ed.

?laase coasider :hem as part of the Dow commnacs oa IJ .71 ol.

*. ~e~rz. ur c~e n oew c>"e.A cn ^ ' -

.. ._ . -... _ -. _ :. .

(Dow approciaes the opportunity to comment on 10 CT! 61.

-J Sbe Commission aov has suffceltntech nicaal iaforsation aIo

'D SS~J.- experience to jusctify esablishe and emforce etc of regulatory standards cod technical criteria for the proper

disposal of radioactive wastes. Dow encoureges the

Commission to take Lmmediace ections on 10 CT! 61.

Sincerely,

.B. Owen

Group Leader

Nuclear 5 Solidificatioa Services

317-636-3388

fo -

Actachmeac

5-313
hr. loasrt E. 3rowning Sovemoe Z5, LYSL

DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.

Noveaber 25, 1951 ANz 6AOCATCAY

"s rat 50.

hr. lobetC E. Irouming

Depucy Director

Division of Waste dnaagemetC

Office of Sutlear material

Safacy and Safeguards

U. S. Nuclear Z4gulatory Commission

UashLngtdan D.C. 20555

Subjects DLAZt BLANCH UTCINICAL POSZSOSOS-US WASWE FOB

Dear Mr. Browning:

Dow has treviewed Ch subject draft lruuc2 Technical Posicioa

(ATP) dated October 30I I9S1. Dow Ls Sa complete agreement

that Caere LS a nead cor the $uclear legulatory CoQaLs3io

(SIC) to provide guidance on accepcable forms tor sctoilizod

wastes. SIC should expedite the Actions ancessary co

establish an4 enforce regulat*o7 standards and ctcacncal

critcria for proper disposal of waoCes catacre agoi4g

genarated end disposed zo4ay. Dow appreciates Cho opporuanity to review and coamana on tooe SP prior to its o4G:g

LIssued.

Specific coamencs are as follows,

Cover Lector

tc is noted that April 582 Ls ta target daze to?

Completing the evaluation of cat need suw oDa~s tor

iacluding a ainimun acceptaole loacn race. Dow suggoss

that an additional target date of no later taon July 1184

be established for iLcluaing Such criteria ia cut 5.l.

A. Introduction and S. lacktrouno

TAsse sectiocn constin scatemens or P7iloSo7Py. policy.

or hiscorical fact that Dow unders:ands. Speci:ic conMesa: are limited to cno cetails in tae following sactions.

C. RetuIstor? ?osltion

L.a. Minimum conpressive strongta of aO psi appears to

be reasonanle wee: the 4oormal anicipacro dopct ot

tna trancn, dansitr of wastes, density oa :at

fill, movement of equipment. and similar factors

are considered. AST? C39 is a ceconically souna

*ad generaIly accepted CeSC for natmraining

compressive strength of coacrete. Rowever, cement

waste solidification technology normally produces

a product with compressive stcreagth ot a few

hundred psi &ad occasionally a few caousaad psi

and Dow aolidfitatcion cechnology produces a prcuct with compressive scrongta In tas rango of

1I000 co .3,000 psi. Herdly sCAring a minium

strength of 50 psi for Gitaar of cteae conanologies could result in a unusual and cucre-ora

possibly unstable waste form.

Dow suggests that compressive Atteng t oa spec- ified as 101 wirn a minimum of 50 psi wana Car&e

or note sa7ples are tested in accordance wita AS.;X C39.

l.b. ZEposure of :Ae samples co a manlaun of log 3s40

is realistic when compared to cae astes being

generated and disposed today. esistcance to

degradation caused by :&aiation effects can only

be measured by decercmining Cas dmpressivt

strength before and after exposure.

Dow suggescs tnat the 3.P specigy chat compressive

strength of three or aore samples is to se 4aterien Defacore and after irreciaciun. Variation La

conpressive straenth saoul4 not exceed -25Z Vitn A

maianai of 50 psi.

l.c. ASTX 021 and AST: C2Z are cecnnicaly soun4 ann

generally acceptea ctsts fot decteaminig g:owca os

fungi and bacteria. Sy stating 'o iandia:lon or

culture grow.a snould ne visiole' SIC 4as aesumac

that LI Caere is no culture grot:a Caere will ae

no biodegradat:on. Dow agrees vica catn assumpcion and has no furzeer coasent.

1.d. Dov has no ojecCions co cat use of ASS lo.l for

leach cesctig. As previously &tacten Dow s4uSgsts

that SIC expedi:t escablisaing a nininun Acceptable leca race An LAcluding sucn criteria ia

the 'P.

I.e. lssistance to degracation ay Immersion in water

can only oe me&Sured Oy uctermiling cte compressive

scrangth b*Sort and alte: laastsLon.

Am COMA1O we? OP ?"a Dow c..eWA"6 t0WDSI'

B-314
Mr. looort C. Bravaing Noveomer xS, t981 Mr. Robert 1. srovulat IYavamoer 15, 19ol

Dow suggests that the oTP specity chat compressive

strength of three or more Samples ia .o De deterained before and after Immersion in leatantas Specified La A*S 16.1. Varitlion in compressive

streangt snould aoc exceed *25% vict a *nimium of

50 pIC.

I.f. Telepoose discussion vt:a Mr. Zmoetay C. Joanson

o: your oflice mad confirned ctac tre reaereace co

AST. 1355 uas ia error ana soula save oean ASCM

1553.

The number of cemperacure cycles is not cerileo In

ASTX 1553. Stating a numaer. of eycles to reprasaet a specific vaste would oovicusly aepend upon

the geograpDiC loCaCtin of cto gene:ating and

disposal sites a* well as toe specific storage cau

transport cties and conditions.

As vith exposure to ocher conditions oegraoatloo can

be measured only by determining toe compressive

strength before and after exposure. Dov suggestcs

-tbat NRC select voich ASTX 1553 Service ConDition

is to be used and specifyitns caree or more

samples are co me cested before and after exposure

to five cteperature cycles as definaec in AS;M 3539

*ad that variations in compressive etreaotca Imuld

not exceed .25-wi:h a *nanlu:&of 50 psi.

.g.. Dow agrees vitC toe etnod or easurng tree

liquid as spec'fiedtan ABS 55.1. Appenoix X.

Dov recogniz:e tuat the vorcnagin Appendix S,

'There snall be no free liquid vismlea flowing or

d:ipping from :he breach.' results in a proolem or

definition and titerpretaction. however, toe NBR

attempt to define 'o free liquid' as lass casn

one percent Is excessiva. unnecessary, &ad cea

possibly result in acceptance of unstaold waste

forms. Cement and Dov.solIdItfiction ceeanologies

have demonctraced cue ability to roucinely produce

solidified products vi:h suco less czan one percent f:re liquid.

Dow suggescsrchat 31C include cbe reference to

Appendix 2 ia cte ITP and specify toe limit on

free liquid La terms of both percent ane a maximum

volume per -ontainer Come percenc not Co exceed

one gallon per container is not n:::cul:: to coansistently achleve vita titner ceaeac or Dow

technology).

I.b. Dov agree vith the pailosopoy expressed my tols

paragraph but suggests that there are aetaods to

obtain samples of tae largest anticipeted tullscale vaste products other than sectioning or

coring.

Dow suggsdts Cest this paragrapa me expanded to

Include obtaining representative samples by

sectioning or coring after solidification or by

obtaining representative samples after tna adaicloa of all solidification components out prior Co

solidification.

I.I. Dow egress wict tais paragrapo but suggests roe

previous wording that compressive strengtn me specified as ±10% wich a minimum of 50 psi.

2. Dow suggests cata NBC specity how radiation degradacion is to be measured. The cest setmod snoulo

specify limits on factors such as gas evolution.

compressive streagth of the ion econges mesas,

and Telease of the radionuclides.

3... Dow agrees with the minimum deligo liretiae of 300

years.

3.b. Dow agrees that corrosive effects or noto tco

waste contents and the burial Trouan environment

Should be considered. NRC should mate It clear

that che design must demonstrate Coat togse

effects must not Saorten the minimum lTertie ot

300 years.

3.c. Mechanical strength to vItastand a load equivalent

t d. to 35 3oec of aterial having A nensity ot 1tO

lbs/ft p1ces directly oan te cop surface of cat

container is roughly equivalent to cue minimun 50

psi compressive strength of the soliditioe waste

foram. 3gh Integrity containers containiag unsolidified waste mixed wito couctainers of waste test

have been Solidified vito eitLer cenent or Dow

Solidification technologies will nave less

compressive screaogt and therefore ma less sCaol*

tha tche surroundins wastes.

NSC should specify neebanical scrength equlvalenc

to or greater to.a weases soliaified vita eitter

Cemene or Dow technologies an tcae metood to me

used co confirm tois design mcreogcf.

B-315
Mr. Robere F. 3CovatnS 3-5 .oveabar 25. 1*51 XM. Roberst . 3rovning -o- November 25. lsdl

3... DoW agiree With designing mechanical streagta

based on creep Ctas data. " su*Aouln specity tCa

method co be used to consirta tes design stretzh.

3.f. Dov AgreeS Ceat thermal loads s:oa processing,

storage. transporting, ad aurial should at caosidared. H&C should define these caermal loa4a

and ota mechod to oa used to Caonirm caac tn. alga

Integrity contaner vill &eet or exceed thne.

FlIss nave ocutred during transportation Ana ia

burial grounds. Dow suggests CAt, xao specify Cae

coancaners musc be tested and ameC tne criteria

of 49 CF1. L73.J9S(a).

3.g. Dow agrees tcat radiation scaDility aae oSio44ga-

* b. daclon properties should be coasideren. SIC

should specify the li-ts a*a4 cesc ataoods for

chese characctrlstics as was.tlscusseu in

paragraphs C.l.b. and C.l.C.

3.t. Righ integrity containera must De Capaole o:

meeting the requairsetac or 4T CiF 173.3Sd(o).

The fie. drop cttc La 10 CJ1 71 Appendix A. is a

masxium of four feet vaile the anga incegrity caoCalmer may be dropped a aaiknua os 10 fast

(aasuming the Ctuce bad is aoouc four feec asove

the ground and the shippian casx Ls six feet call)

and possibly a naxsium of about oS feet to tce

botco, of the eapty ousial creach.

Dow suggests ctat XBC Saould specify c4&C "ig:

Integrity containers nust szeat oe requirements os

41 CJ. 173.3V8(a) lacludiag cae 30 Sooc drop ctst.

once again, Dow appreciates the opporcuitCY to reviev and

commant oan the 3P. please contact me Li nifcueaioo of our

coaneacs is desired or Dow can be of further asscstance.

Sinceraly,

:. . Gwen

Group Leader

Nuclear & Solidification e:rvices

517-636-3388

£o

3.j.

& k.

Dov agrees with Ceos coadictioas.

0. tn2lementation

Dow agrees With the philoasopy aen pollc7 os this secoan. As previously stated NRC should expedite iss4':g

the 3TP and immediately start and expedite acctons

toctessac to establish and enfoteS regulatory saAnar:s

and technical criteria for propar disposal or wastes

that are being generated and disposed COC-J.

B-316
^ F;@: t

MICOLE SCUTH SERMVC5.1NCJeCXMCCCOONEW 3RLEAN!3.LA.7016flib(Sb4529'-.i2.

Jamazy 13, 19%

.- *-2.

Setaz of tbe : !t.2s*

U. S. eoaeer Pteeulatory, Crssicn

. . C. 2053.

A Wts kctLM rd afserlics lrazu~h

S r:T .Wtsn the P :oTsel Pnle C=-.?1i t!e "Lcsrsi-4

PaquraMt ftr ta'. -spcsal of Padloactivei Nast

4' FR MCCl-

.fse =m=Ms ars 9tittei ai bthalf of M'i-=n ftith Serries, *xc. (Ce53 Li Cner--Ln wit' t'. aboe v st ble= ratter. ; is a tsclrdoso eri aed r suC crZ?.

ftr the #de coutr, Lilitiee Tun f'SM, A.ich serves the electrioil ve- r~s dre-

.4t. of a:XOstel 1,6M.c,0 cust=xS in ptA-cm of A.Xcsnsa. tosiasm, 3iss.s3s9

aid MiSSmui. -A %W Svsty has tive rolear urAis ard. th*efors, is c er-Al with th1

dvm1c75&t ard L-Vlwuotir. of the ymroscf rtles.

Ms ha MS41elS . ti rii lit*Os in tse a.W S ict of LOl -ver the last

f*S you-S. fts o.irrwe r-le. as prosu. ci, r ta a rte f LOf

arir d'~wises -a the 'S = its :O:i cmz effrt cs w'arts

.f .tr fr veito - r, YSS cr--,,es 'ave a fo ars.mL rnern opver txe lat.

a . -- i2 s s oste ard the cmvrab 4 "ty Of waste secantien accr-!im

*e oense hable 1.- Ue also eevee -'at otr prisLrs of t!-a orposmf rle C=

me _ *e unavailabilit-P o! r rs, we e r= able = '_vtte -?h Aetailed .-

.ro en t- sef role t*iAt we wul have kacd Uf -o-ril. Zn this rear1 we have

zaro oieoed in cmn-ts erated b-y te Xtd Li-6-s-rial rtam r.Ii-iy 'llresr

fe mcst Or u ace - sL r t! rems thAt are to be su !: ittv4 by thIm. he

S:lc.leposecilfo cHreio are V*Mit-w! with rsa o the * ise re:laticns..

0~e "L - ?ase Massificati_

-M5S arre -th the Cmissien t-at there L a row'. ftr a "a crf olssi"'tt-=

owastes that ofuld be e-et !rm thu 10 =-.. Pt OM rsoulations. *hr belie that ths

is issue o' -racor L-pora rc., ard we -' the C:rr.isslin = establish Lassi-

!icatim in as short a t& frera as cessible. lo Aate. to types of wastes, -,_-=-3

ard Cer l-s1 Iave been rmvi f.i reulatimn s lActive . 4.tea, tier or

e-ra L; , 10 t:R 2i..3CA. -e helim tha t this raoulaticn establses a 'zof roeil

r h. Claszf ftetc. It ,ald be lor to troma tS zPmtrat Ilfe cf Vdstim er a wy 1'-r le sit- wit warstes that ould be 'Viioserl Co at ial xlJ vaste 'Lsal fseality weon afta.erim hra.. heali!t or the n7 ..

5i_,%C 5' rv09.,Ne_ . A XRWXAAS CWV- I L.- CreSN r* L.-T 0laU A . wem

' f.tr- M5!== w * SIFIngstpm McWfsx & _. -MAIY * N. Oew CPULLIN : GA Li1

ecretary tf the Cmissimen

Jawuary 13, 1902

?age -2-

e s 1i.27 of t.'e g We. rem latiem discusse te a'e~imaticn fbr a liceme

reneal, V ithe piretrble (46 PR 3qZI7), it is sun;este1 thAt lUoses ?u re very

fIve ea-s. w' belirve -hst dhis rwr ire!*rt earat be jstifiei. 'e to S!ecrtin

|1.53 (4), an eswirnmal rctori p.-.r.; est be Tajinaijei t~rLq t*a lard disofsal

facility sits tricten ams oerati'n. Also the oft !!5S, voltre 2, lists a -nrber of

extensive rzort t'at rust b, i:Lrta-.ed at the site. these iLlulst (1! Persorel

Ux-eowsuxst |lltse (2) reaeirt ard dispsal rec sr (3) Praoyrml t rirt r-'t 14'

I?=ds fo=m the O.ality Assurce mrnai (5) bTiL=reental ronitorq fatar (A)

CzeratiL . d - a.id (7! 'Ac~ts of sits surmeillanee and mnirizm (_. 3-35). re

a licensee has eb mir*1 his License he has drnstrial eniane with all. t th

re|uirsw" L-n 10 CO PFst 61. The Cm-mTssion retiL-. auttority over --e liensee Amrl

|r:ertim art idst-onerticn, aid thnvct its insaoo etn ae '-rc nt I Ls able to

I ditcr the ctivitiem at. the dCissal site. ObesRfore. a fiva -tear liowqee rwAw&l is

=m4uftly tuze-rso . 's rtomteir t'at .tsl-te= licenses tb issei.

giast. 'Prtcw t

m.e en 1..53. (a)(7) sota' that, '(iei.sdsl site *sal to used moiusi',aly for

iDiso-osal of ra ca , wastes.1 Ult-o it ,oqsz that the lmuslc rtefrs to *'Ma

I1 tvoe of wtsam (i.e., F-on vs. rad activel, it ouId also siL-srored tr re-nib

/Ftht c isoosal ard nt tr nt._ of wasrtd oe _ en d'i. Si rt the

orsf LtaL-.ttrat er t her oLa reu.tin e-,.nt at the fiiarsl site. * M

*a.e that the resmilatiers Ie &a.f=4d I acoTceate vwaste tzats.t

J);S is f r.o athe d s t = wseA oateccrirtic-n O* Aste hI reiiisoenoe corei-- D--;4 -. ttion plaw ant werlw!v -= e'y 'ur'.en on t:.Z qLnelwtrs. 4t

wastts are crPcse! of a o-immre Of v u lotoes at varjioim cmiseratior aid it

unuld VA ertr--mty diffiout if not frTossible to semerats an! oats-r-r eur Wastes

a!t -o-em; tm Tab1e 1.

B-317
SmcutWr Of the Cisaizzi

Jaruazy'U. 1992

"g -3-. Sectretary of the Cmmission

JanMazy 13. LQA2

%age -4-

j~~ ereqdranzatS e tt ' La Section 61.3(b) are unr~tcamary. tie &re rnt adAvoauM

I ti ~ari~trs~uaticns. Fftwevar, we U~dnk it O=Lld to at t.'m discretion of tuA

Ip-opactive Uice-a wheth~er to cmw~ c~mt xict4 bat=* receipt of tka iU

1o4rtiglcec,. We ti-eratcre recotome: tiat, -61.3(b) be Mla.ted L= its a=ndrew.

Since thA stablity of tbe wastes aof waste sit* are very irttr-tant !A --he cli, ii

aict~ai yiwt. of Lbese reuLatlins. we feel tuet tIe t.= "stabilityv 5.'Kuld 3,. bettar

eore. %mny L:nstancs the text stucturel stability,- is used. Ieas thdis man

" a s-ruct_=., 9hytical. szuctumv. ex bet%? Mn --,A p:r*&-Ls (t48 pt 3"i, a desenition Ir suability is givei AS =cwvts

a)-t-e Z the eats) shouLi ra Ita its co±iqu~tion sad Cr=sizte=

a1 oecthbe caitLoce it was e pAdl = aftar !d.SpZSA.I.

' savazy aci7.AMS d4&Wfioitior sic tere are a mrt~r of coniticzs Cormiyscal,

^.iel.A' biological) th-at wla weste ray be exposed tO &!--a ble.Al.

AIW. La Secticzt 61.7(b)(2) whers Clavs. A 1scrsatcd 9e~stwe.fcor*Lst_4 crfraxfly at

nsal. tz-sh b tM~ wast"s) ax, dLSCU3saef. it is sratud tihat Lf ~4X- wit.11 h5±qer

ActiLvity wests. .!-Air' d atriorati=a - d Isaf to !.Iure Iof In syste. an'. c*=.L- witatr

to permtrate ---a OisPOsal, uit...-. cr=o aq&Ln. does tie ta .fetsrforatic reen Ekls

Cal ~cmvctct. dwrtcl fe9cMV, a ca:birAticx% it bath? is c3hink It w:=ld be Ueloutl if

secticrc eoliits -den 

vaictioin 5L.25(a) does not &Llcw any cha.ajqs in t!bs lso di4smosaL ftacilit or

des='-'Ad in tibe License ampLicaricr 4r.'ht crier ortificitin to ti,. Co-d~s-

~ s~ o eb el veV t%&,.a ChanqaS are. -Cd _i CAtLor.S abeu A i .o. i * tct o to

.Ssio in a tinely raswmar.

2.eci n 6 . l a ( ) s a s 3At (t),e e "s t= ' sits nust be taaiSnaf

t c ~ ~ f w a a i i e t. z'i st o a g ,.. d a sa l, sa d ... a f a r e is p osa l.

-s ir e .cx ~ a . s arta vm 3-s .CZf- ±nIA -in , is S~titi=tsd. tt - "a l be ~vta lzr ai3 ssi .al ~ anc sto te Vmt t--' d3esign of a disposal sits would. cm tibee

Concluzsion

We wouli one suan L1k. to carmazd the C7nission fr the wecr tbey bave 'one- tbes

far in strivix; to pravie definitive reguiaticm for low-level radicactive waste dilsp-osal

facilities. lefnarally. we enppr t3-e Fvposaf rv~-.Latioma. WHe believe thet it is ver-y

1amrtat U3-At. tIeA Cz~rissioxi estabLish a de5 mrnfrtm' clasification of wastas Lhat are

exanrc fonx LO CR NPt Ail as ~ax as ;osslb.l .. la sraxy. Lthe rot sicroificant d'uaoes

we ,culii ±Ic to see c.Lin tie prqopsmd rsuujations incioude foil-'ta= licernses for

di~sposal, 5-41 ties; the inclusion of ,Ast. treasrent: t~he ali'-dxaticn cr Lxrcovverxt of

.a3bl. I which catascrizes dat accordI.- to reladoLsartzjc cotoratratizns: exrd ul

eaemen~t of ;txramm reniirnnemtz that do not. *' '- soy -rsccaian activity, cior to the

issuance of an oPUratim Licens.

Ue wish to thArJ thm Co-r~ision ftr t3-A cromtzmitv to P:1dt t-hese c=ocms sad .e

hoot that Lhxfu w I±3 be heLfls Li yco forti.s~r AeLibezratiom er.nLxq ths Pmormei

reg,1laUins

c i Cr.. D r. 'ilbe

fOr. TI *. SchrAtz

8-318
; {- @- * 88.

PHITIIflST irnrrinis I'-III

111F51 I lIEU I I LILT I

C0O 60 077 . cTcr 80

e(eoe CCPG 5T011 w5

-2-

Ja uary 14, 21

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

Secretary of the Co=ission v. S. Ntuclear Regulatory C-ission

Vashington, DC 20355

Attention: Doecketeng and Service Branch

190 4

I...

References

Dear Sir:

Proposed Changes to 10 CTR Parts 2, 11, 20, 21, 30,

40, 51, 61, 70. 73 and 170, Federal Register pages

38, 081-38,105, dated July 26, 1981.

blRC Prooosed Rule on Licmnsint Reguirecents

for Land Disoosal of Radioactive Waste

Northeast ttilities Service CopanyT, on behalf of Nfortheast Nluclear

Tnergy Company and Connecticut yankee Acoic Power Company cocnends the

CoIssion oan its work to date regarding land disposal of radioactive

wastes. Uhile the oteice of Proposed Rulemaking represents a signift- cant improvement over earlier drafts, the present version still requires

additional- odifications to ensure that disposal of low-level waste is

accomplished In a fair and equitable manrer.

lortheast Utilities' subsidiary companies, respons'ble for the operation

of three nuclear power plants and the part owner of five others that are

either operating or under construction, has a vital interest in providing

for the safe and efficient disposal of nuclear waste. As such, we believe that all rules must have a sound basis and that arbitrary,

capricious rules have no place In federal regulations. With these

thoughts in mind,- we offer our comments on the proposed rule and the

accompenying "Draft Znviroweental Impact Statement" (NURG-0782) for the

Coemission's consideration in development of the final rule for land

disposal of radioactive wastes.

SnCSTFC CODTS

i. Paste Stabilltv Reoutrement

Paragraph 61.7(b)(2):

As it is rot possible to reduce #aer ac:ess to zero the phrase

2) 5 5 'elim naced or' (IL-it 6) should be deleted. Furthermore, 'stabilit)

of the waste and the disposal site" needs to be clarified as to whether stability of the disposal sIte refers to its operational

phase or the stabilization for zite closure. the latter of which,

according to paragraph 61.7(c)(2), would not be required until

disposal operations ert about to cease. I _

'". institutional control is relied on for periods up to 100 years

to control access to the Closed site. This permits the disposal of

Class A segregated and Clasz I stable waste without special provisions for intrusion protection, since these classes of waste

contain types and qentities of radioisotopes that will decey

I donn the 100-year veriod to levels that do not pose a danger to |pulic bealth and Safetv. (e 7asdadded) t.' 

This paragraph appears to support the numerical values of ealImu permiLssible concentrations listed in table 1. Eovever, paragraph 51.56(b)

states:

D-Sb > "-...The requiremaentrin this setion are Intended to provide etabrlity of the waste for at least 150 years. Stability is intended to ezsure chat the vaste does not degrade and provote slumping,

collapse, or other failure of the disposal unit and thereby leoad to water Infiltration. Stability is also a factor in limiting exposure

to an inadvertent intruder, since it provides a recognizable and

nondispersible waste.. .

There is no juetifieation for providing "stability" for 150 years when

the vaste does noe pose a dtnger to public health after 100 years.

Therefore, we recommen that the vaste stability requirement of paragraph

61.55(b) be changed froe 150 to 100 years to be consistent with paragraph 6L 7(b) (4) .

.3) 5 This.- paregrah needs eo clarify whebter heh ifigh fotegrity Container

/(SIC) alone vill neet the stability requirnenez for Class C wastes.

(i.e. 500 year stability requireent)

aragraph 61.14

Burial trenches that contain only Class A waste, which according to C..- 6 paragraph 61.55(a) are not required to be stable, should be excluded

from long-term stability requirements of paragraph 61.414.

Ciaramph 61.50(a) (5)

° 3 " The terns "coastal high-hazard areas and "wetland" should be defined.

Peragriph 61.52(a)(3)

The ter "cover" should be clarified as to whether it includes an imperrious cap. I. &E41-1

B-319
-7- -aNorthaast Utilitis- believes that the conditions for facility construction, B- ~) operation. closure and license Transfer must be specified and agreed

upon at the outset by the Licensae. A public hearing will be held at that time, if requested. for public input to the process. Subsequent to

license issuance, the hIC sbould monitor and inspect the activities at

the facility to esure they are in conformance with the license. On- foteseen events can be accommodated by amending the facility license.

Further participation by the public is mot necessary to ensure the

facility is being operated properly. The prospect of repeated public

hearings every five years to consider continued operatico of the facility

io totally unnecessary and must be eliminated from the final rule. A =ore apptopriate and effective oversight would be provided by assigning a

U11 tine %RC inspector to a disposal site.

Addituonal Com ents on lOC7T61

\Tile of Proposed Rule:

e I lt is essential for the public to begin to distinguish berveen high FED level nuclear wastes which will require disposal in geologic repositories and low-lavel waste which, under 10 CM 61. will be permitted to be disposed of in shallow lsnd burial sites. Jurthernore, the act P.L.96-573, which gives authority to states to establish regional con- pacts and for which 10 CT7 61 will be a -ajor guideline is, is titled the "Low tevel Radicactive Waste Policy Act" (emphease added). Therefore.

we believe that it is entirely appropriate to change the title of the

proposed rule to "Licens5ag Requirements 'or Land Pisposal of Low-Level

ioactive Wastes.'

Paragraph 61.59(g)i

9-^ C. g The 100 year institutional control period should be easanded for as t long as the governing body exists. This would extend the surveillance period and protect against site intrusion until the governing

body determines the sits could be reopened to the public.

Parasgraph 61.62l();

* J 2 "Pay as you go" surety requirements for closure should be permitted.

as opposed to surety bonding for an entire site.

eceral Cornent on Oraft Environmental ;-=act Stattser:t 0UREG-0782)

The CGonission should indicate how the adequacy of quality-scaling

factors (used to estimate nuclides not readily identifiable) will be

determined.

(Geneals Couneces on 10 C1R 20 ?rowosed Chen~es

C6d- Z. E tics should be provided as to when the Regulatory Guide on clessificatioc of radioactive waste will be available. In the interim, guidance

ahould be provided regarding classification of wastes as required by

(Perag:.ph 20.311(d)(3) and (f)(5):

M-2 7he degree of implementation and criteria for the quality assurance

progrgas required under these paragraphs should be indicated. We

would also recomand that the tern, "quality assurance" be changed to "quality control' so as not to be confused with the quality asusranc requirementrs of 10 CPR 50, Appendix 3.

Should you have any questions regarding our comants, please feel free to contact us.

Very truly yours,

%OGREXST UTIl.SZES SERVICE COMAzb

W. G. Counsil

Senior Vice President

By: J. P/ Cg e

VicePsesident ,pclear and

Environmenta l ngineering

B-322
H

Nudecr Monitoring Systems

& Manegement Corporation

Januezy 11. 1992

AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DMSIO

'2 .J ;15 ai [? f.: ;;

KQ2

Wt.,flt*

,*..9 ......... .. N.... e... A .......

January 12, 1982

Samuel J. Chilt. Secretary

Uolt: States Nuclear Regulatory Commiesr

Vashnagtou, DC 20553

N

- r i.-i

.2 r - -Z11-

c. .* -;Z J

. A 38of1) F 

Secrctar; of the CzmmisSion -.

C.S. 0ruclear RequlatorM C*r=ssion : ;

1717 Y Street N.W. _._

D. C 2It 20333 (q-qcn. 

Dear Sir:

: Endlesed LA A docuent prepared by this comny whicc addrasses

1) our concerns over

Lid

2) cur ruecmndations for cdnqet In

the zrpoasd :rles end r*7m]Atios of the W..C. (r.R. Title IC, ?aru 51, dated

July 24, 1981).

:a this docccen, we propose a xyitea' solution to the pr blom of *lovovol ' c waste disposal. This syxtema solution Icel-des,

a landfill Ln which the vest majoriry of *lov-lvel wastes would

be dispsed of via shallow land burial.

and

2) a mnitored, retrievable storspe systen (such as our prorosed

SI!r1 *ov-LeV-l rscillty) for t:e small percentage of those

*lov-level- wastes which would Pot qalidy for shallow land

burial under the final rules and renlatieons of the N.A.C.

Except for the specifd references to ?.sas. the contents applr to every state and, for tehs reason, we thoeuqh you mhI.t oppreciate the opporrt=uity to examin. and evaluat, this docuent from you. vcntage point.

I!

Re.: tltcsing Uqaulresa-ts fr Land Disposal

of Tow-Level Ledionctive Paste

*6 red. let. 380I1. 7/21/11

Dear Secretary Chkt

Inclosed for your consideration La the above referenced Setter is the

Statemeuc of the American Yuclear Society's Tuol Cycle and Vasts nange- rent Division egardilng Its comments and recommendations thereIn.

.he Commission Is o be commended for its further Improvements in this ares and it-is our hope that full consideration wlll be liven to these

additional recomundtieons.

7ery, truly yours.

Winston 7. Uttlo. ?hD

Chairman

Sincerely,

MUqLZ~AR MCH n m?5l 5YS-~.-S a

touis A. Galloway, ::.., 7.!.

Executive Vice ?residenr

Corporae -ecnoloVy

VW.z ea

xct C. Rickard t. Xenning Nuotting

y. Normm

L. 0an

C. X. Anderson

0. J. Dulemple

J. eelssn

AhS Executive Ccommitee

-0' :-TI.VA&<WU' - V

_:: ,X e-ec, * %L. e:- * -7:^'ws~:~*----:

9-323
H AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

555 North Kensington Avenue. LaGrange Park. Illinois 60525 USA

Talehoes 21311 35Z-641I Tel#. :2S463

.z .:' 1 7 ' : . ACM10.tEGEYT

The enclosed cm~nrs vort prepared and revieved by

Amierican Nuclear Society ne-bers of tce Fuel Cycle

and ';este mtnagaOenc Division.

CCKiS OF

MEL cTcUZ AiD WA5Z 1tAtAS2I DIMSIO1

OF ;?E

.l.9flCAN NUCLEAR SOCZZT

0C 1ROPOSS IULZZ

FOR

LICENSSYG iLir'Y.=rS FOR '..D DISCSAL

OF LADIClCSOM ';ASS

A6 Ted, le9. 380C9 (Jul7 tC. 1981)

(to be codi'ad at 10C.F.i. P:: S:)

:IU£5 R. mm1

Attorney for

Americaa 3uclear Societ7

555 N4orth leensiz-gt Avenue

La Graep Park. llinois 60525

Talaphonei (312) 352-6611

8-324
I . - .

TAit- Or cemyrs I. DsTcDcr.cs

Pate

1. I. OnTcDUcnION ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ c.C . . r 0~

A. The Artricsn Yuleaar So.e:

3. 5e:pe of A=er±:an Nuclear Society ?uv ew . . .

1

II

rI. kemfS A n. nxC0A7 C( C.. ..... .2.. . .; . . .. ... 2

:''. CONCCUSIC4 ........................ 10

A. The American Nuclear Society

The American luclest Society. an international organization of

engineers and scientists, nev in Its 28th year, is a nonprofit

scientific, technical, and educational organization. JMtS cur- rettly has an individual nenbership of oear 13,000 and Is governad by Its officers and a Board of Directors elected by the ind-wtdual enmbership.

o earry out its purpoie, ASS hai 17 separate technical divisions.

The objective of each division Is to provide means for furthering

the science, engineering, end ar: of that branch of scientific

discipline. The discipl'-es range from those related to nuclear

paver - such as nuclear fuel cycles, vaste nanagoment radatioan.

protection and shielding, reactor safety, and reactor operations -

to other disciplines, such as controlled nuclear fusion. Isotopes

and radiation. environmental sciences, and alternative enargy technologies and systena.

S. Scope of Aneriian tuclear Society Review

These coments are In response to 'MC's proposed rule an ticensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of eadloacclve Vasco, 46 Ted. leg.

3t081 (July 21, 1981) (to be codified at 10 C.r.a. Part 61, Tuclexr

Regulatory Coission). ANS has actively followed the progress of

this proposed rule with a technical support ccitees of interested

and teeciatal'7 qualIfied menbers of the 7uel Cycle and Vatee ianalecent Div'sion. ased an a technical review of -he ?*dersl Register

notice by dIvision members. there have been developed and fornulated

:he enclosed ccients on the proposed rule.

- I - - * -

B-325
I;. CM0-21(IS ON PROPOSM lOLDLMCIS ON LAND M ISPOSAL

OF LOW-LZrM U.DIOACi.-ME WASTE

10 CIR 61

Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 142, Friday, July 24. 1981 ?roposa; lules

The present version of the rule. as proposed. presents a significant Improvemeat over earlier drafts and the Coemissioo should be comended on Its work

thus far. HOwver, members Of the ASS Fuel Cycle And Waste tFamgament Division

present the folloving zcmoen for your conslderation.

1) V. SL.mar. of Rule

C. Xiniun technical Raqu:.:&ees t

r ) A classIfiestica system for lov level vwste Is proposed containing

four classes. Specific activiCy limits define each class. bhile the desire

to provide a level of protection coaansurace vith the activity level is *e-

, cogniced, it is nor clear vmz class A zad a wastes need be diszinguised.2 . 0 FThe basis Is apparently that it Is obviou that if these (unstaile trashtype wastes) vere disposed of with higher activity veste. their deterioration

could lead to failure of the (burial) system and permit water to peoet:tce

the disposal site asd cause problems with higher activity vaszas.' ':: this

is demonscrably so, would it not be becte: co defi-e classes A and 3 solely

on the basis of stability rather than on stability and ec tV concent:atolc7

Tus, al. waste up to the class I activity lialt would be separ.erd by whether

t was solidified or unsaolidIled.

(2) It is stated that ths Cczaissuia recognized the need for a 'da

I -is' classi" ation of wastes. that this "should be datarmiond on a

spec-Iic vaste basis " and '?ar: 61 will not establish a generte de miniais'

category for wast-."i The -da nizimis" levlIs need to be established as soon as possible to prevent disposal of large volumes o! materials which, in hi-dIghtw ould have met such criteria and could have been disposed of by other

ens. This need 's especially critical in view of the limited capacity of

th ex sting disposal sites. The AT repor: Oe Xinizis Concentra:ion of

donuclidas La Solid 1astes. AI/T/ZSP-016" might be of soma use to you.

(3) 61.1 Purpose s-d Scoe 6

) nthe purpot endsscope dse states that these regulations establish reouireer.

> upon which the coission issues :'eacensee "for the disposal for others of

a , adioantive wastes'" While 10 Cni Part 20 covers the disposel of vasts by

jan ind v'dual lIcensee, the quantities are limited to very low levels. the

/purpose and scope should be rephrased to allow am individual litensee to

operate a burial site. The words "for others" and the last seotecce in

61.1(a) should be deleted.

*) 6'.2 Ceftmitions7

a ) A "near-surface disposal facility"8 is defined to be "within the

upper 15-20 eaters of the earth's surf-ae.? Is this definition

intended to liii: the maxinum depth of a trench? If ano, the

defiitlon should be rephrased to clearly indicate :hat 15-20

=eters is anapproximace ranie.

Te Th) use of V:e word "isolation" IL the definition of d isposal' 9

implies I aegree of absoluteness generally no; a;::aiable and

its use !A this context implies that the dispossl facility is

not part of the biosphere. The defnt-cion should read "Disposal

means the placesean of radt:occtve waste in an approved dIsposal

D S cs) b.e -tr. ".taoiliry" should be defi ed since it is the !as's 'or

' the sep;r:a:im C c1ass a and 3 wastes.

5) 61.7 Concepts 1

) 61.7(a)(1' This clearly linits the depth of individual disposal

unIts or t:enches to 20 zeters. lao 'uscaticn for the l:::c

) 1 S has boee offered by Y&C. At some locations i: may be appropriate

and econacmical for individual crenches co eed 20 meters in dephc.

The statement should be rovised accordingly.

p~I fb) 41.7(b1(l) The safety objectives should be rephrased to read ':::-

Mizs the migraton by any route includian surface, S:.undwavtr dcs- G1dv / charge, erosion or vwid erosion, sad miniize tce eaqosur to ina adverteoc Intruders."

651 .7)(2) According to this paragraph, a ma*taum disposal si:t

inventory vill be establIshed for cer:aio isotopes based on the

\ chsracterist.cs of the posal site. However, no criteria on which

n to base maxm = slte inventorIes is provided. The cri:zrla for set- ) - v ring saxiun inveneaorios should be provided stice thIs wll limit

the capacity of the site. The criteria should take into eccount

the site ccnditons *ed locations. Also, the criearIa should reflect

the fec: that S' a site Ls properly selected. a single larg sIt may

be more desirable than a series of smaller sItes.

6. 38039

7. 3S089

*. 39090

9. 38090

10. 38090 et seq.

-3-

2) T. S sr-? of Rule

t. Institutional Control'.

The ioscussion stages that active instItutional co-.ols ouch as

or'edic survei'lance and controlled eccess cannot be relied oan for ore

than 100 years. The implication is that governmental institutions would be

eware of the necessity to maintain the sIte. Rowever. in he' following

persgraph, credit is taken for passive controls. It seems that If a governmeat instItution Is Saailable to MaintaIn land ownership and records, chat

ane astitutioa could ma'tans a feae.s This would reduce the concern about

apotentlonl eposure to Intruders.

1. 46 Te. aeg. 38083, at seq.

2. 61.55; $ 38084. at seq.

3. 3S085

5: ? 6l.60 38083 . 2 -

B-326
V. . .

d) 61.7(c)() As indicated in paragraph 61.32(a)(0 cloture and stabili.

stlton casures eust be carried out *o each disposal unit Ls filled.

~ |~ragreph 6

1.7Cc)C3) Stat e that the site is in tho closure phase wh n closure snd scabilization 'activtties are being car-ied out. Its order to clarif7 the Litent of this paragraph, the word "final" should be

Inserted beteen the fifth and sixth words so that It reads, "durint he period: when the final site.., .

6) 61.12d Speific te e ica tch to i

D_ -1 1 6t.t2td; Aong th specific chnical Inforaio.CO-thst must be irclu~dd la C the ho license applati sn is: "(d) a descrIpctjo6-ofP¢ design basis natural events JOr phenomena and their rolacdonshio to the orincizal desian Criteria.' T.hese everts require furtber definitdon. rThe defiticion should Include not only the types of events but e1se. the tItA Fr- over which thee must be considered.

C!." t rhchalcal snal sis 1 2

C 61.13 - St is not apparent what is required for "deoonatra:Sen" or how .. ( nAd"'S. Will be accoMplShed. Th_-s Section should be clarified. -,his cruet~ /als apile to ara~i:l(f)ci)cj). Otee buried, t-he wites Is no longer i the o"Oseossicn. of the licensee. - t

9) 6l.2LnCZnditteon of lleenses1 3 -.

h6l.2s h) This A ppears'o be acincistea Swith 10 C 2.103 which provldes .the applicant an o~porcuni~i peti:*on ort hearing on ay ddro l re- ]5 quire 1 sor cond~Ctonr. no " ... or thereafter..." Is partccular.1 onerous in that IC permits the staff to bypass the rules of procidures as described in Part 2 of the chapter. The Cctiusion alread, ha ehd oreur elt uctton by a lIcens*e through either an Zzertnt yJlder or a Compliance Order. .-hs requirerent should he deleted.

9) 61.2 Change14

61.23(a) This paragraph, hicah enpears to be directed toward safoty- :e!ated featuets tc cho faciit7, In reel.c probSSa So ty change without undertoing a Nociftcatioo and approval proceiure. "ho first sentence ebould be modified to permit the normal flaxS0tllty to modS'y office buildlzgs. maitenance structures. perking lots, etc. that all nuclosr licensees enjoy while holding licenses issued pursuant to this .chapter.

11. 3!092

12. 3t092. et seq.

13. 3909'

IS. 33096

10) 61.29 Post-closure observation and maintenance

61.29 The requirement that the licensee msaitain responsibility for A A the 2iispal site for a minimum of five years is ar oven ended requirement. / A rpetific time period should be set. As currently stated, the criteria does

not provide sufficient guidance to testbtish adequate fusding. Since vastes Lvill not be received during this period, all funding must be deriv4d from foes

charged during operation. It Is necessary for planning purposes to kVow the

time period over which the license vwill be responsible.

II) 61.12 Protection of individuals from inadvertint intrusion 6

C-4 S1!.2 At currently vrit:en. this requirement Is absolute. The sentence should be rephrased to read. "esign. operation and closure of the

land disposal facility should nort result In conditions...."

61.51 12) Disooal site design for land dimosal17

a) 61.511a)(l The vwrds .snd Itprove" should

criteTr vill ensure that only aeceptable a: the site wil mese thre criteria without inpi

b) 61.51(a)(4) The word "prevent" should be c!

| ) 61.SIa)(6) Ter s o way to conpletely I

vtch vast." 'owever, it: is possible to mi. water czntact and provide a water tollection

which can be used as water intrlsion zonito:

Necessary.

( d)i 51.31(7) -This paragraph stares that one jSed exclusively for the disposal of radicea to be unetssar-IT restritccve. it should

O-s~o +dttposal of ot'ver vast% rrpes Ss 1*ng as :Se

the waste types aatSn a disposal faciliST.

has beat foud, ZiL-mum use of -tS site cr dsos al ofote wst cpsams long as ih of an anvlrot estalll d arerous materials attire or not should be-provided.

be deleted. The siting

Ltes are selected. Bence.

rovemeost.

*anged to "minimize." 6 I

*elimimate contact ot vwatrr Iimi2e the likslihod of m and tretont Systsm

in;-s shows tha: ': Ii /

disposal site shall he :tive vaste. This e*aes

be acceptable to allow

Ira is to comingling of

- Cnee an acceptable site

the isolatien/ldsvoeal

ohither they ar* radio-

_;

3) 61.52 tand dSmorzsa !fcility oeratlon end disiosal sdt% closurls -

i'*' 2 61.-2(a)(9) Th e requirement for "adequate" closure end stabtilotiSon

tsftres snoulA be defined. *-

16) 61.33 nvirzental itor n

- 61.53(ri The last sentence should be rephrsetd to read. "Me ecitcorbng system must te capable of providing early vari-ng of =igtatona of

radionuclidas froa the disposal uneis before they egress the stes boundarr."

11. 3809; 16. 38095 - - .

18. 38096

:3. 38096. ct $eq.

* ~~~-3_- . .

B-327
I . .;' .

"; ,E 1:.

IS) I1.

.)-!rs- II

.55 vWxe classiiicatioat2o

61.55 Am altearate cathod of deteaninini the woste cl-ss:lcation

shoud4 be provided. Provisions for cl0ssification by esxernal dose

detetninotion should be made, for cases where the types of IlotoPes

tf coocern a'e known. thIs aethod Would allo* adequate classification.

This alternate =ethod would be particularly helpful for nuclear power

lant trash. Gaeneally. trash bas a very low specific activity CGoparCd to te clcos A. linits. A determination of the radionucllde identity

sad concenreation. as required by part 10.311, would require the purcha54 and use of a portable spectrua snalytt. instead, a contCat

doa atae reLsuCWM4% of the contaize:ized trash could be- ada to show

that t'e activities vaca below the class A 112itC. Also. Snce a redwaste classificaticn Tyscea is already established In 10 CR.7 71. Is 1:

possible to cie the two systems toether?

61.55 - Table I The waste classilicatiocs sehers presented here with

the assocSated Ctacentracion l'-its presonted in Tale I would ha a

substantial impact on the ouclear power Lndustr7's waste disposal costs

and hence, upon ta cost of nuclear gperated power.

The caCatncztI.Cas gVeL La this table are much oore lizitLip than

ncesslar7. In the study pre;ared for the CS?3C by Tord. lacon & Davis

ItaSh, 'ac.. 'A ladioective '4cta D:Op70al Classification Syste,"'

3 VC21CG305. conservative radioactivity ::Iit for various wease classes Vera established throug4h detailed hazads analysas. The linits recrondCsed in rtEG/CG/ 005 should be incor;ortatd into t0 Co 61 in Place

ot the acbit:aX7 Values In Table 1.

,he logic behiad the nurbers selected 'or this tasle 'o aoc apparent.

I- would appeal. for es;eple. that -arbon 11 which contai-s less than

0.a ziczzcuries Pat cZ nay to dispose4 of as segrsgated waste but thaz

any concent:atioO cs at&e than 0.8. even I' 'C is only a tiny increase.

inzad itsel reaquirs zhat the disposer seek special permission fta:

the Sove:moent for isposal. ne abrupc denar:at±on needs e1xplaiing

so that trA l*;:c of It cn be understood

) Ce ti=:ns daswLftutf.-On of vastes

6 .55 T5blat should consider a 'de C inJ i5-" classification o* wastes

a hat would be considered of son-oeSulatar7 concern); we

believe svenot2.y that this saould be addressed In the prcposed 10 CU 61

-asulatica. D a levels for urenlun. cachnstium. plutoeumw. and

naptUn3u should he stated. A de Mininis or lower acn:stable level !or

satural and depleted uranlu_ should be stated; we rscooensd that a value

of 0.035 petrcez natur'al and deplet4d uranius be seet as a lower linit Is

sctiion 61.55. abls 1. leceoc information received ff:r Nluclear logulstory CGoission taff t aSbe:s reveals that pr:;oasls :Concerning de niniis

levels for uranium are being prepared by the C staff that would estabLioh multi-cieted acce;pablo levels toa shallow-Lend burial of uranium

wastas. One evel ;rcposed by the =C veuld permit disposal of uranaum

.0. 38097

Dsc. s in oa nlicensed burial ground tl... sanitary te). a

seood proposal would permit disposal in a shallow-land licensed burial

iceSs, nd a hird Proonsed level would Deurit disposal in a shallow-land

h4censed buria-l csit which has a covenanc La the title on the property.

These Iulci-,retad iC proposals are consisent vitch our raccanded

leveso. J recoIcand that 4C nMiLnaS levels cnSISeCnt witch those

Proposed by NtC relative to 99 Tc end low-sarichad uranumas resfdual

conta nCton In snelted alloys (Addendum to 10 CF1 Parts 30. 32. 70.

sad 150) also be scated. ln this regard. we recomuend that sorious

coaslderation be Siven to establishnant of do minu=s levels of 3.5

yS ppmXc, 0.01 ppb 2u and 1 ppb p.

d, Altha-emitt.cr transuranic hsermes (;sse ClassSifcjr!mn)

tn SectIon 61.55.- Vastc ClassificatIon. able 1, we believe stzongly

thae the caxiAn concent:ation for alpha-emitting taasuranic. isotopes

should be Laretased fSn cs 10 C:1/g 1L-:c presently proposed to

100 aCi/g. Part of the rationale behind the 10 -C1/g Imb ii stated

to be that this value has been inposed by DOZ. however, 00D is at ta

presntC Ctie &seioual considering revision of DC0 whnual Chaprar 0511

to raise this lit to 100 nCi/g dated 7/30/ol. 0he 10 nCL/g value

is also inconsistent with the value of 100 nCl/g used by :he inviron-

%ent ?rotetion Agency la their proposed regulatron 40 Cn1 2ar:etl for

the disposal of sent fuel, high-level, and t: ssuranic (MIU) wastes.

.hi$ TrgUlation States that TiAU wastes ContiSnig ntce Cthan 1O nCi/

of alpha-e:ttriag :;U Isotopes -ust have tha same controls as are Coqui-ad fot high-level wastes. - a recommend the sane contrals as are

srquired for high-level wastes. W e recueand th ee the 100 aC h/I l: mt

be reflected in each of .hi columns 1-3 in Table 1. e a*_so zeccand

that a lci of 100 pCL/cm for transferaole surface cont'aticn of

alphaeictieig t:ansuranic isotopes (pj.C natural) (or depeteud uran u

isot:vos) be Lmposed, consistent wi-b the pr.posed revs:on to ZC=

hanual Chapter 0511.

Addictonally. the value of 10 nCilz is based on aAcurs:l oce:a, n;

radium deposits. WadI=u Is significantly more haza-dous than 1V

or the t:snauraniumn muclides whes dissolved in water. as the !C, s

ftr the soijle forms of tchse nuclAdes atr abou 1C0 tnes (000

trises for U) greater than that of radiuz. Thus. ft would appear

reascnable to set activity limits for slpha-emirting transuran.c

Isotopes at 100 times gr ater.

Tbe supplemaetar7 Wanornac::n in th 1110 document also states that

there is no need to Increase this lImit fz:m te stscdpoint of

achievabillt7. huch of the wase prasencly stored as trazauranic

waste is segregated Smlow-level waste an Cte basIs of waste origin

since the 10 aCi/g linit Is too low for sccurte zeasurement and

certifIcation. lowever. segregation according co hc 100 aCWS !iait

could be achIeved. elt' ting expensive retrIevable storage and deep

geologi dfspotel of "suspect'" cransuzAcl waste.

Aacher concern is the foctnote (04) :o Table I that refers to isOtOpes

conacaed in metals. natal alloys. or peraeen:1y fixed on =-eal As

onccainatica. le footnote. wh:Sh states that 'the values above nay

. 7 .
be increased by a factor of ton" should be modified to include concrete

and other media that exhibit lov leach-rate behavior. An incentive

should be provided to reduce the voltne of wastes by IScineration or

metal sm*ltLg. These treatments may normally be avoided by waste genarators sinc, they would convert some lo-level vestes into transuranic

wastes. For example. a volune reduction of 30 by incineration of a

waste containing 5 nCi/g would convert a loe-level waste into a trassuranic waste at 150 cCI/g. yowever, the residual ashes could be incorporated iato concrete. glass. netal. etc. ne leech race of trans- uraic isoCopee frno these saterials is very low (i.e.. many orders of

|asgAtude lover than the uatreated waste form). Thus, a combination

lof leach rate and crnasuranic content could be used to determine the

dIsposal optCons for these vaste forms.

are troubled with Table 1. as zany of the suclide concentrations

| 'liits may sot provide a practical basis for classificat'on. tn oscy _ cases, the measurements are difficult and sore are almost L-possible.

P erhaps the Comoission would specify practical analytical methods

jc:pcable for decermInitg nucl'de concentrations.

a) 51.35 Table 1, Footnote L

t I {l) I The terC "signi!icant gSa radlatron" should be defined.

D-S;-f t2) *ow is rzdiun treated? A value should be established.

The -3) footnote places a rescriotlot oo wastes containing

chelating agents in concencrations greater than O.1U. I s this limit Intended to be 0.1' by weight or volue? - >Th's Limit is too low. masy agents were developed to 2) 5 2. \ decontaminate pip&.n and equipnent co :educe radiatIon

levels to workers. A restrcticon on the solidified

product of 0.1: might cause potential users to ;oreco

utili2atIoo of then because of the r:strcttCtC CO disnosal

and then let radiation levels -Ise. One maufac:urer has

even develoCed a solidifcatcon ascot for their chelsatia

agent.

16) 61.56 Wast characeristltcs21

a s) SlS6(s)f! ( T) I inconsistency between paragraphs '1aS6(a)(5) and

(7) snould 5e c'arifid. :tstcs in gaseous form. aloved by pars-

) grsph 61.56(a)(7). could be considered the very waste disa!loved

by paragraph 61.S6(a)(S).

) 61 56b)(l) "Stabilizv for 1'0 years" needs to be codified to inicate %nat forms of proof are eccvtable. Same metal, woodea.

J - V and concrete structurea can be shovn to have maintained their

"stability" for 150 years past. Vary few of these are sp-plcible

to waste packsgig. There Is no way that deformatIon alone of the

21. 3e097. at seq.

('vste form can be a hazard to the public. The key requirement is

to keep the waste fron beipS dispersed which Is little affected by

"slumping or a '5:. deformation.

6t cl.360b)¶2) "Yon-corrosive liquid" should perhaps be changed to

"liquid.' If the intent of thS article is to minimize corrosiviry

it should say so instead of setting arbitrary liSits. Is the radio- J ) *activity In the liquid of any concern? Is there an intent to limit

(_ the amount of "clean" water in the container?

d) 51. 35 )(3) This paragr&?h requires th:t "Told Spacea within the waste and between the vwste end its package oust be reduced to the

extent practicable." This requirement should be deleted as being too vague unless specific acceptance criteria can be escablished. For

solidified liquid or slurry wastes. 10-15S freeboard 'n a 55 gallon

t-5',D \ dr'. is nor-Ally appropriate.

oea tshis mean that filler material must be added to packages containing irregularly shaped solid objects? Or is it the intent of this

artIcle that all such objects should somehow be chopped. melted, or otherwise compacted? ;hat forms are acceptable. i.e.. ash, pellets,

compressed trash?

D f7) 6117 Latbeling2

61.57 The labeling rsquI:emaens should be clarifted and made more

specil'

;) 51.321 CommIssion Inscaec:ons of land dispasal facilItIes23

G- I 5:.3: Ilminate radioactlve wasce alresd7 disposed of and covered.

/frome RC aspectLon requirement.

..9) Caneral

h.e curreat version of Part 5l appears to contain nothing that would

preclude the locstIon of a land disposal fa'elt". at the site of another

licensed ac:Lv:t7. Such a location could be quite desirable since the facility

has been dedicated to a nuclear applIcatoca.

22. 34098

23. 33110

_ a -

B-329
11. CONCLUSIO0N II. .LLOR. OCXAO XC..LLISTZR. Nr3.IXXLV A VZZVM1R

The recomendations made throughout this co=entary need iot be

be repeated here; however, it is worthy of note that those who

prepared this reviev are multi-disci;linsd professionals rihose

kooun dedication to an4 expertise La this field counsel sn indepth appraisal of these recomendations.

The Chair and members of the America Nuclesr Society's Fuel

Cycle and Waste Xscasaent Division appreciate the opportuairy to

coment on the proposed rule, stand ready to assist in any further

deliberacLoas, and await the release of the final regulation.

Respectfully submitted,

J5M R. INVA

American Nuclear Society

555 North refsongtsn Aveou

La Crange Park. Mlnois 60525

.laephone: (312) 352-6611

jamas 1. Reelso

/Acorner for the Ansricam yuclear Soclacq

cM.L J VALoi

Aosu3 Im. MCA"=&n

,uxeav~ 3t u

PASQALl . CAXOONI

NuXt t. ?M7

LWU L KrILlS LJJ i I" ?.l-A

;OWt M. roSAso L.L w...a MJM

A P&MUM. CMWlMlOW

smuM omFfc

An1*M" mortulowAL PIrA

LIS iUO' 50

tAh AN

el QWe

Ms -.- w

Mik t0aa e.s

january 13, 1962

.2 i5 1- 3 CF CG74~tL,

Apz-qc C" cna

Ar.A C C'". N.J. iOe

Wel 3"4UI9

N UIty Limn TO

r!L %'C

C4; Fit 3Ta)

Secretary of the Cn:mnssiom U. S. Nuclear Raqulatory Corssion

Washington, D.C. 20555

A taniton: Docket'-q & Service Branch

Zaclosed please !'nc, a`- origin and ome

copy of Cc ents of the Township of Lowe= Al.loways

Creek to Proposed Rale for Licensing R .ienent5

for Land 0isposaI of Padioactive Waste (10 CPR Pict 512.

Yours very truly,

Carl J. Valor.

Special Nuclear Counsel

'or the Township of Lower

CJV:lv Alloways Creek

zzc. (23

1S; .,.'-X1Z 

B-330
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0YM:5SSON uN TED STATES OF AMERICA C,

-2-

10 CFR PART 61, at al

2

I CtomerJs or TsE TowNSsiP OF LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEX TO PROPOSED t RCLZ rCR LICENSING REOQUPECMTS

I FOR LANM DOSPOSAL OF _ADIOACTIVE

i WASTE

F - 7 -

TOi Secretary of the Comuission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ceimmission

Washington D.:C., 20555

Attentions Docketing s Service 9ranch

I. Background: The Township of Lower Alloways Creek

(SOLACj is a coamunity located Li Salem County; New 7ersey.

Withinl its territorial borders are Salem I and 2 Nuclear

Gene atlnq Stations (operatinq licenses) and Sope Creek 1

ard i Nuclear Generatiny Stations (construction lcenses)

iSalem I and 2 have been pernitted license amendments and/or

changes to the plant design to perit increased spent fuel

storage in the spent fuel peels from 284 spent !uel rods in

each spent fuel pool to 1,170.

2. Site Selection and Characterization Phaset

The p-oposed rule and the supporting draft env'ronmentU

im act statement discuss the applicants coordinating with

the EEC, State and local governments aa to site selection

and cha-racterization. (Draft environmental i-pact statementn=fLG-07a2 VolurOe 3 E-5) (Part 2- 2.101(b) (1) iM)

The procedure as contemplated by the rule Is that the

applleant would establish a region of interest and then develop

a most-favorite site for evaluation of information. After

establIshing 'amost-favorite site the amplicant would file an

application which would be announced in the Eeedral egistaer

F -,,

and a hearing could potentially be held in contormity with

Part 2 of the Commission regulations.

(a) The applicant should be required to notify the cammunity wherein the site is proposed and-any adjoining communities

of an intent to file an application with the URC at least sixty

days prior to the filing of the appLication. This would enable

local ccmmunitifes to participate in a meaniLgful way in the

licensing process. As a practical matter local communities

do not have the socio-ecdhemic-political flexibility to respond

to licensing procedures as parties or intervenors unless they

are given adequate lead time ln reference to the proposed action.

(b) The environmental impact statement required under

10 CPR Part 61 for.a waste disposal facility and the envIronmental report submitted by the applicant should consider the

cumulative effects of putting a waste disposal fatility within

a 25-mile radius of an operating nuclea: power plant and/or

storage of spent nuclear f!el. The existence of flood plains

and road networks should be carefully considered as well as

the cumulative effects of the increasing radIation hazards by

aggregating nuclear land uses in reasonably close proximity.

3. Institutional Control: The concept that the ?ederal

or State land owner will carry out custodial care of the site

'n such activities as site securIty and monitorinq of the

lenvironment is not entirely satisfactory.

(a) The applicant and the government land owner should

be requIred to enter into a contract with the local community

that is host to the site. That contract would require the

lapplicant and government entity to post bond in an adequate

B-331
... . I. *

F -;Z

-3 -

amount for maintaining site security and monitoring the environment. In the past State regulation of sanitary landf::lls has

not always been consistent with the safety end health of the

public. Many haza:dous wastes have been placed in sanitary

landfills and have endangered local communities and residents.

In such instances local co-unities and private land owners

have found inadequate legal remedies end an inability to obtain

Imoediate relief where water supply and other beneficial attributas of land ownership have been interfered with. Much of this

hardship on local communities and private land owners could be

eliminated if the applicant and the State or Federal government

as land ownar was required to enter into a ccotract with the

local community whaerby specIfIc ccrtractual oblIgations would

be undertaken in the event of pollution of ground water. soil

or air as a result of the operation or custodial care of the

site. The form and execution of such a contract should be

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and made Fa:t of

the rsquirements of approval for a license.

(b) The local comauaity that is host to the s:s should

be included in approving any fundIng mechanisms which are

created for the long-term care of zhe fac'lzty.

4. Record-keecing: An accurate record of any and all

wastes dismcsed of at the site should be fIled with thn clerk

for the local cnmunity. Such a record wi:l pro:ote =ublic

Lavolvament and awareness and reduce unfounded ae::s and

suspIcIons.

(a) The proposed rule a;carently assmes that arrangements

on record-keeping can be worked out between the State and local

F- 2

-4-

cmmunIty. This is unsatisfactory and may not take place. It

should be the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission's responsibilIty

to provide a proposed rule that full records regarding the

type of materials, their composition, and their location within

the site; the volumes of material by type, the identity of the

shipper and the materials shipped are all supplied to the

local community as disposal is taking place.

5. Closure: it is not clear whether an applIcation fcr

closure is an amendaent to the license which would require a

hearing pursuant to Part 2 of the Rules of Pract'ce. Any

*application for closure should be considered a significant

asendment to the license and should be served on appropriate

Federal, State and local officials and if a hearIng is requested then the NRC should appoint an atomic safty, and

lceansag boazd to revIew the amercen : no the application to

permit closure.

6. Local Remarations: :: should he recognized that.

potentially hazardous uses of land aC e local undesirable land

uses. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shou:d raqu-ire that

the applIcant- orState or federal land owner or combinatLon

of the sam provide economic- epara-'or to the local communIty

for the diminution 'i property value and caz::al loss of tax

ratables In respect to property values than may ce af:eced

for a reascnable radius surrounding the site. Tha process

|could be established in the rule and If agreed to by the local

comunity or indIvIdual Property cwners be In lieu of any

*statutory or cormon law remedIes the local commun-Ity or property

owrars would have peradlcaed upon inverse ccndemnate:n.

B-332
-SF, - 2

i

7. Publie Education, The proposed rule should require

the applicant to conduct yearly public education programs on

the low~level radioactive waste disposal process. These programs would ie designed _to fully inform the public'as to

activities at the site and would serve as a vehicle for reducing

tensions, fears and suspicions

'Respectfully submitted,

- CAA~L j. VALOP.E, speci.al

iluclear'Counsel'for the

Township of Lower Alloways

Creek

V. .

* J:anuary 12., 1982

Secretary of the Cormission - ~ CD. S. iXuclear Regulatory Commission i~

Washington. D. C. 20555

ALttentiofli Dcckceting S Service Branch

Gentlemen:

Subject: CC-M-IMS ON PROPOSED 10 WR 61 (bF 77'

Xn the rederal .Register, Volume 46, page 380S1. the ",C published

proposed rule 10 CYR 61. 'Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.' On October 22, 1981, the MRC extended the

coment period to January 14, 1982 (46 PR 51776). Pursuant to

the invitation for publio cor=ent, General Electric Company

Wilmington NamufacVuring Department submits the attached coments.

:h. General Elect-ric BWR fuel fabrication plant in Wilmington,

U.. C., is a generator of. .low level radioactive waste. Although CZ does not operate a lo0w level waste disposal.site. the proposed

rules will have an impact upon our packaging and transportation of, low level radioactive waste and our interaction with other

licensees dis~osing of l.ow level radioactive veste.

The attached ooe--ents are sr-:mtted in a fermat which hope~fully will be most useful to you in reviewing them. Nith respect to

those specific items, for which we developed co-n=ents, the

presentation of the occmen-ts is as follows:

1) Original wording in the proposed rule.

2) Suggested modifications to the original wording.

33 Reasons for suggested changes.'

General- Xlect=_Ic appreciates the opportunity to participate in

the regulatory process concerning this proposed regulation and

would be pleased to discuss any questions that you or your staff

may have relatid to our ccmments.

Very truly yourst,

G=ENERAL ELCIR~C COAW!XVV

Charles M. Vaugh kn, Acting Manager

Licensing & Ccnpliance Audits

H/C J26

January' 12, '19 82

C.MV: bnw

ALtzach:ment

NSO/SGz-L

/A.J 41wZ

5-333
GINIRAL 0 RLICTRIC G1IURAL - ILICTRIC

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 1982

General Electric Conpany

Wilmington manufacturing Cepartment

Wilmington, N. C.

C0MZVTS ON PROPOSED 10 CFR 61

OVERAL. COMEMITS

A I The approach used by the Commission to emphasize perfoarmanct

specifications, supplemented only as necessary by technical

I specifications. is to be commended. This will ssure C pzotecton I of the public health and safey and at *he same

time capitalize on the benefits of specific site

characteristics. This approach also removes the ultraconservatism that would te necessary with generic technical

specifications applicable to all conceivable

locations.

21 The Commission has established a manageable approach to the

complex issue of waste classification and should be commended

for this. . documentation of the waste categories, the

specific criteria for these categories end the rationale for

arriving at them, provide an excellent and workable basis for

arriving at final regulations.

SPECZPC COMMENT'S

Page 38085 (Suonlemental informaetion -

Waste Charscterizzics b Classizicaston

We support the concept of not developing a waste classification

system based oan total hazard. While concerns related to both the

chemical and radiological components of a waste must be evaluated > - to determine the proper disposal method, the establishment of a total hazard classification system' would be a redundant effoct.

The a. S. Environmental Protection Agency already addresses

chemically-related concerns through the comprehensive regulations associated with the Implementation of the -ssource Conservation a

pecovery Act (RCRA).

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 1982

Page 2

The proposed regulations properly Address necessary radiation

3 protection considerations and provide adequate guidelines for

judging proper treatment or exclusion of nuclear of waste

components. This avoids the need to develop a very complex

classification system that somehow interrelates radiological and

nonradiological concerns on a detailed basis.

'We also support the continuing work of the Commission to identify

and define specific wastes which- can be exempted from Part 61.

This i activity can result in conservation of the limited low level

b radioactive waste burial capacity and could even provide the

potential for beneficial reuse of. some wastes by eliminating the

need to bury some exempted materials.

Page 38086 - Manifest Tracking System

The need for a manifest system to assure traceability of waste shipments from a generator through the transpor:er and finally to

the disposal site, is recsgnized. We question the need for a copy

of the. manifest preceding the shipment-for-the following reasons:

1) The copy of theaanilest accompanying the shipment will allow M - , the transporter and disposal facil'ty to vert!y the shipment content.

2) The expressed concern that a missing or delayed shipment would

not be detected can be reconciled by other methods such as an

independent transmittal of the manifest at the time of

shipment or by telephone notification to the rece8'7iLg

facility at the tine of shi;ment.

31 he requirement for the manif£st to precede the shipment

implies that the shipment should not leave until noti!icaton

has been received by the shipper that the receiver has

received said copy. This can result in a shipment sitting for

an extended perIod while these notices go back and forth.

38087 - Ocerational Phase

A requirement that the disposal facility license be periodically

reneved for continued operation is noted in this paragraph as is a S year normal term for materia' licenses. We suggest the concept

that it not be necessary to renew the license. Paragraphs S1.25

and 62.26 in the proposed regulation provide adequate assurance

a-334
GENEtAL $ ELECTRIC GINEXAL 0 ILICTRIC

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 1982

Page 3

Secretary of the ComissLon

January 17, 1992

Page 4

1S D that licenaee-originated changes will receive review by the

| Commission. New-found issues of national concern that are Independently identified by the Commission can be applied on a

I national basis to the sites as such issues are identified and are noe dependent on waiting for a renewal application.

Paragraph 61.2 - Definitions

Near:,surface- disposal facility means land disposal facility in

which radioactive waste ti disposed or in or within the upper 15-20

meters of the earth's surface.

it is suggested that this definition be changed to read as follows:

Near sur'ace disposal facility' means disposal

facility in which, radioactive waste is

disposed - on in or within the upper 1-20

meters of tthe earth's surface or to whatever

greater depth can .be demonstrated as capable

zD I of meeting-the,.reuir-ed performance criteria

and technical specifications.

Rationale -The- restriction in or within the upper 13-20 meters

could prevent utilization of greater. depths- at locations where

hydrogeoloo'cal conditions and waste stability characteristics

would allow this.- The criteria of the proposed regulation are established to.- prevent exposure to the public by transmittal

through ground water flow and to prevent exposure to the Intruder.

The establishment of an allowable depth should be made on a sitespecific basis and with the objective that the criteria will be

met. The unsubstantiated establishment of a nationwide depth

lImit is rot in keeping with the logic used throughout the rest of

the proposed regulation.

61.3(a)

No person may receive, possess, and

dispose of. radioactive waste

containing source, special nuclear. or byproduct material at a land

disposal facility unless autor'ed

by a license issued by the

Commission pursuant to this part.

It is suggested that this paragraph be changed to read as follows:

No person may receive, possess and dispose of

radioactive waste containing source, special

nuclear, or byproduct material at a land

disposal facility unless authorized by a

license issued by the Commission pursuant to

this part or unless exemtion has been granted

by the Ccmmission unoer raragraun 61.6

Rationale - Paragraph 61.3(a) as written would prohbi:t transfer

for land disposal of any radioactive waste to a nonlicensed

person. This is overly restrictive and would force the shipment

(to a licensed facility) of radioactive wastes that are not of a health or safety concern. The suggested addition to Paragraph

61 .3(a) would allow determinations to be made by the Commission on a case-by-case basis where it could be demonstrated that health

and safety concerns could be met by alternate disposal methods.

61.24(bl

The licensee shall submit written - statements under oath upon request

of the Commission, at any time

before termination of the license,

to enable the Commission to

determine whether or not the license should be modIfied, suspended or revoked.

it is suggested that this paragraph be deleted.

Rationale - The paragraph is very vague as to intent and method of

implementation. It is not clear under what circumstances such an oath would be required and has a direct implicatien that the

licensees are untrustworthy. There are certainly sufficient

written transmittals required In other paragraphs of the proposed

regulation to obtain necessary documentation of deliberate

falsification of information.

- 1.25(a) - Chances

Except as provided for in specific

license conditions, the licensee

shall not make changes in the land

B-335
M15EWAL - ILICTRL GENEIAA 0 ELICTRIC

Secretary of the Ccmmission

January 11, 1982

Page 5

Secretary of the Commiss'on

January 11, 1982

Page 6

disposal facility or procedures described in the license

application. The license will

include conditions restricting

sunsequent changes to the faciliy

and the procedures authorized.

These restrictions will fall into

three. categories of descending importance to public health and

safety as follows: (1) those

features and procedures which may

notebe changed without (i) 60 days prior notice to the Comission, CiL)

30 days notice of opportunity for a prior hearing, and (iii) prior Commission approval; (2) those

features and procedures wnich may

not be changed without (i) 60 days

prior notice to the Commission, and

Iii) prior Ccmmission appproval: and

(3) those. features and procedures rhich say not be changed without 60

days prior notice-to the Commission.

Features and procedures falling inparagraph (a)(3) of this section may

not be charged without prior commisaion approval if the

Comission, after having received

the required notice, so orders.

It is Suggested that this paragraph te changed to read:

... the requirad notice, so orders. Chances

that do not impact Mublc health and saretv can oe made Lm.e darelv w :n sunsecuent

notificaron to tee Commission wivnin 90 oDvs.

Rationale - The necessity to sake minor changes that do not impact on the public health and safety occurs routinely during the

operation of a facility. The requirements in Paragraph 61.25(a)

that no changes can be made without prior notice to the

Ccmi ssion, are overly restrictive.

461.S6(a)( I)

.he waste must be packaged and the

waste form and packaging must seet

all applicable transportation

requirements of the Commission set

forth in I0-CPR Part 71 and of the

Ceparement- of Transportation set

forth -in 49 CIR Parts 171-179, as applicable.

6 t is suggested that this paragraph be changed to read:

and of the Department of Transportation *et forth in 49 CYR Parts 171-179, as applicable. In the case of uneackaced (bulk) shinments. these must meet tne recuirements or 49 CFA 173.392.

Rationale - The proposed regulations should provide for the

shipment of bulk (unpackaged) wastes under conditions that comply

with Cepartment of Transportation requirements for such wastes and .. az the wastes can meet the proposed Part 61 criteria when

disposed of at the burial facility. A requirement on packaging would serve no useful purpose under these cIrcumstances and should

be imposed.

1 .56(b) ( 1)

3)_S_14 I

Waste must have stru::ural

stability. A structurally stable

waste for: will maintain its

physical dimensions within 5 of ':s

'or=, under the expec:ed disposal conditIons of compressive load of 50

psi, and factors such as the

presence of moisture, and ml.roblal

activity, and internal factors such as radi3tion e'fects and chleical

changes. Structural stability can be provided by the waste fora

itself, processing the waste to a stable form, or placing the waste in a disposal container or structure

that provides stability after

disposal.

B-336
GEMNAL 40 SUCTRIC

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 1982

Page 7

it Is suggested that this paragraph read as follows:

Waste must have structural stability. A

structurally stable vaste form will maintain

its ueneral physical dimensions and form under

the expecced dlsposaa corndczcns ano factors

suca as the presence oz mojsture and microbial

activity, and internal factors such as .

Rationale - The requirement of withstanding a compressive load of

50-psi (more than 7,000 pounds per square foot) appears to be a very rigorous loading requirement and is above that available from

many soils. if it is still felt that a numerical value is

necessary, then conaider one of these approaches:

o msae the compressive load requirement for the waste when buried no more than that of the surrounding soils at the site under

consideration.

o Evtaluate a structural approach recognizing that the waste is

constrained by surrounding soil and other wastes. This could

conceivably reduce the ctompressive load requirement by a tenfold magnitude and still, have an adequate safety factor.

cSiilarly, requiring thait the waste retain its form within St D -q under loading is a very rigorous-requirement and using the second

I (,potential approach listed above, could be eased or eliminated.

5l 56(b)(3)-

Void spaces within the waste end

between the waste and its package

Nust be reduced to the extent prac:tcable.

t is suggested that this paragrarph be deleted.

tionale - This is a very subjective statement and open to varving degrees of interretation. The goal of reducing the void spaces in a waste package is desirable and will be attained

because of economic incentive Independent of regulatIons.

I tmw

a.toleur i 

iertr-: t:- 

hiegulutory :olssotor. vcr='ssLor' 6^ 15& I-p41:j January 1J$ t .

4, '- 19£< R Q Doceett r end arj S:ervice SrtnchO!0 C. 6F ..3 or

Dtur, SItr/is.: -no - MLED=X 6

I rould li:e to cc1ent on t.a prorozej r- 1le, ..tez: r:t;.nts :or Linid isposal o. RadiCLetive .iaste" (49 Fr. t8sl),

end on th:e Draft -nvirormental L-pe.at Statertnt, jUFMI-07C2,

supopertirn that proposed rule.

ln i:Ft of the troubled .1±s3cry or ltad d'sposhl of rti-orcttlvt wante, this proposed rule is arn uioraole attempt to regulate s-C.i facilities. -::e provisions which weuld.subaoct t:.ese facilities tc taet.!MZ aetrin process, theremy encour=&ang

pollc dectte, 4re especallly cc=tndaole. Joutever, I .et: that

insufrtcient consideratior nas oeen Civtn to t.e long-tr*m crenscauerces of sLalloet land burial of ra'doactive wastes.

realistic extrapolation of past and present societal trends

/old reva-l s=e6 flaws 'r the anal7sis presented in =-CS'O7U2. AkaOicactive wa3tes remaIn dangerous for certu:rls; t'eir safe

disposal '- dapendent _pcn a staole socIal struct-re :or at leats

|0) Years. '-tor.r (and current events) clearl- shows tiat such

stoLil4.ty oLrot be pre " oted, =uoh less insured. :t "t questlonaule D-5 .netr t'e United States, as we nor :rout it, .Ill exlst SOO years C fron no. T;he stabilit'r of tne financial vtorld is even mere uncertain. The rinkni!al assurances proposed in T"U-07't2 .. re not dtpre3slon-riroof. S.au14 thIs utl' on b'ntuct t In t'e -_ture,

|::s econ-., -ost surel7 vaoull not hAve renained strtic. ::rS ereots zrf ar Avo not been ccrsniered; *:er. a corvtnticnal zru= e^trt netr a -. st. listcsals ste uld rtlcase large Zu-Lntitjs ^r .r " oactI:ty to the twrnlronnent.

^:b _a :S analysls is -tr't:iulazl7 ie' 1

"ent In 'ts ussc3srent I.f future land use. ?resent trfnds in populatorn trowth, soil

eros'on, and rater resources rdicaite t^ t in t:^e future :ar' a| nd :te: -oill be txtrem17 prtcsus cc-.=zd'ties. Lrc 's a1- ruaiya Water srort,^e in mary parts o, t-e countr. As tne plopetlo. 1rInrcases end more tnd more farmland is lost to erosion

|nd uroan groath, arable land :11l be In short surppl. :t may

c. Jc th-t tne "Intruder scenarrlos" rromosed in tre S Ywill nct L e naivertant,.&s is nor VAmt1Mned; t'^e need for lend and feod cay

oe so sev.rb thait t-e use of Wraste ourlel sI5tes "or agriculturb

may be per-itted. is is especially llcel7 since t~e site crar- "zzerlst'cs (topograph,, soil pemeability, meteorolocy) rmst fo'7cruole for ruset dispos.- are l±so t:;-. ^as for farnin. cr lrs:lential pur:oses.. T'e watet :rlsis L-y be so serious t uit

t| ee use of contanlnkted me±±s mill oe allo-ved.

..n of an anlys,1ss In tre , ; that is 'efl.int. even In tft ccntkem of tod4a' s sccetC ls S tht of exposure calcutior.' s for tre nru:er-ar'cul:ure seniLrIo, rrerndix ;, Stoticr.

ty1 casdc iIj.j=4g. A..

B-337
. P4s*;@ . -.

~.4.;a. Tat. intruder~ isa &ss-.2a.d to ce a:n Indlvltu..2. w.c 11.t ir. £tO.G.53 or. t..s *J.3tft t)%rl.&.2 3ltt 4 ns.n foo'± ;rozr n I

_&ardbrn on tAt site. Tae :Int:ruder- I~j~s .=fd to .sor. ait arc'l

'or ±..Hrer. tzt "q a-id 3s3inJ o0n17 a~oout :Alf it.is tilat at 'acn-e.

T.ias sot--iAo noes not considzer a =ore tlluslolsf±yInror is: wr' tate followink 'actors would -1:ttr t'- riskt :n-l7sils:

C)scmL nemobrs of tac' fIlb--1y L1a7 flot work cr nay -verk in t-h

.uthus sptndinp mnuo', mort t~l=c. ,t tnu size; (:a) Son d n. mbmufir3 MsY o6 oh:_Iirtn or pregnntr. i:rsn -

to riditc~r.. :!iis Ur-;13 Isi-3 at for ~ttL~~': Its3 :lt~lt to t.t, ft r;

Tae Z::S also nejltcts t.-.- n ~o1 ::ros.-Allcw lar.e

0%ar10l to acts of t~r~orlssn or 3400tae.:

f~ar ta..t tat projosedrlL, if doi~tbd, wcull tnuoura~c

tn,, prollfaration olf w~z.*t liaposaI. si~tes. T...s is undesir&uLlt

for t~i rtusns dat~iled acvs :nsta.~d, t..t proalem of rur.Iob.ctiAJ6 wa~sta dISPosaI 3saauld oe &d.ressed frte- 4.nct~.er pte.-rs.6"tive, ... t of waste. rt~duction. l&ter than contin,.InG'to produo.t. wuslt3 want.,trt Is no sIttsOtctor7 .Setiod to di3;osU Of t'-n4, rL nora- zcrium on waste p)roduction from t-ose waste s:curoes for zunith

=Gt..r uxist lt~rn~tIvfi cbhas o: ottainir&E the s..me 'crfIts I.S

apprcprl'.ntt. T"( U36 of nuclEur .e'slon to generatael::6ot

Is .n OZvlOU3 carndid~.te. !.Colt iL~t.rn;.tIvC3 txist fcr the p)ro- da:-ction of t16:tricity: solar, wind, -'O,. V.1ne~O`-drodynQ~IC3,

.tc. T :a6 zolts, of xw,-.Ict wmstb rbnbratlocn Is on;., far c~ej

t... jbn&fits of rnuclear po-ibr pl..nts. ..n 3rttI.tesztl!orn of

all operutinx pl-nts willi d6ecruase the vclimaelo wus:b -c _ z-sposba of u-, ieout 65~ (azccrd'na to fI,;iurs on p. ',6 of

.r:.~rj-078E2). Tl%±s would -:;it .t.:sa use of exastino; 5 AC

w-~~.l,:..le un cc' , _iL~e fo tt;In2 n nus! 

'..163 of :-c..ian'el.s. Tl -'3 .:z, -. : a not

consldurtd n': theu :,ZS, is Clte..ll ta'-. =oll Z:eUSOIonsle2.E

to t~a prool..n of rLd'.01,t-'Ve Wasg'ispsg..

Sincerely,

/Amy S. IL'ubbitd

Box 5636

Cleveland,'Chio 44101

127 ., T -1 . -I

Florida

Power

3anuary 13, 19S7

3F.0152-12

File: 3-3-3-a-10 I ..C ... !-

,L . .. . % 0%

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C4( 3

Washington, D.C. 2033i

At=n: Docketing and Service Branch

Subjec: Crystal River Unit 3

Docket No. 50-302

Operating License No. DPR-72

Proposed Rulemaking on Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Was~e

go 80)

Dear Sir:

Florida Power Corporation wishes to of-er the following comments regarding the proposed rulemaking on land disposal of low-;evel radioactive waste as published in the uly 24,

1931 Federal Register. First, the requirements concerning transportatron and packaging

appr :o have murc more impac. upon waste Sgnerawrslshippers than upon licensed land

dlsposal acill !es. These requirements may he inappropriately placed in a regulation

cmncerning land disposal lacilities.

Second the three class identifications specIfied in the proposed rule appear to require ditional analysis, handling, and, therefore, increesed exposure to individuals for no apparent benefit. State-of-the-art nethods-now available do not lend themselves -o perormance of the specified isotopic aralysis. Aside from the methodology question,

peronnel resources now available are unable to support the performance of the extensive

otopic analysis specified in the proposed reguation.

In~y, the costlenheit aspect of classifyirg waste when compared to the sfty aspect >~~~~~t s o cprne Th1 additional risk and costs associateds with additional handling and

v-, - asisraw rutprove bene-Ocial ei her in reduced risk to te pubcik or in reduced cost of

kptaosal in order :o he a hOtSn business practce

Florida Power Corporat-on appreciates te opportuity to provide comments regarding this proposed rule and r~espe..uti rerques s *Set these commrents be considered in the

s nla ruie.

Very truly youns,__

David G. Mardis -;_ !

Acting Manager Nuclear Licensing

General Chfic =sci . m w 3 cnL r, 0 0 31 Z i :4u2.Si 9 :.CA 2 . :_-5a .

B-338
ATTACHMENT A

"Ye...as

J.-" I. STO.

CiSPB 6. C.._.6

StC ... a. MT..

ROS9ES L S"G.Lftl

FOC9uqrnc . CLA..

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YC

?0 COLURUS CIRCLE NEW YoRK. N. Y. IOO9

12ZI 39S-?S00

198

January -13, 1982

1PN-82-4

JP2N-82-8

DRK

Jw ilI W . U O S tO

r. v w II C rI

*i~~ _a.: .S.,

Comments on Proposed Rule - 10 CrT Part 61. iicensing

Reoui:ements for Land Disposai of Radaoactive Waste.

secretary of the Commission

U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Co=mission

Washington, D. C. 20555

Attentioa: Docketieg and Servtce SeanchSubject: ldi~an Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant.G i3f 1)

Docket No. 50-236 -

James A. t tzisltick Nucleari P twer Plant

Doccet No.--50-333 .. Cconenos cn10 rpos aRet6le - lOCPi ?art 61,-

rLacensao Requirements for Lanid Disposal of

.tadloaetlve *Raste'

Dear Sirt I -..- .-. . .

A'tachment A to this letter provides the Authority's

com=ents cn proposed. 10 Cz-R Pa-: 61, 'Licensia$ Requi-cments

'cr Land Dispcsal of Radioactive Waste.' .

Very truly youzs,

:--7: -.

k Senior Vice President

- . . Nuclear Generation

cc: Resident Inspector

Indian Point-:Uit 3-

U. S. Nuclea= Regulatcry Cotinssicn

P. :0. Box 33 - .

Buchanan, New YoTk 10511

Xr. J.. Linville

Resident Inspector

U. S. nuclear Regulatory Cc.mission

P. 0. Box 136

Lycoming, New York 13093

.5Y Mad t 

The Authority has the following specific comments on2 X!! 15 P5:i)

proposed 10 CFR Part 61t

Page/varagraph Comments .

P. 38097 Chelating Agents - Table I has a footnote

para. 61.55 - - eliminating wastes containing chelating agents

(a) in concentrations greater than 0.15 except as

| specifically approved by the Commission. This

requirement eliminates most routine decontamina- 2D te Z.. tion techniques used to reduce occupational

*exposure ard therefore it Is not in confcrmance

with the ALAA philosophy. One disposal site

already has a 15 by volume limit which is a

factor of 10 greater than this regulation. If

this criterion must be met,acceptable methods or packaging of these agents must be developed.-

p. 38097 Table . - This list of radiolsotopes divides

para. 61.55 waste into three classifications.- While some of the concentration limits shown are reasonable,

D'55 . demonstrating comoliance with many of. the beta -

emitters would be extremely difficult. ,-Accurate

analyses of isotoes such as Ni-59, Ni-63, Nb-94,

Tc-99, 1-129,-- ard Cs-135 would be extremely

fficult- to perform for every shipment. - Batch r yearly aralyses such as those performed on

Tran anics (TRU) by research fac'lities would - be much eas'er to implement.- This method. is

-D-5X -3 preferable because the measurement of TRU ('10

nanocuries/m) ,in the presence of other interfering

Iradionuelidesis very difficult to perform inhouse. Detection is easy if TRU isotopes-are the - only ones present. Additionally, with the in- - ease in the use of volume reduction techniques

the concentration listed are very low and =ay

_ become very cumbersome and outdated in the near - 5

uture. The limits in Table 1 should be reevaluated

o determine their-ability to be achieved in a ealistic situation and in a cost-effective manrer.

p. 3S098 - y s5pecifying a structurally stable waste form

para. 61.56-- "45C -the-r-le may be-unintentionally mandating

(b)(1) Ihigh integrity containers for all waste forms. D Exerience has shown that drums and. liners can ro-ally only be filled to 805 of total capac'oy.

:ur-he:, the 50 psi criterion should be left to

the specific burial site rather than It being generic criterlon.-

B-339
, 7-%

___ !-_t:-z-r r V

10-Wi4o a. SAQI.?j J..

So.q.-S.

- -f. ,:.I. 07

(3eVZR.Nc4, S F- S.C~..f1.? *S. IJ

R. Dals Smith -2- January 12, 1982

916/323-6237

- .1 ' i : .

January 12, 1982

R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

.D'vision of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear.Roqulatory Commission

Washington D.C. 20553

Dear Mr. Smitht

I C9.3 . M_

MOMID .1WuPR-,,?4aj . ('f4 FR Z36C8

. . . .17-7.1 -. 1 -

%:, Rtl CD-(j n.,_,  % - Cq4 F?- -rl '774

We are pleased to transmit the co=ments of the State of

California on the Nuclear Regulatory Ccomission's proposed

rulemaking on land disposal of low-level radioactive waste

(10 CFR Part 61) and the related draft envi'cnmental i-pact

statement (-51). 3ecause these two documaets are clcsely

related, this letter transmits comments on both. However,

to facilitate dif:erentiatIon of the issues, each will be

discussed separataly.

PROPCSZD 7t;T.yAKtNG cN LC=D D;SCSAL CF tCw=-r L.

RTOACT:-! WASrr (10 CFR Part 61)

The-c-ments of vax'ous Stata agencies o- the p-rposed

rulemaking are included below. would lice to ralse the

following additional. oints.

1) Part 61.52(a)(6) states that the 'waste must be

placed and coverad cn *anner a that limits the ;sr-a radiation at the surface of the cover to'levels that are w*ithin

D-)Z-~ s a few-eereent above the natural.backgroumd levels of the

sa:e' (e=rhasis added). This terminology is unnecessarily

vSau. We recomenad that the term la f*w Zer:ent: be replaced with a s;ecif!c number.

2) Part 61.33. With regard to wasza classification, we

share the view that segregating waste into dic'erent classes

can be beneficial from the standpoints of protecting Public

health and maxLnizing disposal economies. Howevae, the lamV*_uage of the rulamaklag does not appear to def'nitively rule

out the poss_"ilIty of a 'ow-:evel dis-posa sLe for

ansuranic-contaminated waste. Part 61. 5(d) states that

ste with a concentration exceeding the values shown L- the

acompanying table is not acceptable for near-surface disposal

('w~thout specific Commission approval pursuant to Part 61.58

A of this Part'. Part 61.58 is one very brief paragraph which

appears to permit the Ccmission to authorize 'other provi'

I sions for the classIfication and characteristics of waste on

a specifIc basis' measured against criteria and an evaluation

|process which are not specified in any way. Zt is therefore unclear to

|us under what cqrd.'tions the Comsission would exercise its authority

|dder-Part 61.58 and whether or :ot waivers could be granted

for waste that exceeds the concentrations in Column 3 Of

Table I. Our view is that tiansuranic-contaminated waste

should under no circumstances be. considered low-level waste

and should not be included La low-level waste disposal sItes.

Rather, this material should be disposed of at the specificallydesignated sites operated by the federal government to receive

1and dispose of transuranic-contaminated waste.

3) Part 61.54, similarly, in one brief paragraph appears

. to permit the Com.=ssaion to authorize provisions other. than

| those set forth in detail in Parts 61.51 through 61.53 of the

/ proposed raule.ak"ng wIthout any discussion of the ccnsiderations that would go into such a decision. One can only wonder

\hy w the speclfic elements of this rulemaking are included if

the CcmmissIon is empowered at the same time to unilaterally

change th' :requisite.requrments for secrecation and disposal

of waste on the basis o' what appears to be an azbi.a-v f±•dQLog. ThIs par- should be clarf '"ad or deleted.

4) 7Par 61.i2 -- Fund'nc for d'stosal site closure and

stabilization. Te fianc al. ar=angements, wnala on -ae r:g:t

teack, do not appear to us to be suf':ciently comprehensive.

:t is unclear whether the annual review by the CcmmIssIcn of

the-fLr -- cial a:rrngements would include the require=ant that

the size of the post-closure funding be increased on an arnual

basis to account for inflation and un'creseen proble=s and costs. .he financial surety arrangements mentIoned 'a subparagraph (C)

(surety bonds, cash deposIts, certificate of deposits, etc.) ara

lz- | not Instruments which increase in value over tine to compensate

for th effects o: in'lat'on. We suspect that a device such as

psnkiag fund would be a preferable vehicle, but this receives

ko ention. Additionally, there is no mention whatsoever of

.he funds that would be required or the Source of such f'_ds if

robloas shoald occur at the s'ts which would requ:re considerably greater post-closure expense than that bcudgeted on an

assumption of normal operation. Surely the experience of the

State of-Hentucky-with Maxey Flats testifIes to the importance

of making ccntingency funds available in the event that serious

probls occur. This issue should be addressed and the ruleoig changed accordingly.

( 5) Sua'ert F -- Particizatlon bv state coye ents and

fr , 1 :r.dian tribes. We ra distur:ed by the tenor co Scbpa:: F

) As dcafted, It a;pears to set up an adversary relationship

B-340
-4-

R. Dale Smith -3- 5anuary 12, 1932

between the states and the federal goverrnment. Rather there

should be full cooperation between state goverment and federal

agencies in all phases of lew-level waste management. This

rulemaking as drafted does not lay the groundwork for that

cooperation. For example, the state proposal for participation

required under Part 61.72(b) and (c) calls for a submission by

the state of various specific items of information at a time so

- I | early in the process that all the state's concerns may not yet be apparent because of lack of information. While we understand the Comission's desire to avoid an unnecessarily protracted participation by a hostile state, nonetheless the

legitimate interests of state governments should be accommo- dated Ln a -ore thorough and flexible manner. The regulat'cns as drafted do not acccmplish this. Note also in Part 61.71

the statement that *upon request of a state or federal government body, the director may make available Commission staff to

discuss withrepresentatives ofthe state...' (emphasis addedl.

As a first step in the r'ght-directin,- surely the word may'

should be replaced with 'shall.' This section should be com- pletely revised to facilitate collegiality between the federal

government and the states.

6) Pert 61.a2 -- Ccmmission inscectons of land disnosal

) c~it'es. We inoroughIy endorse oae notaon that the Cc=isLon should be afforded an opportuniLy at all reasonable times

t inspect radioactive wastes and the premises, equipment, etc. An explicit provIsion should be added that host states enjoy a similar righ-.

7) Part 2, Subeart 2:764 (al (b) (e). The intent and con- sequences o. these parts are unclear. They appear to authorize

Ian intial decision by the Commission that would preclude effective appeal by either a concerned party or state. r. ediate

PAr42-Z effec-tiveness, as it has been Implemented by the Commission in

reactor licensing, has had the effect of denying states effective participation, discouraging cooperative efforts between

state and federal governments. and rendering state's appeals

ineffectual, since a facility would commence operation before

apeals had run their course. .he implications of these sec- tions should be clarified.

Bel-w you will find additional detailed corments of varf- ous State agencIes on the proposed rulemaking.

?S RESCURCES AG-ZCY

WXth regard to s':a suitability described in Section

1 61.50a)(5), the criteria should be changed to require a |lower r'sk of flooding. Currently, the section would

allow waste disposal in a floodplain that is likely to be

flooded less than once every 100 years. ihe current

ratings of flood risks are crude at best. For example,

in California we have had floods rated as a 100-year

flood and as a 300-year flood, both wIthin the last 2S

:)-50-3 .years. This experience has led many people to suggest that ou estimates of flooding potential are mu=ch too low.

3ased on the California experience, wewould suggest that

the 100-year flocdplain discussed in the regulatien should

be increased to at least a 300-year floodplain and, preferably, to a 500-year floodplain. *Where the purpose-of the dIsposal site is to keep the wastes isolated for a period of at least 500 years, surface fleoding of that

site should be avoided within cur best estimates of what

would be likely to happen within that 500-year period.

The experience at Maxey .lats, Kentucky, should convInce

people that flooding of the disposal site should be avoided.

.Id, the performance ebjec-ive in SectIon 61.2 concerning

protect- on of indI'viduals from inadvertent intrusIon should

be strengthened. Some kiid of permanent sign or war.ni < dev'ce should be-in place at the perimeter of the site. - I '- The warning sign or symbol should be designed to last 500

years and to remaneffect've as a co==nicator, even if

the language spoken, i. the-area changes within that period.

An example could be a combination of the skull and cross- br.es and the symbol for auclear radiation.

Fourth, although the regulaticns describe minimun requirements for waste characteristics to be accepted at a disposal

its, the regulations do znot appea: to require some k'nd a!

checkIng of the condition of the materials at the site. A

site could experience the problems found in the past when

sealed steel drtms were delivered for disposal and no one knev whct the d -fls conta'.ed. 'f tere is no frogram for

checking the contents of the drum, either at the site of

origin or at the disposal site, the requfrements for waste

chaacreristics msay well ie-ig-ored by many of the waste

ener~eators .

.1

B-341
. .. I .

-5- -6-

F-z,-

'1 r' 

OFFIrcr OF ZMERCENCY SERVZCES

Following closure, the draft assumes the State becomes the

site cwner (pp. 3-36 of MUMMG-0782. V-2.). However, paragraph 61.59 of Part 61 states either the state or the

federal govezrnent shall become the site owner. Governmental ownership is certainly desirable; however, the

apparent conflict should be clarified.

Pa-agraphs 61.1 and 61.3 indicate that l'ceases will be

Issued by the .C. In pazagrapc 61.70 through 61.73, provision 's made for a state or trIbal government to particlpate ia the licensing process, yet it is. quite clear the

MIC retains sole authority to issue the license. This

suggests that a local jurisdLction has neither a voice in

determnring whether or-rot a site is established in their

locale nor.the conditions under which it is established

anc cperated. The NRC should take steps to facilitate

partlcipaticn by affected lccal goveranents, Including

consideratIon of funding such partIcipation.

If the State government has lIttle or no real control during

the functional liLa of the site, there is some question

whether ILt would wish to assume responsibility fos the site

when it was closed. This would be especially quesoicnable if

the new site owner (L.e., the State) was ex-ected to fud

the cost fo: maintenance nAd monItcring.

Although severa. methods ae* mentIoned for providing funds

to he institutional authority, the rule makes no provisIon

r it. Ia act, the Commission admits it has no authority ..require.land disposal facility licensees o provide

i'ancia: responsibilIty for activItIes occurr:ng after the

riginal lLcensee's responsibilItIes have ceased and the

lIcense has been transferred to another party." We would

suggest the Commission ask Congress for authorIty to :equire

fInaacial assurances for l'censees for the active ins:tLuticnal czatrol period.

tor addItional co=ments please see Part 7.2 below of the comments on the envIronmental impact statezant.

DEPARMEMT CF CCNSERVATICM

Th California Department of Conservation (CDC) has reviewed the subject document for its geotechnical and

procedural aspects. We. . feel Section 61.72 is very F- I Important, providing for State participation in the re- view of any license application that affects the State.

These procedures are very important to assure a real

opportunity for the states, and thereby any affected

local government, to have an effective input in the lowlevel waste (LIM) disposal process and specific site

decisgons which inevl;ably will impact all "host states.

4 owever we believe that there is a significant defect in

Subas-D, ubseetios 61.50, Distosal site'suitabitv

reeure~ntsfor land disjosal. Taese requirements will

not provlde adequate protection to usable groundwater or to te envL-onm st from radionuclides that could be

transported r-cm the site by groundwater.

None of the stipulations in the disposal sIte criteria

refer- specifically to preventing migration of radionuclides into usable groundwater. Item (7) in Subsection

61.50 states, Thae disposal site must provide sufficIent

depth to the water table that groundwate in-trus ion,

perennial or otherdise, into the waste, will rot ocour.

The Co=aissIon will consider exceptions to this requirement if it can be conclusively shown that disposal site

ch aractristIcs wIll resu':t in dffusion being the predominant means of radLonuclide movement and the rate of

movement wIll resultin the ,erformancsacbjectves of

Subpart C of this part being net.-

Our ccncern is that the above-quoted stipulation Ls concerned only with groundwater Latrusion into the facility

and, fr-thermore, would allow diffusicn of ridLonuclides

in groundwater as an acceptable concept La the disposal

of waste.

what is lacek'-q in these criterIa is the fail-safa approach

to planning and design. The u'certaintles L-:herest in geologic, design, and operational factors for any LLW site

cast serious doubt on the assumpticn that the wastes can be guaranteed to be isolated for the prescribed time. I:

radionuclLdes should prematurely escape from their ccnf!-ement at the'site, it would be difficult and ex- nsive, if

not impossible, to prevent theIr contaminating the groundwater. Therefore, CDC recommends that item (7) in Subpart

0, Section 61.50 be rewrItten as follows:

B-342
-7-

Department of Conservation (continued)

The disrosal site must not be located 1/ within basins c jLontaininusable orcundwater or tbe'r recharoe areas or 2/ w~thmn geologic formations which will vermA: the

diffusion of radionuloides to the environments or chei:

transoort by aroundwater to a degree exceedirng the vor- Yormance oblec:ives of Suboa-t C. -

We recogn'ze that the adoption of this recormendatlin

will have the effect of dacreasing the n=-ber and s'2e

o' the search-areas which would be eligible for consideration as potential LLW sites. Nevertheless, we believe that the seriousness of the risk of any radioactive contamination of groundwater warrants this degree

of effort to assure that even if radionuclides were to

escape, they could not contaminate any usable aquifer.

She regula:'ons also. fail to speclfy.Ln Subpart G, Subsection 61.81 the natureand extent of Records, Reports,

Tests and Inspect'ons s we whieh will required to ensure compliance with Subpa:t D - Technical Requirements for

Land Disposal Facilities. Greater specificity is neces- sary regarding geologic, hydrologic, and other types of

su-veys and/or research to determine that potential sites comply fully with the regulations.

. .. .-

DPAFT ! AZ rP)AC STAT NT ON 10 CFR PAM A N SW:S

FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE'

The Draft Env'ronmental Impact Statement is an important

accompanying document,7without which the proposal rulemncing would be difficult to assess. Cor=ents from several

state agencies are included below. First, however, I would

like to make a few additional points.

1i Part 2.3 -- Alternative Disoosal Methods. The Z:S discusses briefly ocean dsposal of low-level wastes. Although

this disposal alternative is not addressed in detail within

the EIS, we want to express our opposition to the use of the oceans for disposal of low-level wastes.

2) Part 4.t l -- Institutlenal Control Reoirements. We

support the concept o_ permttzang disposal o: low-level wastes only on land owned by the federal government or by

the states; since the need fo: control of near-surface

disposal facilities will last, in some cases, for several

hundred years.

3) Part S.5.1.2(2) -- Site Characteristics. With regard

to t*e locaticn of _uture stes, we believe the criteria

should be changed to. re*quie a lower risk of floodtnq.

We-reiterize our-cnmment (see conments above from The

Resources Agency) that the 100-year f'.ocdplain nay not be

conservative enough. We suggest that a. 300-year flcodplain

or, preferably, a 300-year floodplain be required to avoid

surface flooding of a site.

4) Part 5S .1.3(2) -- Desien end Ocerations. Ve share

the view onac prior to any-license &pplicaeton, the appli- cant shall gather information concer-nig 'the ecology,

meteoroloy, -climate, hydrology,-geology, and selsmicity

of the site." However, we disagree with the requi-ement

that 'for those characteristics that are stbec: to seasonal varIation, data shall cover at least one full year."

We believe this should be strengthened. Any locale's

susceptibility to changing environmental factors requires

that an attempt be made to gather historical data so as to

try to accurately-reflect how a proposed site has changed

over time. We suggest that this section be amended to

require collection of historical data going back a reason- able period of time, to the degree such collection is

feasible. - -

31 Part 7.2 -- Jaste Classification Based Ucon Consideratlen o' a Potential i-adver-en: intruder. The discussion o- :.nancial raqu;emen:s dur'-g the operation of the

B-343
- .1.1

.9-

pcstclosure pearoc touches on most of the relevant issues.

However, there is a lack of depth to the analysis, and

adequate solutions are rot suggested for problems that

have been identiLied. ror example, per our comments above,

it is clear that a sinking fund or scme similar financial

assurance mechanism would be the most preferable alternative for ensuring that necessary funds will be ava-lable

'or the lifetime of the site (i.e., including postclosure

lifetme). Steps should be taken by the Cocmission to

seek the authority to explicitly require that a sinking

fund be established. Instead, the docment endorses less

satisfactory alternatives while at the sane tinA the Ccnmission recognizes the shortcomings of this approach.

Additionally, the EIS, like the draft rulemaking, fails

to account for the possibility of serious problems occurring at the site. It does rot maae contingencies for

such prcblems or for the costs which a state would no

doubt incur if such problems occurred. This is a major

failing of the document and should be rectif'ed. Costs

and cost estimates should reflect the possibility of a

serious failure of the site -- a failure of greater ccnsequence than those that have alraady occurred at

exisoing sites.

6) part 7.2.6 -- Transuranic 1soteres. We support the

retention of the 10 nanocurle pr- gram limit for surface

disposal of Low-level waste. We believe that wastes that

exceed this limit should not he considered low-level waste

and should not be buried at ccmezrcial low-level waste

disposal sites.

7) Pert 9.4 -- State Tribal. aLd Public Pr icn n.

We would like to re:teraea our point made earlier 'i

Part 61.71 of the proposed rulemaking that there should.

be fulL cooperation et-ween .the state and federal governmants in all phases of low-level waste management. 'This

cocpcratIcn will strengthen the working relationship

between the states and the federal government and thereby

facilitate the safe establishnaat of necessary new 'saosal

sites.

'elcw you will find additional detailed cornenns of several

state agencies on the draft EnvIzor:ontal m-pact Statement.

* A4W r 10

i-1S AMALS?6"-

-11-

STATE WATER RESOCRPCES CC'RCL 3OARD

General Cor-ents:

1. In California, disposal to land of all but very low

level radioactive wastes is prohibited by state law

(California Administrative Code, Title 17, Section

30288, attached).

2. The entire document fails to emphasize the need to

prevent significant movement of pollutants !=cm the

disposal site to underlying ground water. The placeme.t of an inpervious cap over the waste will not

preclude gravity drainage of' llquid pollutants through

a pervious trench bottom. Further, -if the trench'- -

walls contain pervious beds (even lenses or Istringers"l,

water from precipitation or other nearby sources can

move laterally into the trench, leach out pollutants,

and then percolate vertically to cnderlying ground

water. These-grouad water pollution threats can be

essentially precluded by requiring dispcsal trenches

to have Impervious bottoms and si'es. An engineered

iapervious barrier: such as a clay l'ner could be required for eachk.dspcsal trench. aetter:yet, the

trench-site should be an area having-a substantial

thickness of clay. (See Class I Dispcsal Site Cr'-

tela, Califcraia AdmIaIstratIve Code, itle 23,

Section 2510.)

Scectfic Cnments:

1. Sumary Pace 11. - The abbreviations. PWRP and '3WPR'

shoulc be interpreted (re Report Page 3-10, bottom).

2. Rerort, Paces 10-6 ard 13 et sec. - The southwest

"ypot zncal regionali stet 's described as serving

the western ha!f of the country. The 'High P2a-'s

location, however, is far frcm the significant concentration of auclea: generating facIlIties on the

west coast. it would be more appropriate for the

western hypothetical s':e to be located near the west

coast facilities.

3. Prooosed Rule 10 CFR Par 61:

S A. Section 61:40 sets standards to avoid excessive exposure to humans. Excessive exposure :o Animal

U shou d be avoided also.'

<3 Section 61zSo should Inclu'e crite: a raeq'in;

-a ;-pvicus aterian ac tes (dat or eanl iepsedal / beneath and ao'g tbe si''s of *ll ' ''sFsal

-an:'es.

B-344
!? - F ?

 -- -

Ai.irle 1. Geioe-zol Poontol4,mm

rewi. perfi..iit",o .r Tersest (ooJ - pjvi %aooselLo ooo.'uooo smy oial-vm

oo,..o)lo Iii,.ON 1"alorol soD& emi.l 1 li~psod oemt-.hmaooi I gt So01iorleoqi. Rely

Just .4 boemo'Sclenorsooooi p~laoid *oooo .N1s tic arilxs'gw eof 54oem.t 4111,o.

* ol w1.000 0lrgio s- ItoHart ,Imirtim o ft lose sill wOobeol ls fmcivel ofb~

Dolt ilwoili& graoIoold on sittfooct' water hodoooIk-5 Cooaleoo.llay Dooooloo.

I~tot. -1

ist IS lla oohe eviooefl ileol em iti eo~oIn-~o 1 roohillaoo Cvost loo .eot

loose at'oSIr-EII usob vallooeotcu Ilio*mttT.l lo tolam.- Do booo gom.,e a loruo

6% tber Isorzalt Son InelJ-haiOl~olp poh.41. ursofo~ ldowdsooeo4i goooldoolor Sloli'..

El 0 or0)il.~ lIeoo'Vor4 l)ejoule ha t.lomit kL-1letuwo. IOOEI,00Role o or00 ho 031. rwst010 110 lImage0000. Ii Io,1cut l.i walrole 11ooqcit.

.4 )~~oI~*H20 ~lol o~~oH,. .400.op.toI0* 5 .~~

wrotaooo @ l0oE'0 wiiDo.lho.ie a hiegv 1I to) knwIi' E1t1ifruy. iiP

I% fi ds rd 2%i. a boo4 tlk. "Iooo- of rVolso,,e lmieool te

ti Iw. l Moiut Isl);IA0oo S~tsace Or tios-sJ Sv;o1 teM or dl.0Oe. 41%itooi ap5 olull

I.r g"t"ooU 41ov-st, oistaoole pl-froteraootre. "tint bosflosr~osulm coflyh.gwanS ip

I 0011, EON'ooma IIIV so ite oem (irmro I

he ml ieoolreerle "io~lh lesilly Inovseld In.ell sf0. orega.aloes nraoolo.. ,lo

hoI, sl'atulsable 'Aso esetwe r r.nswasv%,- ti.o le inuisjo oteolst lob',;

let, -Ioiocelslo ary carber Macn (oeroaloioo toilvsclo t0loh reItpl

l1o.o,1e .4 pio'lonw,,:.by l.ettrInSaol.t wooe I,- joorooooohooly sloio.mu l~ too

is.eiton *,A't toitlo OE'JoV"tAo'KA wIt~ tpies~o tlu,iof twel. 1

oo2m)0 oI0T i~taiC21 uOfcon or

gkemowl~d raer IsV;' 4etloC001CCmI.oblolott

nu~o~OObb ler.01 (Ina Warr. Iwl~.or..! ohl 1i, n Lst ,

i o~glt IO"t emISou3 Ioa.- 1of ostAI In ov, tan"', V

t~C T,5lermoigme iOn~o.t CA W 4 seres) 5.o4.l 'OSle aooe. 50 st - .g'

(2 lmolt S at dtimttowt a40boIfOe slohl tmo Sefo'El £550

omootlot (o' ea sm" dl tI SS iloatbnooos0 0

:tII1 'TheaTruiEs' tci C)spoa eml )'o toa~ooCOl, 400. \on Sow! 01j.011 ~* it ds)O .ot ooohOrlsO' ioot~ndellP' 55.oGit of re05 of£. sduwssre

11iaft41II I to. ho1...ol . 131 5fl.04,tor 311( dor2roO01W Dtroo" o

bekIanohlt-'e 1ICI.ll s~I"011. WltepOuoti "'SatocsSeor

55al. theO1tO4rdO. (s)e milk",o hoeroloemtl ooaio %jlsoo i,5). £000)l y ho" l

Ise'~ to,110 g coklOgplit. folenoos. Mt .lai!Clefea ulm

(I he 1soI pedcarlo exainaiereI s1Os slut SU!-Oss" 81!) I

InlK31 CISMITIZmILOVS eUotoeOobat ooool)5lo allaroi (oE'C')1o~

,ouoooil oII (t eote)Oo~o eoi ~ IFognoe reCnrd Ise11.

11:Ce Led.l.otteo oooll.3OO ogoe~th0o~oKon sof tloe 1 oieollobo oai0Or't105 0 ~o oo.Fd m!)$4-

be ota eonol.4(Sit Aro C.Ce"oo-iI is th!Oib POe O)%10Vi

4) le~oOOto e~soi~ioo~lSstollu~gOSi gsede~ n050305 - 7a

(i' ,oo.0oIemoowINJ,:l I Olo I floo.bi0iv r s'ilosj.0ori ;l.1 somSlo b

(I) gio~.q..ovo~ot t oiloooioOdt I0100ISOI

ti iioll 11o1S11C Ioo one Soy OlOOIO7)04losOu44 ,00bo "ioso

000

~oeoootCli~OOtCloooooSt' ,p.iS0O0O0Olo0.1O~O st sol ooie tlct "he lie IS Imab)l*' oooohb, "II Iise lf .'.11Vpljltr. rUiAS Iso 

$11 o..oi jI A x s...o000ot .er~ lOS. (lb Sotil 505 Iool0701 *0.to ~o oll~o.0 J lsl-lodOO50500101.3' 330

1031o1. Apjooosolio is.

In, PI I NDD I

r.o oJo.oo05 ( . . . 00 * . o. =o o Ili ........ . . . . . . . S

0 0 has s. o.. ....... ..... 

M ,, ................... 50 *O~~S0..: 00 P.. .... .. 0. 

I.......... S .. ~ oO . 0

sa..E0 ,4.0 0 ........... .

)o.... sea ....... 0.0

... . O Wm. .............

s-to-o..00 00 l..~

600100000.0 0.0.0 . 000 *hSS

t..0* . 00O.0 H t*.o.0

00 IA...EO....................o. 004.. . O~15..o.0h . Is. Is0 0. . ..............

H h..H ....... 00 0.o.P

* sg.....HO...... E E....~eo .0f .O .. s....o., J

.0..14,. 0 t~ ... 4... .E ... oti' NO of. m mS-, y.... u~::

jl .0 of. 0..0..Ot0

H £.~.00l .yl 'OO., , .~ WE 1....00 £4 i. - .4. h

.C.
.; I :. . I

* I t* ., .

-15-

Deoartnent of Conservation (continued)

-14-

(along with uncertainty in the capability for adequate

orceent of the regulations relative to proper packaging

D- an~d disposal, we recommend that item 7 in Subpart D. Section 61.50 of [the proposed rulemaking 'orl 10 CYR Part 61

be rearitten as recommended above.

RESOURCES AGENICY, DEARTEN'T CF CONSERVATION4

D-54- 11

T

b

C

t

he California Department of Conservation, based on review

y the Division of Mines and Geology, has considered the

raft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to geotachnical aspects and procedural requirements.

In the DEIS, NRC discusses the use of high-integrity disposal package containers with extended containment lIfe

(approximately 300 years) for use in the disposal of highconcentrations wastes, as a waste processing option (DEIS,

Ch. 5.2.4.8, App. D.4.3). This section also discusses

potential use of similar containers for lower concentration

wastes, but usage of this type of containaerized disposal is

not required by the proposed regulations. Also, for less

concentrated wastes,: the proposed regulations appear to

require that the disposal package containers maintain their

integrity only during the cparat-cnal phase of the disposal

site trenches-(DEES, App. 0.4.3). However, we feel that

because the less concentrated wastes could stIll release

radionuclides similar to, or even the same as, those contained in the waste packages for high-concentration wastes,

container integrity is essential to preventing the release

of radionuclides into groundwater (prior to adequate confined decay time) to-insure that the resultant activ'ty

level is low enough to not pose a danger to public health

and safety.

As discussed in the OEIS, the proposed regulatIons in 10

CYR Part 61 assume that in the event of early release of

radionuclides. fom disposal containers, or fr'm decontaine:ized disposal, the site design, including the geologic

setting, should be capable of preventing radionucl'de

Sigrat:o0 out oc tne disposal teanctes and .nto tne sunrounding -groundwater and environment. However, the proposed regulations provide no fail-safe assurance that this

will be the case.

Even if the wastes ware to be segregated according to the

active lIfe of the different radLonuclides and disposed

of in coatainers which could maintain bheL integrity for

the necessary containment time of each of the different

classes of radionuclides, there does -ot appear to be

adequate provisions in the proposed regulations for enforce- ment of this degree of detailed insecticn during waste

processing. We feel-that the potential for'migration of

radionuclides from the disposal sits and subsequent coan- tamisation of groundwater in the vicInity of the disposal

sites could, coupled with adequate site planning and desLgn,

be minimized by- contai-erized disposal of wastes in contaIners capable of naintaining their integrity for a 1in--um

confinement period of 100 years [10 CFR Part 61, Subpart A,

61.7 (4)M. owever, due to the lack of provisions an the

regulat~ons to require contaaeriZed disposal of all wastes,

B-346
-17-

Decartment of Health Services (continued)

-16-

DEPARP.%M£' OF _ZALLT SERVICES

We continue to be troubled by the cost issues and their presentation in this ESS draft.

First, we are discouraged to find XrRC using their own regions

for the waste data bases. The states have been working for

more than a year now with regions and waste volute projections based on U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) studies.

Comparison, then, with the USDOE data becomes difficult or

impossible. towever, because we know something of USDOE's

efforts, their strengths and weaknesses; there is a need

for careful comparison of data and conclusions on such an

important matter as this. The final ZSS should facilitate

those comparisons.

Secondly, costs are based on the 20-year period f-om 1980

to 2000. We think it important that costs be shown by year

from 1986 (when exclusionary authority may be conferred by

Congress) through 2000. rcr some regions (as defined by

current state actions, or the USDOCE), initial costs may

verge on prohibitive. A review of USOCE data indIcates

that by 1986 only three regions would generate the volume

of waste on which the ESS was based. One, Region 5 (USOCE),

would not have the waste vol -e by the year 2000 (see

Table ).

Given the history o! some existing disposal sites, one key

concern should be the assurance of adequate fInancial resources on the part of the applicant to construct and

operate a disposal facIlity and to provide adeqaats financeal provisions for site closure and long-term care.

The ESU, although it cites no specific cost flgures, appears

to underestimate the short- and long-term costs of operating

and maintaining a low-level waste disposal site, and !ails

to recognize the problems small companies (as identified in

the EIS) have in meeting financial requirements in operatIng

a waste disposal site. it seems likely that few small companies can raise the necessary capital for plant development,

set aside trust funds, cash deposits, purchase surety bonds

against short-term financial needs and further set aside

additional money for 100-year care costs within the life

span of the disposal site. The most careful attention

should therefore be paid to the fInancial resources of any

applicant who seeks to develop and/or operate a new site.

The -unantilcpated contingencies not addressed by the EUS

(i.e., problems occurring at a site) should, we believe, te

explicitly addressed either by the XRC or the Congress.

To the extent that all national sites meet or exceed a

coomon design and performance standard, the Congress might

accept such a responsibility. That uniformity might, however, require some special handling as was done for uranium

mill tailings.

To st-arize, the ESS should contain a section specifically

developed for informing the Congress on the impact of its

impending action as authorized in PL 96-537. That section

would chart waste disposal needs and costs by :egions as

they actually exist or are planned by the states. The conclusion of such a piece might well be that the implementation date of 1986 is too early in terms of waste volune,

and unaffordable. Additionally, given the amount of time

necessary to bring new sites into operation (4-7 years),

the 1986 date in PL 96-537 may be premature, if safe management and disposal of these materials is to be assured.

B-347
-18- R. Dale S3 janu*ary 12, 1th 19382

, -- ----- 5. U . -. IV ------

*flC .cl ort ... t-- -1. stv -- - -

Thank you for a!f-ri.nq 3s t*e cpportmnity to ccvent

of these documents. This is a mo: timely Issue, and one

which we are sure w1il benefit from the ca:zaul attenticn

and input provided by all interested parties.

Sincerely,

2hillip A. Greenbe:g ;

Assistant to the Governor

for Energy and Znvzronmenz

aSeqon 1

RaqLsto 2

120%

46%

140%

2000

23C'

97%

seqion 3 290%

Sellon 4 87%

Region S 40%

Ueqizm S 521 84%

*?4!&Z2csd ;-t-Lel AM4As:L:ve ;d&s: Ro.aS: 2;o::. p:,;_atd h7 '-'a

;. S. z*$arXAM-: of Lmel, 1.'a:-m 13, 1951.

B-348
t \ , 

AFKANSAS POWER & UGHT CCMZ, d'

PCSTCMC XS l U1TLrL! ;oAFKAAS 22M (5011371¶.A

January 14. 1982

OCAN018294 - ' ,aJ

Secretary of the Commission ; -3 . C oil)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555 _ . - 0 

ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch T-X)

Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2

Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368

License Nos. OPR-S1 and NPF-6

Additional Comments on Prooosed Rules

on Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

(File: 3905. 2-3905)

Gentl emen:

The purpose of this letter Is to submit additional comments to those

contained in our October 21. 1981, letter (OCAN138197) on the Proposed

Rulemaking on Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste which was

published in the Federal Refgster on July 24. 1991. The comment period

was extended to Jianuary 1471982. Comments 1. 2 and 3 art contained in

the October 21, 18, letter.

EC^YEtNT NO. 4 - TRANSURANrCS

For most alpha-emitting transuranic (TRU) nuclides, the maximum allowable

concentrations sern calculated to be in the range of 10 nanocuries per

D-55-3 gram. As was acknewledged in the proposed rule, the calculation was

conservative In that it did not allow credit for dilution by other

wastes. We feel that proper consideration of this factor alone could

rsalistically Increase the acove allowable concentration by an order of

magnitude or *ore. It must be recognlzed that the maximum allowable

concentration of 10 nanocuries per gram lImits the options available to

the utility industry to reduce the volume of waste to be shipped by using

incineration or other waste concentration technologies.

(COMMEYT No. e - CHELATING AGENTS

DS4-2 SIn Table 1 of the Waste ClassitfcItion Section 61.5, it states that

wastes containing chelating agents In concentrations greater than 0.1%

- are not permitted except as specifically aooroved by the Ccmmission.

.c- ,l~jw S , .

2CAN618204 2 January 14, 1982

Generally speaking, we feel that this limit is itself overly restrictive.

Alse the rationale for whatever quantitative limit is ultimately used

should not be arbitrary, i.e., It should have a specifically delineated

scientific basis.

CC!ENT NO. 6 - THEORETICAL NAXIMUt SPECIFIC ACTIVITY

1GD- ')This term needs to be defined as to its meaning with regards to this

Lproposed rulemaking.

(CO!ET ,W. 7 - LABELING

- | 0ifferences between GOT and NRC regulations regarding to labeling need to

be resolved prior to implementation to avoid confusion.

IflENT NO. 8 - DE MINIMUS WASTE- CLASSIFICATION'

In the section 'Class C - Intruder Waste', there Is a discussion of a

^De Minimus" classification for wastes which would be exempt from

10CFR Part 61. We understand from this section that the NRC In the next

two years will work to define these wastes and 'to provide for additional

waste exceptions as appropriate." Arkansas Power and Light Company

Supports the need for a 'De Miinimus" concept and encouraes the

expeditious establishment of suitable criteria for this concept. A

'Oe Minimus' classification would result in the conservation of valuable

disposal site burial space while at the same time protecting the health

and safety of the public. With this In m1nd, we urge the Ccmfission to

permit case by case reviews of requests for specific applications of the

'De Minimus' concept during the period criteria are being developed

ECCPENT NO. 9 - ALARA IMPACTS

As has been previously stated, Table I in Section 61.55 has a footnote

eliminating wastes containing chelating agents in concentrations greater

than 01,: except as specifically approved by the Commission. -This

requirement would eliminate most routine decontamination techniques to

reduce occuoational exposures and thus would adversely affect AURA

programs. Again; lInce at least one disposal site presently accepts

wastes containing chelating agents in excess of IX by volume, (a

restriction which is a factor of 10 greater than that proposed In

Part 61), it is not clear to us why this greater restriction is being

prooosed. Guidance on acceotable packaging and disposal techniques for

these agents is needed.

CENT YO. 10 - REED FOR REEVALUATION OF THE CONCENTRATICN LIMITS

IN TABL! I. C, PART 61.55

Table 1 Is a specific listing of radiolsotopes with their respective

concentration limits tor three waste classifications. While it appears

that some of the concentration limits shown are reasonable, demonstrating compliance for others would be most difficult becsuse of problems in

sampling, e.g., taking Measurements with long delay periods for offsita

transport which would then Inevitably result In additional Increases In

ersonnel radiation exposures and increases in disposal costs.

B-349
OCAN018294 3 January 14. 1982

Additionally, the actual measurement of TRU in tUe 10 nanecurie per gram

range while in the presence of other interferrlng radionuclides would be

very difficult with today's technology. We do recognize that detection

of 10 nanocuries per gram can te readily accomplished. however. if

transuranic isotopes are the only ones present. Furthermore. It should

be recognized that the present policy of volume reduction doe increase

the concentration of radionuclides In the waste and could cause the waste

to exceed the Table 1 concentration limits. For these reasons, we feel

that the concentration limits in Table 1 should be reevaluated to

termine their ability to be achieved In a realistic situation and in a

cost effective manner. Simply put, Implenentable technology does not

exist at this tim. to realistically determine the concentrations -

haracteristic of a given Isotope, especially in dry trash.

CCMMENT NO. 11 - SUPPORT OF AIF COMMENTS

Arkansas Power and Light Company endorses the corxents prepared by the

Atomic Industrial Forum Working Group on IOCFR61. Proposed Rulemaking on

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste and on tUe

Environmental Impact Statement - NUREG 0782. The Atf comoents are hereby

Incorporated into ours by reference.

Sincerely,

A . ,ee

David C. Trimble

Manageai Licensing

OCT OET: *I

STONE & WEEBSTESt ENGIINEERINO CORPORATION

24 summaR Srmtr. cosvoST MASSAcMusMS A "ewe o* eALA0@4,,eawee to Pe. s esa LL-0e.? . -ASe. "#07

v*s5 *4eS?

_.t,,,_~C .z~~W T qZ. :b-@j.n :.,ies;. ..

.b.

.. am

Secretr7 of the Comission January 12, 1982

Attention Docketing and Sarvice Branch

U. S. Yuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 *

Dear Sir: 5 SJ

LiCaxsvIo munma FOR LAD DISPOSAL cr TY I) RADIOACTIVE WASIT, 10CfR61 * . .. *

46UF83tSl, JrLT 24, 19S1 - t 1

46TR51776, OCrOBER 22. 1981

We are pleased to submit our comments on the subject proposed rule. we Go)

generally concur with the philosophy end recocmended approach embodied ia

the proposed rule and believe the proposed rule to be appropriate in that

it will serve to increase the consistency of practices and requirements

imposed by various disposal sites.

Su mary of Rule. On page 461R38087, in the paragraph entitled

"Opycrationl shaae, it is stated that a license reneval application would

be submitted every 5 yr afte: lssuaUce of the license. we sug$est ; that the first 5-yr interval should commence after the Commission authorizes

lienssee to receive waste, since the license is issued prior to construction end the operational phase does aot begin until construction

is complete.

ectio 51.26t). zW suggesa this paragraph be replaced via the following:

Prior to completion. of the cannstruct:oa of the facility, the licensee

will make available for Commission inspection any information necessary

to assure the Codission tSha the facilit7 has beta constructed in S - . a cordance with the applicable requirements established in the

application. At or about the time of completion of constr-^: tiz, the

applicant will submit an attestation to the Commission that the

facility meets the applicable requirements of the license.

The attestation shall state the name of the applicant, the name and

location of the facility, the time when the facility is expected to be

ready to commence operation, a*d shall contain a statement that the

facility meet the applicable requiresmets of and conforms to the

application for a license for such facility.

,,,,-,*, _Ig,^ s 7.q 

B-350
1:0: :. .

S of the C 2 January 12, 1982

ASA

I:2JA

Within 10 days of receipt by the Commission of such attestation, notice

thereof shall be published in the rederal Register. Thirty days

T following receipt by the Comajasion of such attestation, the licensee

my m- coence waste disposal aetflities unless the Comisston issues an

order prohibiting or limiting such actions and explaining the reasons

therefor.

(Seetion 61.24(h). The Comissioon should not make any chsapngto a license

unless that change Is first justified via the performance of a value/impact

* *.analysi..

KSection 561.S6(3). This section requires that the waste package

' presented for disposal comply vith SRC and DOT transportation regulations.

_ Ths implies that the disposedpackage could or must be a Type A, Type b,

1 or arge Quantity package including all related shielding and other

transportation-related requirements. Vhile It is unlikely that this Is

SMC's intent, the wording of the paragraph can be interpreted in this

oner. SIC should clarify and rewaord this requirement.

Secion 61.S6Cb)(l); The reuiirement that waste packages presented for

diIpoa .. r tain 95 percent dimensional stability after burial is

Inconsistent with the capability of most solidification processes. A

)solidifed material can be packaged Lea degrsdable container. Most D -5'-1 solidification processes cannot fill a container 95 percent full.

Sherefore, whe. the container degrades, the wasteferm can compress to less

It 95 percent of the original package volome.

t - , -w ;3 .

The 9S percent stability requirement as vritten, therefore, implies or

requires the use of high integrity containers for solidified materials.

The option of using a high integrity container in lieu of solidifftation

then becomes no option at all.

_Section 2.764 e . The initial issuance of the license and any amendzents

to the license should be justified via the performance of value/impact

ststemssents. ' '

(Section 20.311(b). The shipmunt manifest should also indicate the

M2-~ | "radiation level' of the waste container to be buried as well as the other

wsste characteristics noted.

We appreciate the opportunit? to assist in the development of this rule,

and hope that the above eosments will assist you in its finalization.

Very truly yours,

R. S. Bradbury

Cb.if Licensing tng4 neer

RS:ned

HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY

IaL4 ,Sos'e .wma 5 ALStI-5 1;, MEMMOLD, ?.sae.1wy ftsedem

' ' ' '''e .i.Newe~l2st5Ii - - eeeeTee: (SI, -a2?5

Seeretary /

U.S. Suclear Ragulatory Counition e Waahigtton. D&C. 20533 -

Attentions Dockeaing and Servfce Sranch

ta: Licensing lequirements far Land Disposal of ladioactive Waste,.

Proposed RPle 10 Cr2 Parts 2-. 19. 20, 21. 30. 40, 51, 61, 70, ZOO

73. and l70, 46 Il 38081. July, 24. 1981

.he ;ealth fysics Society, is a Yatiossal orgaization of approvinately 3,000

scient2sts snd professionals engaged in the practice of radiation protection. The

Societ7's prinar7 objective is the development of scientific knowledge and practical

nea2s for the protection of man and hts environnent from the harmful effects of

radiation while encouraging the optimue ucilization for the benefit of mankind.

It is in the sense of this objectie that we ofer, for ?our conslideration and

action, the folloving conencs On the proposed rules referenced above.

These coenits veie developed bj the Society's Ce=rittee oa State and Tederal

tegislaclen snd are offered an behalf of the Societ7 by the Committee and the

Society's Officers; We vish to acknowledge the cooperation of nfC's staff in

providing some iit nforatio on the proposed rules changes end.the 'nvironmntal Inpect Statement;. I. . .

Zn general, we sage. with the efforts by the Coamissiou to develop the new

Part 61 specifically addressing land -disposal of radioactive wastes.

1 cunn taspect of the proposei rules is the matter of how such radioaecive

wastes are classi'Ied (!or ux* by shippers, i.e., waste generators; by processors.

who consolidate shlpeatsn; and by the recipients, i.e., licensed land disposal

faclities). 'he sealeth hysics Society members would be wot affected b? the

proposed rules which apply primarily to generators, al:hough we are also itearested

in the health phys'cs practices expected of facility licensees en protect :he

employees, the "Intruder,", and the Sgneral public during several phases of the

life cycle of the facility. - -

We therefore believe end recomeand tha:-MIC clearly sreprate the rules-with

which the generator nact comply in separating, identifying, classifying, packaging,

labeling, sad shipping wastes from rules which are to be unicuely net b0 the

licensed disposal facility. There is, in obvious overlap in the sstam for classi-

'7ing wastes as shipped aodast received, to provide 7rimari7 forlong-cern

- .;.

B-351
-. .. 3l . .

saC from 2Ainhold NRC from MeInhold -3- January 13, 1982 -2- January 18, 1982

wP....Srotec:ton from the operation of the facility. Bu: the burdens of certificaticn

4of packaging. ac. which fall co the shipper (or processori should te clearly Jspelled out from those which fall on the facility liceasee. Ts have attempted Lo address this fundamental iSsue ia our co=ments below.

Waste Classification

Cader the proposed rules, wastes are to be classified as eSter Class A Segregated Waste; Class I Sta6le Waste; and Class C Intruder Y-aSte. Zolised is a classification below Class A. a de 'ini-is .caaegcr, and a _:asstfcat'e t*e'

Class C, for wastes which have concnctraicons L tn xcess of Class C. tssentie..ly, there are these five cateSories that both the game:azzr, the ;rccessar, and the

facility operator need to consider.

' Me Isalth Physics Society applauds the effort by the nrC to develop. a: least

)or these proposed rules. a de mlnini classification :ha: would be exempt from

Part 61'(aad other parts of 10 C tchat relate to low le-vel radioactive wastes). T lhese wastes would be considered to be a negligible hazard of no regulatory concern )ad could be disposed of perhaps La a sanitary landfill. We encourage the use of

uch exemptions such as Cas done La 46 P1 16230 for specified waste forms end

concentractlos, and recoend that an exemption (or de -inimis) category be Included in the Part 61 classification system.

W are concerned that able 1 (46 n 38097) has coo nany requirements c:ad a the col 'and footnotes. setting forth both the classificat:on requi:emencs aI d waivers and other key provisions in one-tabl. We urge iCt to dinsntle this tab :mle sand express the requ-amsucs for eeac classSficat:cn in both t aula: cad

narrative form. with a separae table for each; lass; (f: e*xaptions through above

Class C). Each separate table should define a range of concentrataons or quantities a fall withbin that classsifcatioo, and include the wai7ers that may apply to that

sroup. Cerzaialy, the mvater of disposing of radioactive vastes containing chelatina *D-6;-2,agents deser7es aore attention thim a non-ttfereaced footnote to the current taohl 1.

imllarly, beta-emitting nuclUdes ith little or no ge:mA radiation, beta-tait:ing \uclides with significant gaa radiation, and alpha-emitting isotopas other than

raditm should have been clearly listed La the cable, and cot buried ta a footnote.

I oJears pt that the concen:ation Limits for such beta eUittJrs, those aot spec~fL- cally listed, are unduly restrictive. Sices ae classif'cateon system has great imPAC: on the shipper in the packaging and also the use of the mnifest systae (see below)- the separate subparts of 1CCT361 ust be easaIyuaderstood side by side

The curr-ant conglomerat shown as Table 1 cannot-;erit : easy undarstaading as

currnt17 writean.' -

f a properly use the classtfJcation system proposed wIahin .able 1. and the

various footmotes and waivers, the generator will be requl:ad to perform CnL-:o:ag and analysis of each container during waste separation and packaging. A major D^5 

container 

amplim probl a could result iS the gonerstr-licausat had ta prove tbac *-c.% set the classification requiremants stated on the labels or ia the Manifest.' - Recognition of the limits of Instrumentation would assist NHC ia the final

developmnt of suitable concentraticas within each classificaoson in :te reccmmended

spansio4 of .ble 1 snd footmotes, The instruments limit the ability of Ienerators

(of such wastes to carry out che classification process. We unde:stand that detection

D-S%3 Lof-T at 10 nCi/l is possible when only.= :D sotopes Are present. suggest that . the figure for class C li:s for :.t wastes of lO0 aCi/I be acrased to Perhaps

DS5-3 (10 0 aCi/S, which would still provide protecteon for the health ad safety of (yorkers, intruders, or the public.

Waste Characteristics (61.'6)

Paragraph (a) states that the requirements are intended to faciliace handling "at tCh disposal site" and "provide protection of health and safety" prasunably all the way from the geaerator's facilitIes via transportation to the disposal facility. Yet, subparagrapba (1), (2), (3), (6). sad (7) emphasize ?ackitint requiremes D- vhile subparagraph (8) refers to treatmant of biological, eet. wastes. .5. cbparagrapnas

control over toxicity or explosive problems. hbese sections place a heavy burden Licensees disposing of radloactcvely-coacaminated biological or infectious =at- erll, partlcalar'j medical licensees, if the infectious concentratrons are not .town.

P Paragraph (b) translates these requirements (wheic are primarily withIn the - c- control and rescnsiblity of the generator) into requirements for hadling at the L.a to provide stability of the waste for 150 years or more. Eence the structural (stability requiroment becmeas the long-ter respos-Ibility of the generator, a do the requirements for keep ing l'quids low and void spaces to a m Does DliW j2 "practicable" In 61.56(b)(3) imply compaction or solidification? bould continued

ad disposal of liquid scintillation fluids be permitted?

We are concerned that a gZenrator will be held responsible for certifying ( tha his waste, at the cime of shipment, has been packased so as to meet the D stability requirements (of maintsa-ig physical dimensions within 5: ad its form

under 50 psi and other factors for over 150 years). A seprate -ulemaking on the

D-1 b icy -requi-aam for comua ars, as shIpped by. generators, would be useful. Perhaps these requiraments could be idec - ad clearly as shIpper responsibilities d included La the reviicio of 10 CFL 71.

6tabelinet (51.57)

ahe labeling of each container is the resposibility of the waste generator ad requires ae understanding and use of the classificacion system l1mped nto table 1. :oes 3RC intend to require standards labels, warming signs, or other

markligs to supplezmet or replace cur:rec XSI labels? A clear sec of classif Icstlm markings would facilItate the land disposal operations and assist radIologIcal ranty personnel who may have to respond to accidents involving low level wast

|em route to disposal fac'lit ea. Generators have some correct cnccsers over the precision with wih they are epected to analysis the nuclide content. 'his is virally impossible to coi a* quantitatIve manner so the "less t-han statements are usually emp loyed;.'

?-oeeeton -41. 1. 51.42, 61.43)

The SocIety recognizes the need to assure radiation p:otection for employes, C possible Int-rders, and the general public during land disposal facility operation _ and beyond. We recoend that each of these groups be properly protected using limits in 10 Cn 20, as currently writena or as proposed, rather t:an preposiag a systea of new and unique "sts :reated to waste fisposal. The establshen: of a unique ststem of dcse limits for a separate area of the nuclear fuel cycle seems unnecessarv sAd may imply a special need for protection La the -m-ds of the public; thereby exacerbatg An Already confused public perception of rad'osct:ve waste disposal issues.

B-352
n.C fros Y'et-hold -6- Jsnuary 18, 1982 n1C from FAinhold 5_- January 1!, 19!2

Soeetfte fecbsteel Inform*tfon and Technical Analysis (Sl.12. 61.13)

J concur that applicants for a facility license should tnclude in the

stadard technical specifations a radiation protection program (Item k) asd an enviroental monitoring program (item 1). 16uch of the future success of a 6_1 ac aosnal land disposal operation for radioactive vwst. lies in achieving proper 6-I radiation protection for employees, intruders, and the public. U1 would be

adequately safeguarded by eMhasis on thoroughly planned and implemented radiation protection sad envirovnental control programs. Obviously, these protrm

require proper analysis of lnstrmeneat-on readings, maintenance of disposal

logs, etc. to verify meetint of applicable requiretents of Parts 20 and 61.

Monitorfng and analytical requireseurs for occupational exposures should be

Consistent with the criteria for ALARA.

fransfer for Dtsvosal and S!anlfescs (20.311)

.he purpose of this section is desctibed as being designed to control trans- for of vaste sod establish a manifest Cracking system. Cn the feae of itt the

need for a maniest system follovs autematicstly from the increased emphasiS en a new classtftcatioo system for -1aste, on nev packaging and labeling requirements. and on placing responsibility for complIance wIth these new requireenrts on the

waste generator.

ae therefore recemmed tbat the proposed ma=Lest s-eten requireoenrs be IA I included in revision to 10 C1% 71, Packaging of Radioactive Ytaerial for Transporz ... end be applicable to the wide range of radioactive maceral shipments

for the sake of consistency. The -aiest system for radioactive vastes should

be identical to the nanifest system for my other radioactive 7aterial - or to any other hazardous material during trasport.

There is clearly a need to estahlish a labeling system for packates intended

for land disposal of radiosctive. wastes that is consistent labels for packages containing ocher radioactive macarlal - or other hazardous msateral. nTe

labels end manifest informatien oust obviously be identical' and consistent vith

any label or manifest for aty sh*b;ent of rad'oactmve aterial.

;th regard to the specific requirements of the proosed =ani!est system, we concur that, to be meas.niful, there =ust be clear identification of each pack- . ,htX. ., . ... J.... _ . _ _ _. _ _ _

As indicated above, the estire nreponsabil2ity for ec sificatiom and Con-

(forasce to waste characteristics falls upon the generator cot just during the

initial transportation but for the next 150 years (61.36(b)(1). We utgest that

such a wartaaty be either speificlly required in writing on each manifest or thaat system of shared responsibility between generator end facility icensee Mv-7 be permitted. The generatorvill warranty that,, to the best of his knovledge and effore;s the packages being shipped will meet the long-terz, 150-year P-5-c8 riteria at the time and place of shipment. The fatcilty Lieesee vill varranty to 'MC or the Scate that, to the best of his loowledge and efforts, the packages as buried will meet the ame criteria. The form of quality Assurcea progre by both the generator or processor to meet these criteria ma need to be

pelled out In. -ore detail.

ZeeulatorT rmoact -

The S'C sets forth the basis for the proposed rules and refers Interested

par-tite to T,7(-0782, the draft '1S Volumes 1,2,3 and 6, issued September 1981.

in the preparation of these Comments, no detailed study of VRE-07S2 has been

at:empted. The following contents are based cn discussioas-with pensona~who have

mads that effort *nd in response to Issues raised IA 46 TR 38088.

Tfhe proposed rule changes vill have an impact on significanc numbers of per- isons ncluding organizatIons licensed by SC and agreement States and users of

non-licnsed- radioactive material who offer such materIal as Vastes for final

*.J nd dlsposal. Much of thi impaec, vill be positive 7rovidSng ceaer and can- sistent criteria for the safe disposal of such wastes and thereby encouraging he ptium ut4li'ation of radiatcon for the benefit o' mankind. as a result

of resolving the land disposal issue. ?roper standards for licensing land disposal facilities are urgently needed to permit additional sites to be developed

d offered to generators.

f hue aalth P7hsics Society C=mittee on State and Federal tsglslatio0 has

co speciftcal.1y addreoted the jrocess through which h:t;re land dtsposal !acilii. a t applicants will have to go to achieve a License. te note briefl, witch vo cerm. that the opportunities for hearings, through Atomic Safety and Licensing ards * vith further appeals. etc., may result in exctssive delays in ach evint e sirte unless issues cthat might be contended ar limited to those Idenotifed

the proposed rule and discussed In the eccompanyrsg draft Ers, including the
n= ftom Melahold -6- Januay IS. 1982

(rules and the U5 would be thac a maJor loug-tr= public and occupational health

'~ 1)\ proble Is created by the operation of land disposal facilities for low level

rdioactive wastes. Fence, the NRO has proposed rules which, according to the

Federal Reiister notice, are copatiblie with, and possibly duplicative of,

e isg Federal regulations, but with an inczeasing intensity and specificity _:o a percaive4 unique problem. Not only are rules proposed for the disposal

facility, but nore and 4diferent IMC r-les are proposed for the packaging and

ibeling of each container; presumably on the argument that if each container

mCets the classification requiremeots, the a¶ of all containers (the disposal ) facility contents) will smat health and safety c<:aria for at least 150 years. ahe scope of the new rules imply a regulatory deficiency that requires a program

I of 150-year stability, to be cart."ied in advance as being able to meet health

physics objectives over the future. VW believe the need for land disposal

facilities is imperative and that the new proposed rules should reflect a less

deficient cad less dasparate current practice.

Sincerely yours,

Charles 3. Meaihold

President

'Don't CW gte C W-hingtor 'Lega CDefcnse "ToundatiorL

Suite 6S4 Colman Buildin; a Sl I Fit Avenue

Siettl.. Wahrigton 98104

Secretary of the Comission nuary 12, 1982

U.S. Naclear Regulatory Coemission ..7 A

.WashLngton, D.C. 20555 - g

Attni rocketing end Sarvice ra8nch *

Re: P__posed Pule 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements of Land Disposal of Radioactive, Waste,

46 Fed. !!. 38081 (July 24, 1981)

Oear Mr. Secretary:

This comment is Submitted on behalf of the Zaa't Waste

Washington Legal Defense Foundation.

The Don't Waste Washito0n Legal 6efense Foundatdon is a Washington not-for-profit corporation ccncsared generally

wit'h safe radioactive waste disposal. we ae a-cointLet4d

to educating the public regardiq the need for development

and iLplemantation of sa *.radioactive waste disposal

technologIes and systems, and to participating in decscainmaking which promates the safe and orderly transportation

an'd disposal oa'radicactive waste.

on't.Waste Washington shares the concerns of thae CAimission regarding the need for careful monitorIng and ccn- ol

of. radioactive waste disposal in order to-protect the publI health, safety, and welfare. we welcome the CcmmIssion's

recognition that radioactive waste materials must be L50a

lated and monitored for long pericds of time. we therefore - believe that lancuage. reflecting this recgnition should te

\IciSded ia the final r.le. ror example, 561.27(a) states,

in part: *Failure to renew the licanse IL no way releveas

the l~cenSee of. reaspo3siblnty for carrying out site clolsure, ostclosure observation and transfea of the license

to the siat owner. * The principle of long ter fixed

respcnsi'lIty embodied in t:is larguage Is critical to

th protection of health ard to the minimization of dan- e: to life and property required by tke Atomic Enercy Act.

S!econd, we agree with the proposed regulation's statement

D-57-2. chat ther* should te no generIc 'do m mi.' category for

Sasta. Third, we support the Czmlmssxon's positicn that

adequate financ' al assurances are essential for all aspects

,of waste dsposa1-asrzcnLon, operatlcn, site closure,

- I )cs:cclsure cbservatton and maintenance. and zstitutiocnal

c-rtzol. Such strng assurances a-e necessary to discharge

A.1

8-354
@ @ 8| t *

@: *: X s

s iv F t . @ -

Secretary of the Cornmission January 12, 1982 Page 2 Secretary of the Connission January 12, 1982 Page 3

or- responsibility to future generations, and to assure that

the public will not bear costs which should be borne by

the users of the facility. Self-insurance does not satisfy

the surety requirements for the reason stated in 561.62(g).

- 1 we agree that the amount of surety liability should change

I th changes in cost estimates. This amount should be -

subject to increase at the time of license renewal (if not

arnually), especially because the purpose of reviewing the

license periodically is economic rather than technologic.

Subpart E should be amended to state more clearly that the

Commission will review the applicant/ULcensee's financial

assurances periodically, and that the burden of proving

adequate financial qualification is on the applicant/

licensee.

wehave sme question about the proposed rule's justificatlon for relying primarily on performance objectives -in an

area where the concern for public health and safety is- so

c - Ij great. it is not suffIciently clear to us that the technology

is not suffIciently advanced to warrant use of -ore prescriptive requIrements than are in the proposed rule. If performance objectives are to be used, the rule should emphasise and confirm that the standards of the Atomic Energy

Act are applicable, ard that the burden is upon the appliecnt/14censee to show that it has met these standards of

protectin' health and din"aL:Lng danger to life and property.

(fe believe that 561 2 rmust be rewritten in such a way

that.the rght.to rotice and opportunity to !e heard Ls

'etter p-otected. As thIs section stands now, it is not

clea that the public, a state- or.Indian tribe will have -ipt: !-to any decision on amendm nts i license conditions

e other tan those~ specfically listed in subsection (b)

Shis may become important where, for example, the new eonditlons contained Ln an amended or renewed license ar,

nconsistent w'th thosem-posed by a state lessor In the

lease itself.

Don't waste Washington also wishes to comment on the issue

of state authority and state participation in the procedures for license application, amendment, renewal, and

termination. Don't waste Washington believes that the

states have and will continue to assert strong leadership

er I roles in management of radioactive waste. Congress has

concurred in this judgment in the Low-Level Radioactive

daste 7olicy Act.- -

At the outset, at least with respect to state-ownership of

the land, it appears that the state has a sufficient degree

cf control because it can make the inItial deteraination

whether to take ownershIp of the lan-d selected by the

applicant for a waste disposal sits, and on what terms to

lease the facility. The state must not subsequently lose

this control because of federal policies that restrict

state participation during operation of the facility.

We believe that, with respect to state-owned land, a

license to construct-and operate a waste disposal site

must not be granted, amended, renewed, or terminated

without the explicit concurrence of that state. The applicant/licensee must comply with all applicable state laws

that are consistent with the requirements of the Commission.

We suggest the following specific changes: -

SCBPART A

- 61.7(c)(1) Chiange the word 'may' to 'shall' in the

sentence, 'The Commission'T review of the

application is in accordance with established

administrative procedures and may involve

participation by affected State governments

or lndian tribes.' -

61.7Cc)(2) Add to the end of the first sentence an

explicit statement, 'including state laws

and reculations that are ccnsistenu wir-n

Commlsilon reculati.ons.'

SUMPART t -

- 61.23 Add a subsection which says, Nhere the lard

isownd bX state. the aeolican: nas met the state's requzmments.'

61.24(a) Add to the end of the sentence, -and i'

the land is owned by a state, the siat;has

cgven -is concurrence.

61.24(c) Add to the end of the sentence, and. If

- the land is owned bv a state, the state

requirements nave oeen net.'

61.24Cd) Add to the end of the first sentence, 'ard

If the lard is owned bv a state, to allst-ate

laws and reulatons consisten: with Ccmffs- sson reculat-ons.

61.24(e) Add to the end of the sentence -or any state

law or reculatlon consistent with Commission

recuiations, wnere the land is owned bv a

state.'

8-355
I

Secretary of the Commission January 12, 1982

61.24(hi Add after the words 'additional requiremnents,' an explicit statement, 'includine

state reeuirements, where the len is ed

bv a state."

- 61.28(a) Add before the second sentence, 'Where the

land is owned bv a state, this closure aoolieation must include a certification from

the state that the applicant has complied

with all state recuirements.-

SLBPARTr E

61.61 Add a sentence, "Where the land is owned by

a state, this showing shall be sunolementa

to any assurances required _y tne state.,

SOEPART F

ahe wording of this Subpart should be brought into con'ormity with its counterpart, Subpart C In Final Rule 10 CFa

Part 60, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Goolog'c Repositories: Licensing Procedures, 46 Fed. Req. 1397'

(February 25, 1981).- Primarily, the'use of tE;wocr 'may'

must be replaced by the word 'shall."

61.71- Second line--change 'may' to 'shall"

F'-th lire from the and--change "dill, to

'shall"

61.73(a) Third line--chango'"dill' to "shall'

61.73(b) Second line--change '=ay' to 'shall'

Wisconsmn ELectrc > M0Jv

U1 w. MICNIQ& P.C. lox r.i4. VaILWUXELI 52OO1

January 11, 1982 (;)

- .... " -n

* - .'; " -. '

C64 FR- afosl)

-z J., 1 -n`3

.ir. Samuel J. Chilk

Secretary of the Cosmissicn

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CCOfISSION

aashington, O.C. 2C555

Cear Mr. Chilk:

PROPOSE- RULrDVKI.NG CN LAND OISPCSAL

OF LCA-LtVEL RAQIDACTIVE WiASTE

Since the coc.ent period for the proposed rulemaking an land

disposal of low-level radioactive waste has been extended, we emloy this

coportunity to suppiecent our earlier comnents wnich were Contained in

our letter to you of Octber 21, 1981.

Tbere sre two additional problems with. Table 1 In IOCMRIS.5. -

. It -ay be necessary to dilute wastes in order to comply

><s8 sh te crpcsed concentraticn units. nThs Is ondesirable.

and i1 would be c:ntrary to NRC's ;olicy cn volume reduction

as puolished In 46FRSlICO on Cctcber 15, 198. This prcolem D- - 3would be most severe with trarsuranic waste; the 10 n Ci/g

limit should be increased to a level ccnensurate with the

actual risks. -

2. There is no provision for the establishment of minimu

2. - concentrations of nuclides In waste telcw which the wasta ~4 )is ae eptable for disposal through ordiar1 ineins such as C sanitary land fills. -

Tne additional radiation dose to personnel wn1hc would result

from the required additional samPling and analysis of radwaste shoulc te considered In the context of ALARA. This actual dose to perscnnel would be 9 s difficult to cus.ify wnen ccpared with the small hypothetical dose

calculated to result In the environs of a disposal site. In addition, there

will be additional costs of labor and equipment associated with the additional

sampling and analysis requirements. Certain types of analyses are difficult

Thank you for the opporun ity eo comment on the Proposed

Rule 10 CYR Part 61. Cont Waste Wash!ngton-aporeciates the

opportunIty to partiolpate In this rulemak-lig proceedcng,

and is prepared to contrIbute further-views or any other

assistance that the Commission =ay require. Please send us notIce of any further ;rocecdngs , includIng ffsrther comment

per:ods and rocmulgation of a final rule.

Very truly yours,

Lf Ca - Gold

Eichael W. Geraler

:=G, YW/u

-IB-356
Mr. Sanmel J. Chilk -2- January 11. 1982

y nature. Nuclides which decay by beta emission and electron capture such as Mickel-S9 and Iodine-l29 are in this category. Time consuming _ chemcal separations will be required as part of these analyses., This w ill not be cost-effective, especially for the small licensee.

Finally, we reconmend the elimination of reporting requirerents for nuclides which constitute insignificant fractions of radwaste packages.

Very truly your,

STATC OF NeW YoRK

IPA RTtMNT or LAW

AEANt. PLY. i4

:5l8-474-4318

Rest" AAM$

A-nff *9n.

2 47A1' 

QW&P . k ' ,. r,.

- I- 9r"a7

C4.. 7'k.sv'09)tt

C. W. Fay Assistant Vice President

January 14, 1982

I .

. I I

US Ntuclear Regulatory Ceonissio0

Secrecary's n cice

Jashingrto. D.C. 20555

To Uhom It Concerrse

I have enclosed tuo copies of the Attoreey General's

Technical Co=ents on che proposed Par: 61 repulations for ragsaen: of low level radioacti va aste. We appre- ;Late the opportunity to respond to your proposals and

look forward to any response frcn you in the futrse.

Sincerely yours. ; ,' I

keer 5u.=:er;.

Envirouental Engineer

Enel.

-.';II ,M1- y I. JA q',

B-357
2.

TECTNICAL CO.ZLrNTS OF Thr Mil YO1C STATE

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ". ; ^ ON THE PROPOSED 10 CFR PART 61 -

LICENSINZG RECUIPM-4ENTS FOR LAND

D:SPOSAL OF RAD-CACTIVE WASTE

January 14, 1982

Irtroduction

The Attorney General's office has been actively involved

with nuclear waste management for over a decade, partcipating in

radioactive waste mar.agemant pclicy making from uranium tailings

to high level waste repositories. members of and experts for the

office have testified In numerous p:oceed'ngs before Congress,

and federal and state agencies. The office has maintained close

scrutiny of the ongoing effo:ts to cleanup radioactive waste accumulations at West Valley, Model City, and elsewheze in the

state. The office has also part'c'pa-td in nu-arcus hazardous waste disposal cleanups and landfill design and siting efforts.

:t is on the basis o! this experience we make the following

comments and reconmendations to the CS Muclear Regulatory

Commission on eheir proposed regulations for 10 CFR Par: 61 to

better control the land disposal of radioactive waste.

Our commants should not be taken as an endorsement of land

bu'ial of! adicactive wastes in general. Rather, we believe that source reduction. precompactior and numerous othe: technologies

exist to reduce the need for rellance on la.d dIsposal of wastes

Jas it is practIced today or as it wi11 be practiced under Part. 61

ahn promulgated. In addition, we believe the USNEC should give

careful consideration to emerging tecancIues of was:a management

such as ancapeulation and above ground dry storage similar to me:hods employed at the Idaho Engineering Laboratory to isclato

.:ansuranic wastes. These and other approaches to waste

management, when fully exercised by waste generators, ma" significantly reduce the need for burial of waste; aspecia:ly

/lose wastes which play a :arge role in the deterioraticn of the

land burial facilities.

H3story of Land Zispcsa: of Waste

Land dIsosal' of waste has been practised for milienLa.

Archeologists rejoice when they come upon dumps of previous

societies because therein lies art*facts which greatly help to descrIbe the way of lIfe of earlier peoples. ArtLfacts of bygone

socIeties, however, are very d!f'e:rert from the wastes of today.

Few wastes were toxic and certainly cnoe were particularly

cadioactlve. Pe:formance cbjeczIves of such facIlIties did not

zeflect concern that intruders be Xant out cr in!Lltration be

limited. EarlIer societies merely practised the objective of out of sight - out of mind.'

Modern day performance objectives informally evolved from

this objectIve into an objective of waste isolation. Facility

engineering changed little, but the waste spectra certainly did.

Hazardous chemical wastes grew, in volume, toxicity and

persistence and a new group of wastes, nuclear wastes, began. to

appear. Although gigantic amounts of scientifIc effort went into

creatIng these exotic wastes, little or no effcrt wont into waste site suitability considerations or facility engineering. The

result of this lack of vision has been such notable environmental

disasters as Love Canal in Uew York and :ocntague in Xichigan.

Although radioactive waste dumps cannot be considered

environmental disasters yet, some of them have certainly not succeedod in isolating *wastes from the bIcsphere. The waste

facilitIes of West Valley, ,axey Flats, SheffIeld are good

examples of such troubled sites.

These three sites have faIled to completely isolate the

waste materials dumoed for a variety of reasons. Chief amcng them are soil cover erosIon and deterioration. Once

deteriorated, these covers faLl to prevent 'IfiltratIn oaf

rainfall:ruonaca ad snowmlt. Infiltraticn, in turn, causes

leachata to percolate -the wastes and mobilize contaminants and

generates leachate,-of:ern In millions of gallons Ln each dtLsposal

-unit.

Since past performance objectIves required sItes with tight

soil to preclude gr-cundwater migration, leachate would acc mulats

there, only to later migrate i trasnsmissive horizons or overflow

the boundarIes of the dIsposal units into su:face draInage

systems. Sits operators and responsible goverumental unIts have

been forced to deal with these leachatae accu-ulatlons by very

expenrsve pumping and treatment efforts. ZxpensLve studies have

been uadertaken by scientIfic teams after the fact determIne

whether the sIte was appropriate in the first place.

Other studies have focussed on -th pcst-c:loear erformance

of the disposal unIt Itself to detarine the dy a'cs of Internal

consolIdatIon and soil cover deterioration. :hese stUdCes have

conclusively shown that stabilizati.n of low leve" waste dispcsal

units is a long one. Materials Inside degrade, containers rust

away, losing their structural steangth, and consolidation goes

forward inexorably to acme ultimate, but unpredictable poInt.

ahis inevitable process of internal consoidtaticn leads

inescapably to a loss of structural support for the soil cover,

often to dIfferent degrees Ia d:fferent parts o the disposasl

B-358
. 6 . I

4. 3.

unit. This loss of support then leads to differential subsidence

of the soil cover, cracks and holes in the cover and finally

infiltration of water.

MUTEG/CR-2101, 'Evaluation of Trench Subsidence and

Stabilizaton at Sheffield Lew-Level Radicactive Waste Distosal

Facility,' discusses these phenomena in detal- and concludes:

- 'All trenches have a potential for some future subsidence

due to piping of soil, natural soil consclidation, and waste

container deterioraticn. The, location, si:es and extent of

thIs subsidence is quantitatively indeterninant due to the

unknown void sizes and their numbers and locations within

the trenches ...... Increased incidences of subsidence may

occur

from 10 to 14 vears after waste disposal when metal drums,

cardboard, and wood containers will have experienced scme deterioration.'

,his report and others like i't or other similar facilities do

not give one much confidence that the environment or the finances

of site owners have been well protected by this type of waste

disposal system. St is withIn this framework that we have

considered the USbMC proposed Part 61 rules and regulations.

S'rhari C...Perfcmance Cbjectives

Yubc:rt C is the heart of the prcccsad Part S1 regulations.

All other subparts measure achievement in terms of the objectives

listed Ln Subpart C. Consequently, we have considered that pa:t

of the regulatIcns first.

Froer:lew of Subpart C, it aepears that the USNRC has made

an in-deoth review of the problems of- Low level waste disposal.

g) are Lmuressed wIth the innovatIve approach to diseosal -

C- (, {regulatic -through protection of various pcpulatio.s at risk; y general populations; intruders, and employees. We particularly

support the notion of site stability as a criterion for

successful disposal. If the site is stable over long periods of

time, the likelihoed of excessive lcng term maintenance costs is

significantly lower. As history has shown, site owners (States in

this case) have been and probably will be saddled with

unrecoverable multi-million dollar bills each decade to maintain

facilIty integrity.

g^ We are, however, disappoInted by the limits proposed by the

JUS11MC for the protection of the general pcpulation. Subpart C in C-3o6p.41 cses that the fac'l:ty will be operating

satisfactorily as long as the population outside the site

boundary is receiving no more than 25 mrem whole body dose, 7!

erem thyroid dose, and 25 mrem to any other organ. In addition,

the groundwater at the nearest public water supply must meet the

National Primarv Drinking water Standards. As long as the.

effluents from the facility contaminate the environment such

that the groundwater does not get too contaminated and the.

biologic pathways to man do not transmit doses in excess of the

limits above, the facility is operating or has operated in

compliance with the regulations. In short, the facility can leak

as long as the leaks do not contaminate the area too much.

This regulatory approach tries to provide reasonable C- -3 population protection threugh inherently uncertain health based

risk assessment. In actuality, however, use of this approach for

land burial is tantamount to an admission that, burial of low

level radioactive-wastes in the forms required and at the sites

fou-nd suitable by Subpart 0 of the regulations carrot achieve

lona term tsolatior of radioactivity.

We believe this kind of a regulatory approach is

unacceptable for protection of the general public. FIrst, this

approach relies on a conceptual framework similar to the VPA's

water quality considerations for nPDES permil limitations based

on a receiving water body's assimilltiva capacity. Permit

limitatIons based on assimilative capacity are very dIfficult to

set and impossible to verIfy as adequate for environnental

protection. instead, notions of 'best available technology,'

'best practicable technology,' anrd other technology and cost

based standards for permit limitations have been developed.

Considering the difficulty of monitoring and determining

assimilative capacity 5redictIons unique to groundwater compared to similar efforts for surface waters, use of the concepts

embodied in S 61.41 seemm ost ill-advised.

7 Permitted radioactIvity releases freo other nuclear-:-

facilities are not based on ass4-'litive capacity. Rather:thei=

limits are set by USURC regulations which are not site specIfIc.

C Zn addition to the maxima set forth in these regulations, the

-otice of 'As Low As-Reasenably Achievable' (ALAPA) requires

extra efforts by. licensees to reduce releasas and persornel

exposure even lower where reasonable. :he preposed limits under

5 61.41 are not consistent with this existing defensible and

workable industry guideline.

f inother basic goal mandated by Congisss is the notion of

)zero discharge.' A well *tnown goal of the Clean Water Act of C3 |1972 is that discharges of wastes into navigable waters be

.: . -... : ..-

8-359
 , -.

6.

5.

reduced to zero by 1985. Although this goal has engendered a good deal of controversy and may not be reasonably achievable by

certain industries and old manufacturing facilltles, there is

little disagreement that the goal itself is appropriate and

generally achievable.- S 61.41 flies directly in the face of such a goal. ?- her than basing performance objectives an 'zero

dischar;e,' this section proposes instead as much discharge as

' the envirotr2ent can handle as long as the population does not get L( D .overdosed. r ., r *

_ n he torm reasonably achievablee provides basic guidance for a variety, of environmental protection regulations. Reliance on this approach for low level waste disposal seems approor'ate. As

other sections of our corments point out, affordable enqineerinq

systems exist today to assure that environmental releases from

disposal. sites can be.redueed to de-minimus levels. Certainly,

then, application of ALARA notions to LLW.disposal is defensible

from a regulatory and cost point of view. 'n addition, we are confident that application of ALAMA concepts will easily justify

the applIcation of. s'ero.discharge- limttations to ground and

surface waters. ;

on the basis of'the fGregoign azqunents, we recco=end tha:

ahe language of 5 61.41 be amended so that ':ero d'scharle- be

the performance cbjective for ground and surface waters in

oer-,etulty-arnd that.ALALRA guide all site activltes, including

A Subart C sections 61.41 through 51.44. The prcposed population

C. - doses and- maxiu3 conta=!nant limitatIons may remain as absolute

axima.. Releases of radioactivity which cause such doses or mum contaminant levels however, should certainly -ot be._

onsidered satisfactorr facility performance under any

circumstances.--a. such, even the totally rnaccentabl _. -

performance of the West Valley, Sheffield and Maxey Flats sites

would be satisfactory under at least S 61.41.

Suboart 0. T.echnical" Requi:ements .

Subpart 0 sets forth a -number:o'.technical requirements for

land disposal facilities which will supposedly assure that

subpart C performance ob4ectives are metby-the.fac'lit-. This.

section features nuaerous defensible and. innovative regulatory

approaches to facility integrity and safety. Some.of the

proposed rules, however, should be changed to assuwe that'

discharges from the site will be zero or at least as low as

reasonably acheivable, performance objectives we have proposed in

ou cCe-ts.abO'e-.

site suitabli7t? requ'rements

5 61.50 of Subpart D sets forth scme basie site suitability

requirements no one can argue with. Unfortunately, these

requLrements do not require siting the facility in a soil

environnent which will preclude or even reduce leachate

migration. The only subsection dealing with leachate even; tangentially is S 61.50(a) 7 which requires that the water. table

be sufficiently below the site to preclude groundwater intrusion.

This section, as written, implies that if groundwater is kept

out, no liquid will enter the fill and the previous impermeable

,soil requirements are not necessary to protect the_;ublLc.

Unfortanately,'groundwater has not beean theoniy way copious

quantities of .leachate have been generaued-in past landfills.

Rather, surface infiltration throLgh susidence cracks and holes

has caused mcch of the leachate generation. In addition, liquids

in wastes, rainwater ahd snowmelt entering the trenches during

operations and internal deconposition add to the volune-of

wastewater which either accumulates or migrates from the site.

Because of the hIgh likelihood that substantIal quantities of .- o- leachate will be generated by future facIlities, site

suItability criteria must address -thIs issue, not avoId it.

- Some professionals have argued that a leaky site is

appropriate.- They oaint to the lack of l-achate at the Barnwell

facility as an exaole of geod performance. Any liquids which

enter the trenches through the subsIdence and s.;rinkage cracks

and other entry points drains right cut-into the porous soil of

the site. Voial .. .no problem. If this stratagem mlay ever, 'r

'fact, be effective, it is only by accIdent and as long as the

.soil beneath the facility can attenuate the radlonuclldes

sufficiently to protect the environrent. Luck or wishful

thinking are not appropriate for sound management stratagems.

* Under the proposed regulations,, in order to assure that the

saill-can perform-its- requIred function in perpetuityr-it-=us't be

shown to possess appreprIate radlonuclide attenuation I - characteristics such that eventual- doses to humans are acceptable under S 61.41. 'This showing can be easily made, based on -

allur-'g scientIfic experiments and projecticns.- Unfort-nately, these experiments and projections are still crude indeed and

-their predictive value very limited. It is ImpossIble to verIfy

these predictions with real life conditions because these

experiments and calculations mrust be based on leachate

characteristics and waste spectra which are, at any time, nearly

Lmpossible to predict. Consequently,' although such showLgs are easily made, their validity is doubtful indeed and would provide

regulators and the public a false sense of security about the

\lonrg term integrity of the facility..

B-360
7. 8 .

Optimistic -scienti'ic' showings have formed the bases for

-S o-2_ both radioactive and hazardous waste dump licenses in the past.

States are now suffering the inevitable consequences of the lack

of validity of these showings. Therefore, basing new licensing regulations on scientific demonstrations of questionable

predictive capability is unacceptable.

We reccomend, irstead, that the USIMC develop site

suitability requirements vim a' vis soil horizon characteristics

based on the assumption that substantial quantities of leachate

will enter or be generated by the waste mass at one or more times

during the hazardous life of the waste. perhaps the appropriate

regulatory framework should specify porous soils. or perhaps,

tight soils wIth adequate leachate collection and treatment

facIlities are the ansver. Whatever the case, failure to specify.

soil horizon characteristics fails to deal with the verv real

problems of leachate generation experienced by almost all

'seC=-0 landfills in humid climates.

Facility Design -

5 61.51 discusses minimnu engineering features of a land

disposal facility.. This section fails as does the previous D-5I-I section, to squarely deal with the difficult problem of'

substantial leachate generation. Although subsections deal with

engineering features whIch may. reduce he likelihoed.of external

infIltration, the! certainly do not eliminate it. In some ways,

\;is section provides little more guidance than has been applied

to the closed landfills for radioactive waste which have fiiled

to perforn well. Though: should be given to specific guidance 4 EI-Z for engineering-features which effectively respond to leachate

m-anagement, subsidence control, and aqueous and aeolian erosion.

Facility Operation

5-61.52-dIscusses general facilIty operational guidelines. These rules also demonstrate USIMC recognitIon of the problems

encountered at waste sItes Ln the past. Many o! the requierements here will lead to significant. i=provemert in environmental .- ~z- j protection. Subsections.(a) I , 2 and 3 preclude interact:on of

radioactive wastes of Classes A, 8, and C. In so doing, USURC seems to be making an effort to achieve a consistent level of

envircnental and intruder protectIon for dIfferent danger level

wastes. T'e rules, however, do not 'efine the:term 'interaction'

and are therefore vague and dIffIcult to enforce. -

Envirormental segregation of waste of different classes of

danger does make good sense. If the segregation and the

pretreatment of the wastes assure that the risk potential is

equal-among the classes and also an acceptable level, then the

management scheme is defensible. We have problems, however, with

the level of pretreatment accorded Class A waste. According to

personal discussions on several occasions with VSN C staff, Class A wtaste ccmprises a whopping 60% of the volume of all low level

wastes covered by the proposed Part 61 regulations. This waste

wiIIb* dumped in the trenches without pretreatment for stability or leachability reduction as detailed Ln 5 61.56. As such, Class

A waste will be managed in much the same way as it has been for

leachate production experience of the past will not recur in the

future at Class A waste dumps. - - -

2)- 52 , ! Xost o! the low level wastes which are compressible and

degradable fall within the limits of low activity Class A waste.

These characteristIcs lead inexorably to-collapse of the cover over the trench. Collapse of the-cover (dIfferential subsidence

and holes) leads inexorably to surface water infiltration and

leachate generation. These physical problems require institutional responses for engineering and construction which

end-up costing taxpayers millions of dollars. We have no reason to believe Class A waste w'll behave in any different way

urderground than it has in the past... Therefore, we conclude that

tomorrow's Class A waste dumps licensed under 10 CTR Part 61 as proposed will suffer the same performance difficultIes their

predecessors have wIth similar financial impacts on their owners.

We must not forget, however, that the relaxed performance

objectives under S 61.41 wIll still be met by a dump whose covers fa:l just as long as the population does not get overdosed and

the qrcundwatef at the nearest public well does not get too

|containated. Although these objectives may be satisfactory tc

the OSIMC, it is unlikely that a Class A landfill whose covers ad-it copious quantities of water whSch fcrms a large radioactive

plume will be satisfactory to local authorities or the citizenry.

These governmental units and people will generate significant

pol'tIcal pressure to close such a facility. Then as now, when

halfthe nation's waste sites are closed due to performance difficutIes, adequtao space will not be available for the

disposal of wastes. Such a dump crunch will be particularly troublesome when compacted facilIties have moved to limit dumping by cut of compact generators. - -

Subsidence, leachate generation, and costly repaIr and

maintene-nce ?equlrements will become important questions in

B-361
9. 10 .

federal and state licensing proceedings. As such, they will

become rallying points for those opposed to nuclear power and

waste management in particular localities They fom a reasonable basis for denial of licenses and revocatIon of

licenses once operations have commenced. They will inevitably

exacerbate the same disoesal availability problems from which we now suffer. consequently, we believe that Part 61 rules should

be written to preclude the recurrence of these phencmena

Precluding subsidence and its inevitable :amifLcaticns is

elatively easy and cost *!efctive when long term maintenance and

|epair costs are included in the equation. Higher activity Class

B and C wastes will be stabilized in such a way unde: 5 61.56

that they will *...not degrade ardprcmote'slusn'pq, collapse, or other failure of the disposal unit and thereby lead to water

i nfltration." The encapsulation matrix or container must

withstand a compressive load of at least 50 psi. In this way, these Class 8 and C wastes will not be responsible for disposal

unit cover collapse. If 40% of the nation's low level wastes can already be affordably pretreated La this fashion, then we submit

that the remaining portion of the wastes should receive a sinilar

degree of pretreatment.

USN'RC has argued that because Class A waste decays

:adioact~vely within the period of institutional control, the

inevitable subsidence and laachata phetomera associated with

Class A waste dumps do not present unacceptable risks to the

public. This may be true 1f the sIte successfully attenuates the

plume of radioactive leachata and if the radLonuclLdes are -deed

short lIved. Both assumptions are very doubtfl, however, given

experience at all the low level waste dumps in the U.S. to date. 'n any case, the bad press and public criticism such dumps will

engender if and when a radioactive plumse is discovered moving

away from the site will undo all public relatitas dcvidards cf

t-he carefully stab'lized ass 9 and C waste dunps.

The US MC should recognIze these very rsal siting and

opera:Ional considerations and reconsider pretneastent for Class

A waste. Although more costly La the shor_ run, stabilIzatIon

pretrearment will yield substantial bonefits during and after the

100 year institutional control pe:rod, _oth Ln terms of

environmental protection and in eerms of publlr acceptabIlity

cEnv-or-onntal &lonitorlng

S 61.53 discusses guidance for licensees concarn-Ing 1 e nvironmental monitoring. This subsection is very vague c=Lpa:ed

I

'4 D-53- 1

to the level of specificIty which could be justified. After only a decade of operation, the existing low level waste sites have

been found to require substantial exploratIon fcr remedial

purposes. USGS, U;EPA, and numerous other state and federal

agencies have spent millions of dollars in. the last few years

developing monitoring nets around these facilIties and evaluating

the data these nets have generated. These efforts should provide

CSN1C with a great deal of guidance to specify particular types of. and sensitivity for monLtoring nets. All the proposed.

regulations require now is a .... monitoring system ... capable

of providing early warning of migration of radionuclides f:rm the

disposal site.' This description provides no spatial or time

specifications and *hereby. allows licensees to dater'ine

specIficatIons which are in their best interest: namely far field

and long tine period monitoring systems.

Such insensItive monitoring systems are not in the best

interests of either. environmental protection or the finances of

the site owner. We, therefore, recormend that the USMIC rewrite

Part e1 regulations to reflect appropropriate spatial and

teaporal specifications. These should Include several mcnItor:'g

wells both upgradient and dow-gradiant, screened at various

depths in both the saturated and-unsaturated :ones to permit stratified sampling L desized. Such a wall 3ystem should

include wells below as wall as beside the waste mass. S' lar

moni orinq systems should be eamplaczd for gaseous emissions as- well. Surface -nof: and aecoliaanartculatas sc-4:d receave monitoring scrutiny as well.

I

Grotudwater mcn'Itorinq systems remala the most Important

part of the environmentaL protectIon scheme for the facility.

Although such systems may provide effective early warniag

systems, engineering design requirements may be acceptable as well. Cre approach used in the hazardous waste laredf Ill fild s the 'telltale' layer beneath the Waste mass., Thiscc~n'-ned

porous layer conducts early migratort liquids to a poInt wha:e

samples can be obtained. These samples will provide an accurate

representation of the source term for envi-onmental 'I--act

assessments. Zn addition, it can trigger early mitigation efforts and other Institutional respcnses. we raconnand that

CS C ccnsIder the appropriateness of 'telltale' layers and

rewrite S 6.5'lto reflect the availability of this effsctiva and

a::ordable environmental protection measure.

Subpart 0, financial Assurances

eSS 61.62 and 61.S3 discuss mi3-n-m fInancial arri gements R needed to obtain low level waste licenses. These sect'ors go

_.-

B-362
: %:;* @o':

12.

11.

much further than earlier regulations to protect the financial

interests of site owners. Although innovative ard comprehensive,

we remain concerned that the post-clesure mantenance, leachate

collection and treatment, cover repair and other likely costs

~- | >will be underestimated by applicants and accepted by both site

owners and the UC C due to the pressing need for waste disposal

site availability. in the long run, as today, it will be state

taxpayers, rather than waste generators, who will eventually bear

the excessive costs of site maintenance and repair. We recormend

that the VSZlRC study carefully the likelihood ard costs of major

Ofcility repair and maintenance generically by clicatological

region prior to the consideration Of any application for waste

site constructicn. Such a study will.highlight the high

fi ancial risk associated with burial of wastes such as

contemplated for Class A and help site owners and regulators

deteemine adequate lease arrangements prior to the licensing

proceeding.

Subparts E and 9 both discuss various applicant

ualifiaticns necessarv for granting a licanse. We were

surprised to find no discus.3in of the past experitence and

professional gualifications of applicants. We feel applicants

which have had a bad track record managing their enterprises 'n

the past represent poor choices for newfacilities. We beLieve,

/however, that problems of the past may be prologue to the future

and should be an Important part of the application review

roce SS.

cceert Suary -

ahe US=C proposed regulations for Part 61 represent a solid

step In the right, direction. We.do feel, however, that the

performance objectives and several other parts of the regulations

fall short.of the internton of the US:MC*. .to-assure the

protct:'on of the public health and safet. . In order to achieve

this goal, burial facility licensees =st be able to conclusively

prove that releases of waste w'11 otaexceed certain limits. We

feel these proposed limits are far too lax and fail to recognize

that burial sites fall due to waste consolidation and then

generate copious quantities of contaminated leachate.

we also believe that Class A waste deserves adecuate

pretreatment to preclude consolidation. Such pretreat=ent would

limit the physical, financial and pubiic criticism ramifications

associated with subsidence and leachate generation and/or

accumulation. ln fact we belteve that the CuntC should cinsider

t!he effec. of the regulations on facility siting. More st-rLgent

reguirements fan Class A waste pretreatment and zero dIscharge

wil1 beter conv'nee the public ard regtona1 qovernrsenta1 unt:5

that the st:e will be a Sood retghbo:.

- Z - ,{; - -

; , , , ,, , ,, , , . .. . . ., ,, ............ ; - .. t

- : . . - - . * .. .. . . ..

i - s '. - ' ._,;t ' -; i . . . ! .

. . j . < -, 4 - ,-, -, s r

- ... b , .... ' # '' ' ' ' -, ! - - <

,. : - ' ' '! . r ; < , w  w s t ;, i f;

; . . - . J - | - > . g F; * + A t W; j *

, . . . J X * t * ;, v n . , , - . - :

. . : . .: , . i .t - . - :- , , * - - * -, _ t-,, -;, * * _ *

' _ - '. ' :: ', ' :. . :;: - ' . ' ' :- .t''. #; , :

i _ . : - - ; , . - - *,

* , :: H

, , ,, , ; , , . , .. , . , , .,:

, ,, t ,:

: . , . * - .. ,_ - . ... . _

. I. i . I

.Z . . I -

. . , ; - . :7 , z

''I1 * 17

, , : .. . - . . I

_- , . . - t - . I, I I

B-363
**4 l^\: :

7 tOS Wia~ Arin.@

W u,.to D.C. 2001' 'on~W.301 6SA-at5o TWX 71C5249562 ATQJC $OR OC

LIl r: L 1 1 . '.* '

January 18, 1982

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Retulatory Commission- r '- Washington, D. C Commission

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch !y g 0 4

Re. Notice on Proposed Rulemaking "Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 10 CFR Part

61 (46 Federal Register 38081) and "Draft Environmental Impact Statement," XUREG-0782 -

Dear Sir:

The enclosed comments on the proposed rule and the draft

EIS were prepared by two A1F subcomLttees cn low level

radioactive waste.

The consensus of the subcommittees Is that the proposed

rule appears reasonable; however, some suggestions and sone exceptions to the proposed rule and to the-draft BIS were made and are reflected In the enclosures.

Sincerely

JohtH. 'ac.'illan

Chafi±anI AlP

Commti ee on the Nuclear

Fuel Cycle

JHD: gpg Inclosures

Comments on the Pronosed XRC Rulemaking: "Licensing Requirements for

Land Dis osal of Radloactive Waste", 10 CFR Part 61. and oan the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement". NUREG 0782

prepared by

The AIF Subcommittee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste and

the A'F Subcoami;:ee on Solidification of Low Level Reactor Radwaste

Comments on "Supolementary taformation":

p. 38084 The first paragraph in this section under "Disposal

Para V,C Site Design, Land Disposal Facility Operation and Dispos- al Site Closure Requirements" calls for operations and

design which will result in the elimination of ongoing

1s actwve maintenance after closure, requiring only minor D I custodial care. "Active maintenance' is not clearly defined here or even in the definition in Para. 61.2 "Definitions". in the definition, active zaintenance is described as a "significant remedial" action. It is suggested that the postclosure maintenance requirement

should be site specific and incorporated in the license

ondition%

p. 38084 The first paragraph under "daste Characteristics and

Para VC nClassificatio" points out the desirability of the physi- D-53r- iaL cal integrity of the waste and :he site lasting until

radioisotopes decay "to levels where they are no longer

) -'5; - of concern from the migration standpoint". What scan- (dards should be applied to satisfy this requirement?

p. 3SOSS n3 the section "Waste Characteristics and ClassifiCaPara V,C aloa", there is a discussion of a "de minimus" classification for wastes which would be exempt from

10 CFR Part 61. It is noted that. the NRC in the next two

years will work to define these wastes and "to provide

for additional waste exceptions as appropriate." We

suppor: the aeed for a "dce minaLs" concept and encourage

the expeditious establishment of suitable criter a for

-5S - 2.. this concept. A "de minizus" classification would result

in the conservation of valuable disposal site burial

space while at the sane time protecting the health and

safety of the public. In this connection, the Commission

is urged to permit case by case reviews of requests for

specific app lcations of the "do mininui" concept during

the period criteria are being developed. We will be

pleased to be of assis3tanc in the establishment of "de

mininus" levels and would like to call attention to the

.- * - . ;- - - . t..'7.

B-364
p.o4

-2-

(report by the Forum's National Environmental Studies Project entitled "De Mini=us Concentration of Radionuclides 5 in Solid Wastes", AIF/NESP-016. Also, the Utility Nulclear Waste Management Group sponsored a study, "Suglgested Concentration Limits for Shallow Land Burial of

LRadionuclides", which should be of value.

p 38086 (In reference to the "Manifest Tracking System" we urge

Para F the Commission to ensure that any changes In manifest

Al-1 Itracking systems are compatible with existing systems In

Lorder to minimize or eliminate possible duplication.

p. 38086 T'he five phases of the life-cycle for a typical land

Para G dIsposal facility discussed in the proposed rule are:

preoperational, operational, closure, post-closure observation, and institutional control. Some discussion is

needed to indicate that several of these phases may proceed simultaneously at the same site as part of the nor- mal disposal site operation.

There should be a sixth phase in the life cycle for a land disposal facility identified in the regulation;

namely - release for uncontrolled use. This phase, which occurs after the radioactive contents of the landfill

have decayed, should be stressed. It is further important to stress the need to keep toxic or =utagenic chemical forms out of landfills intended for radioactive

waste. Chemical wastes are present forever and the land

used must be restricted forever. Radioactivity decays

away in time and land use can be recovered.

p. 58087 zThe proposed rule requires a license renewal every five

Para G years. For a facility of this type, a five-year license -r renewal policy appears unreasonably short. Disposal sites should be provided with a full term license,

subject to appropriate review. The fiscal basis for site

loperation and acnltoring assumes a reasonable operating

life. Licensing similar to that under 10 CFR SO would

appear to be more appropriate.

p. 3S087 The proposed rule states that the Institutional Control

Para G \30a-d has a responsibility to "keep people off the

site". This approach may be unnecessarily restrictive.

D-S9- Z.> Limited use of the land may be desirable in the future. m more appropriate action might be to control access to

the site, The control board should have the flexibility

to institute suitable control options depending on the

particular condition existing at the site.

-3-

Comments on Part 61:

p .3tOS9 (ee our comments on Para. V,C p. 38084 on "active main- ara 61.2) tenance".

p. sfoa itn the definition of "Disposal" isolation of radioactive

Para 61.2 )astes from the bIosphere should be clarified. A better

/definition would be: "Confinement of the wastes with no

provision made for subsequent retrieval."

p. 33091 The primary safety objectives for a near-surface disposal

Para 61.7 facility should be redefined in a manner that will (a)

(b)(l) keep the site personnel dose as low as reasonably achievable and (b) keep the environaental impact and population ose below specified limits. In the existing statement

of objectives the word "prevention" should be replaced

-S'I-Iv th "minimize". To minimize migration of radionucludes s to provide a means towards achieving the primary 2)R 1cent safety objectives. "Prevention of exposure to "inadverintruders" is a special case of (b) above, lad

snoul4 oe regarded as a Secondary objective.

p. 38091 In the first sentence the word "eliminated" should be

Para 61.7 modified or omitted. The requirement may not be possible.

(b)(2)_

C,. 38092

83- I Psra 61.13

!b)

p. 33094

G \ ara 61.25

B-7 .tZart 61.29

It is not apparent what Is required for "demonstration" or how analysis will be accomplished. This section

should be clarified. This comment applies to Paras.

61.23(f),(i) and t).

The section on "changes" Is too restrictive. The

licensee should be allowed to make changes when deemed

necessary, pro~lding they do not decrease the level of

protection to the public and provided they are brought to

the attention of the Commission in a timely manner ti.e.,

Subpara.(d) provisions for changes similar to those in 10

CFR 70.32 Cd)).

The closure period should be Included in the closure

plan rather than the regulation. The required period of

observation should be a function of specific site characteristics.

*1

.4

B-365
(Blank Page)

B-366
.5- -4.

p. 38095 The requirement for transfer of the license to Federal

Para 61.30 or State custodial care should be part of the closure

(S) _ J agreement and not the regulation. Transfer should be

continfent upon licensee satisfaction of required

conditions. Transfer "when the agency is prepared"

leaves an open-ended commitment by the licensee which

is not warranted.

p. 38096 (Projectios of population growth should be limited

Para 61.50 \to useful demographics. Projection to 100 years or teen 50 could be a useless exercise or worse, could

rule out an acceptable site.

p. 38096b.^p. f eplace "prevent" with "ainimize".

Para 61.Slw II..

(a)(4)

p. 38096 (woi <eplace "no Interaction" with "no significant interPara 61.52 1 )action".

a)( l) ,

p 38096D1-18Replace "eliminate" with "Minimize".

Pta 61.S1

)(a6)

(p. 38096 The word "orderly" should be deleted or explained.

.7 Para 61.32

(a~:L2)(4

3. 8096 "Accurately located" depends on the state of the art.

Ira (a) The word "accurately" should be defined or not in- (7) cluded.

38097 Table 1 has a footnote eliminating wastes containing

lra 61.55 chelating agents In concentrations greater than 0.1%

(a) except as specifically approved by the Commission.

This requirement eliminates most routine decontami- D44-B- nation techniques to reduce occupational exposures and

thus adversely affects ALARA progrtas.- lt is not

clear why this restriction 1s being Imposed. Guidance on acceptable packaging and disposal techniques for

these agents is needed.

p. 33097 Table I is a specific list of radiolsotopes with

Pars 61.55 their respective concentration limits for three classifications of wastes, Class A segregated waste, Class

3 stable waste, and Class C Intruder waste. While some of the concentration limits shown are reasonable,

demonstrating compliance for others would be difficult

(for esaaple i-S9 and NI-63) because of problems in

sampling and long delay periods for off-site transport which consequently-result in additional increase sin

radiation exposures. Additionally, the

(measurement of TRU In the 10 nanocurie/gram range In O __3 . the presence of other Interfering radionuclides is

very difficult. Detection of 10 nanocuries/gram can be accomplished readily if TRU Isotopes are the only ones present. Further, the present policy of volmes D-i-E8 reduction Increases the concentration of radlonuclides - n the waste and In some cases mar cause the waste to

xceed the-Table 1 concentration limits. For these

r reasons, the concentration limits in Table 1 should be

reevaluated to determine their ability to be achieved

in a realistic situation-and in a cost-effective man- ~.er.-

. 38097 Change to read ..."that does not stinificantly exceed

Pars 61.56 *taosphere at 20 degrees C".-.If tn.s requirement is

(t)(7). not modifIed, waste generators may be required to 1package gases under reduced pressure or elevated

temperatures. The basis for the 100 curies should be

Lprovided.

p. 38098 ar speIfying a St limitation on the physical waste

Pars 61.56 f'ormt, the proposed rule may well be unintentionally

(b)(l) 1andating a hLgh integrity container for Class 3

wastes. -c!xper ifence has shown that druas and liners can normally be filled to about 80% of their volune.

onstrating compliance with a 9S5 criteria c-uld be

ifficult. Also, the S0 psi compressive load.cr'teria

may eliminate bitunen media as a waste stabilizationprocess. The compressive load criteria may also be - -

S 11 m0ore appropriately related to individual disposal site D t- It overburden characteristics rather than specified as a generic criteria.

8-367
U=I:J D4'6"."l 4C". W.lPagf

P0.14. 7144

Us.-RWe. 4.W4SW d47 la ell,"1

.3100 - I 5ara 61.82

Pr,,4z lfs a 2.103

(p. 38102

Par 20.311

M (d)(3)

and

kf)tS)

.6.

Eliminate radioactive waste already disposed of and covered from NRC inspection requirement.

It is not understood how this paragraph applies to

10 CER di.

Regulatory requirements suggest rewording section to

'conduct operations in a manner which assures com- pliance with Paras. 61.5S and 61.56 of this chap- ter." Existing wording implies that a separate qual- ity assurance program will be used.

Same comments as suggested for 20.311(d)(3).

,. - 1,! PTI~ e

.anuuy 13, :982

R. al. Smith. Chief

Loy-Level Wasta Uiceasing Sanch

Civisaoz of Waste MeSanaeot 5.S. MuclSer 3eqiatos y COstihslon

Washigt.oa, D.c. 2OSSS

Qi)l .. :.. .-

C4G;W ifR 3 ' I~)

-. . °-r<, 77! @

., Rz4

ea.r Xz. Smiths

5 Ecology has revieved t h preposed MC rales for the laa4 disposal

of radioactive wastes (10 CR Wj published in thle rederaz 2cgister c

july 24, 1951. eAd oient s !5' flaws

Dsio sit* Oaeien, :And aisosoaeel Tac±it, certionf and

Dis--sal Site Cec-sr R ienta Sage 38084, E71.1.1

G4 | ths aectiona as well as others in the ;rcposed regulatiea refe:

to ' t' "ting the teed for active mantenance after site closure.

;t is Lipsssible to ensure tat the need for no active zalntenence

can be achieved, so we wtuld suwest that the word -- iimize' be

used in place of 'eliinate.

2. waste Ctxarateristics and Catssificat:on.

a. Page 39054, Col. 2.

This sectLoa sta-ts that the stahilty of the :ast. end the

disposal site should las: ,ona anough for the radioisotopes to decay to levels where they A*e co longer of coacera :_a= a vni ci_ atioa standpoLit. without any reference to appraFiate

-b standads iL is the requlatory agency's intatrretatlona C- which m be used as a sta dard. References to a;ppcahle standards should be given.

,D_._T

Page 39C84, Col. 3. the L:ait of 10 namocurie per ;:rM for TRU waste is erceesively

conserastive ad is counter productive. =zits of this cature may dissuade waste ienea-razs f'm ;:racti'cig vo:ue reduction.

2IT2f. (:4

B-368

i
e ;-

- 2 - - 3 -

D -s5-XU

Pap. 38085, Cal, 2.

Decreased burial efficiencies will be experienced in burial

facilities if the Cearission fails in the establishment of a

lover limit Class A segregated waste concentration. It li

suegested thata de mdninus quantities be established to properly

categorize those wastes that are suitable for alternate disposal

methda. (eNg. sanitary landfills).

* Financial Assurances. Page MSCMS, Col. 3.

)he Coecssion indicates that certain types of surety mechanisms

E_ I are acceptable.- It is racoended- that representatives of.the

cosmercial insurance industry be given definitive criteria against

which t, bass any bonds in order to aseertain whether or rot underwriters will accept the risk and default provisions set forth in

these regulations.

O- Manifest System. Page 38086, Col. 2-and Pages 28102, 38103. Sectiot 20.311.

m manife t tracking syitm provides for three (3) copies of the

manifest. It has been the experience of this company that a greater

I rn r of cop is needed.- A-total of 5 identical manifests would

provide a copy for the generator, carrier, an advanced copy to the

intended recipient. one copy with the shipment and one Copy as a

r-ceipt for the waste.

5. Pulator, Fleibility Aet. -lap. e38058, Col. L.

(The la t of a de minims quantity as well as any lower limits en the

Class A segregated waste concentrationt conflicts with the Cepartaent

| of transportation Relations goaerning the transport of radIoactive

- -- material. 490n sect:on 173.389 defilnes radioactive material as

tonieing radiaton. . Material in *wich the estimated specific

act*-vity ls not greater than 0.002 mlcroczrries per gran of material,

and La which the radioactIvity is essentially uniformly distributed

's not classed as adicoactive material.'

8111.2 e!f inltiens

Page 38090. Ccl. I.

_ 'isposal- ls defined as isolation of radioactIve wastes fr:m

V the biesohere. This is not Possible as the bioshere' can be

Lzterorsted as meaning part of the warld in which lt'f can exIst.

Many micrcorpaniss will exist in and around all the waste. :t is

suggested that disposal be defined as Isolation from the bLisphersa

Inhablted by man or his food chain.

(7. 61. n terpretaeions

Page 38090. Col. 3.

By placing the responsibility for atl regulatory interpretations

upon the Seneral Counsel and preventing other Cordission personnel

0 from making interretations, the Comission- could sIgnifIcantly

disrpt operations by sleving the regulatory process. To avoid

this, the regulations should establish a period, for example 10

days, within which the Cenaral Counsel must respond to requests for

interpretation.

(1 61.7 (e) (2) Page 38091. Col. 3.

Sin-c closure plans are to be submitted with the initial license

application and periodically updated until final closure occurs, (3... 4 \ the licnseen should not have to apply for a license amendment to

close the site.- he closure plan will have been periodically

reviewed by the licensing agency throughout the disposal wite

cperational phase, therefore, closure of the disposal site in

accordance with the f'ial updated and approved closure plan should

be sufftic en:.

9 Page 38092.

(S 1 Le efi.,ition of what Is required for 'demonstration' or how analysis

will. be acecplished should be provided. "te coments ap-ly to

1 () f2 - (i)

10.Al.24 Condit':'s of Licenses

I . . -

* S1.24 fl. Pape 38094. Cl. 2. S- ImS sectIon refers to possession of radioactive materials and should

be clarIfied to indicate that buried waste is no longer In the

'.ssession of the lIcense. - -

11. 61.25 Changes.

61.23 (a). Papa 3SC94, Ccl. 3. B his section on changes Is too restrtctive. The licv-set should be

allowed to make changes when deemed necessar? providing they do not

decrease the level of protectIon to the public *nd provided they

are brought to the attention of the Commission prIor to i:rpleantation.

2. 61.29 Poet-Closure Cbseryation end Maintenance. 7&ae M99 Cal. 1.

I :f the Coxissicn or licensin; &pency closely nonitors the closure

B 1 per 61.29 and is familiar ith the sIte, the mimi=UM perIod of f've

years for poet-closu-a observanon and maintenance could be shortened

cmen=rbte with the condition of the disposal faeIlil7 as closed.

Provisions should be made for a period of less than five years I!

conditions warrant upon request :f the 1':-nse

B-369
.- ; 6 -# s 4 w

- 5 - - 4 -

3. 61.30 Transfer of License.

61.30 (a) (S). Page 36095, Cal. 2.

This section w ill alow Yhe long-term custodial oare agency

\ even though prior comiments cave been made to de-ay in

accepting its reSponsibility. The use of the phrase 'when

the agency ls prep*red' in effect negates all prior Commitments

of loaq-er cuetzdia: c rz* agecy.

14. 61.50 Disnosal Site Suitabilllv Ite-ui rements

(-66.50 (Al (2. Page 3809S6 Cal. 1. -

D- 'o- M * gdliaq of any site can only be approximate. Some statement asv- t o whtt critexci should ba used to ' flia 'carble of bckng

.. odeled' is required.

(61.50 (a) (3). Page 38096, Col. 1.

A time fr-ac for ;r: eceiag populaticn growta and uurwze davelcjaent is needed. Is this time franc the 100 year c socdil care ptr' d or

the 300 year eangiaered harrier Li'e span?

(61.5O (a) (5). Page 28096. Cal. 1.

."tri:arieor is wa atd as to the :e i:e=:ma for we'.-drai-ed

d '--so-3 fre of a-eas of floodizg and r-equent pondizg. :s this a 3 selection cterla hased oan 'as is' cndiions or 'ax -a be

enginered. -

(E. (50 Ca) (12). Page 38096, ol 1.

;: envizomamta3l mroitoring program Ls masked then it is o-tnot f- z oing to be a proper !ndicA:tcn or the stabillty of ths sits.

feeore, the use of th phrkse 'sigqnifcs-'nz1y askedw is not

., appropriate.

_S. S1.51 Disrcsal Site Cesicn 'or 'ls-d isoosal.

ii.51 (a) (4). Page 38096, Col. 2.

tlo cover will totally prevent all waterc This section

D 57 should req-u1s that covers be designed o Minimize aer -nf-:1-ation.

61.31 (a) (5). Page 38096, Cal. 2. :: a h=1d area some mi:or erosion will occr.L. :ahis i oce of the

c=Itaera which ust be takean 'to aczoz-: wuen selecting and

closing a disposal site. 1: Is not possible -n a humd area to

etsure that ercsior WI'4 ao: result or that zye zaZeace

wil1 na: be necessary in the futre.

16. 6'.52 Land Lisposal Facility OCeration ed Disoosal site Closure

(61.52 (a) (4) Page 36096, Col. 2. 3)52.' hae word 'orderly' should be deleted or defined. orderly place t

is often inconsistent with the principles of A:M.

61.52.ca (7) PagS 36096, Cal. 3.

-- { " The requirement to accurately locate each disposal unit Li f ( reasonable if an allowed tolerance is indicated.

(11 TableT Page 38097.

O)- , - saving no lower limit activity concentrations for Clas A segregated

waste conflicts with the definition of radioactivl material used

in 49'2

la. 61.56 Waste Oiaracter!stics

,rGL.56 (a) (7) Page 28097, Col. I

)- 4-S ' 49*CR llcws limited quantities of radioactive gases to he

/Ipckaged ia greater quantities than 100 cur:es. This is Licoasistent

iwith the reqvirer-ts of these proposed reg-latiros.

61.56 IIb Page 3o098. Col. 1.

3y speciyirS a 5' liiL atio n the physical wate form, the

red r e: may well be unintentionally mandatLng a high

ivtgra.:y contaier for Class 3 wastes. Epezience has shown

t d- d liters can ct-ally be filled to about 80% of

their v-:=e. IComnstra t' cooplianc with a 95% triter'a is

- ls A: s a practiola matter. Also, the ;0 psi comressive load

tr rbit-3e a yeliminate media as a waste stabilizat'on process.

D -S- I I e coprressive load criteria would be xre a;;roprlately related t individual dispsal cite overburden characterisolas rather than

acified as a generic criteria.

traft US Ccoents

In general, the Iavironmantal lsgact Statament (ZS) states

current practices and also cites alternate methods. :t is

=cleaz whether the Cc m'ssion accepts either cies or ;refers -

-he altarnates. it is important for the Comission not to

specify a met-od As any prcocsed sIte for discosal will be

1. Page 5-106

V' 'ratory compactors Are reccomended by the US Such

corpactzrs are good for granular soils but are les effective

for cohes've soills. Te ='isslza should specify a degree

of copactioa or requi-rd ;o=e4 billty rather than a method

of comractioa.

B-370
- 6-

2. Page 3-32, Section 3.6.3.6 Securtry.

Full tine secrity personnel have not been used at the present

omercial burial facilities. The full time security provisions

such as fences, signs and periodic law enforcement visits Fave

provided effective security and have not resulted in any security

violations thae would warrant the employment of full-time security

personnel. The use of radio cl 'ication to contact emergency

and law enforcement agencies is not warranted as the fastest and

easiest method Lsathe telephone. Many years of experience has

shown that the "a of telephone corsucation in emergency situations

has proved reliable.

3. Face Z-13, Section 2.1.

zt appears that the Coanission is basIng site selection en the

ability of the locations to fit their computer socal. Out t.o

projected site complexity, it is not realistic to require a location

to fit Present computer models.

4. Page Q-16 and 17, ction 4.1.1 Table Q-7.

The cost of buildig demolition (1500.CC0) seems high in view of

the fact that the three buildings to be demolished cost only $423,850

to build (See Q-31 and about half of that would have been materials.

S. Q-16. Section C.1.2. - . -

Vibratoai compaction epe-e wil be effcie only in granular fill.

6. Vage X-43 Sectionf S; I..'

Te last earagraph of thisection factually states that this

fund Ls L"-sdeqiate to pay for long-teurm care of the site but

does not properly state that moxnes were placed in the State's

general f-:d and not'ea--=rrked for the use intended.

7. Page X-50 Sec-tion 5;5.

The statement that the 'fund is iradequate Ls aet based on

current facts. The surtbarge has increased by 104 in 1981

and the proper investoent of the 'snds vi" take care of the

effects of nlation. nurther increases can and are beiLn

implemented which vill provide substantial fundi-e to the State.

Presi nt

\ ^1> N'UCLEAR V NGLN'EMRNG''

\S/ AULUCAN VM$TSUT- cT ncx=L

January 11, 1982

Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coemiissict

Washington. D.C. Z05;5

Attention: Docket!=g and Service Branch

Dear Sir!

DIVISION

L; NC N t

. ,

* ':7 ** 7 ' 7:15

Ine rNuclear r-ngtneertng Dtvision (JND) of the American L-stttute of

Chernical Eagineers aupreciates this opportunity to cor.ent on the

proposed regulation related to land disposal of radicactive waste

(10 CTPR Part 61) published at 46 -R 3aO81 ot July Z4. 1981.

The American Institute of Chemical Engineers-Is a professioraL orgacizatica

representing over 0. 000 chemical engineers, many of whom are'rnembers

of the Nuclear Engineering Division. A number of these persons have had

decades of experience In most (i£ not *IU) of the technologtes related to land

disposal of radioactive waste.

NED heartily concurs with the urgent need for regulations codifying requiremeots for land dlsposal of radioactive waste. however, we believe 'hat

Subpart D of the proposed regul!atioas Is so basically flawed that it should

be deleted and the proposed regulation rewritten and republished for comment.

rOeerallye the regulation should present not "teChnalca reoulrenlents" but

"performance objectives." :f technical requirements persist In the regulation:

' Ove:ce servatism now embodied ia the proposed technical

:eqairerments should be considerably reduced.

* Cost/benefit comsiderationis'sould be based on the entire

/ - Afuel cycle as row defined by the Administration and riecognizdd

I. I t \ by the Cormmissioners of the XRC.

| T'he definition of transuranic waste should be made realistic

recognizing the ettlre fuel cycle with a rational application of

the ALARA princtple.

* _ nli recognition of the b'eeftc!al corsequences of "l'yered"

b-371
Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 198Z

Page Two

Secretary of the Commission

January i. 1 98Z

Page Three

disposal should be reflected.

PERFOLMANCE OBJECTIVES

The primary flaw in the proposed regulation consists of the aoortive

*tteept ar the NRC to formulate generic lmits f'r disposal. , 's will

\eprtve a potential dis;osal facility operator ;f tie cpport:nity tu ei-ter:

* Take advantage of nataral or engineered features of his operation to permit him to accept materials of aboveaonrmal radionuclide

coutat and dispose of them with quite adequate protection of the

public in both the short and Long term, or

* Limit his receipts to less contaminated material to permit him

to avoid some of the more costly proposed NRC requirements,

still with adequate safety. to be able to offer a service Lass

costly to his custome:s .(ad. therefore, the public).

a uaacceptable reason given by the NAC not to adopt a perforrmance

objective appears ia Section . Z. I of 'NRXG-078Z (hereinafter, the NUREC).

where It is stated. "in addition, it may not be totally clear to an applicant or

Interested person how to design and operate a disposal faclitr to meet the

aeral objectives." *.r, s;bmit that anyone so naive or lactaig ia thorough

nderstandig of all technical aspects of waste dlscosal should not be involved

i a :espoasible technical position related to a land disposal operation. ^-e

role of te regulating agency should be that of regulation, act the estabLshBent of design bases.

'Ne have felt repeatedly in past years that XRC regulatics resembled more

and more a "cook book" approach. As with other nuclear operations, waste

disposal cannot be left to unqusl.Uied paesons to be carried out sznply by

rota. ;t must ce done under the supervision :f Ligoly qualified management.

Accordingly. tSere should be no reason why the NRC should not adopt only

perfo:mance objectives for waste disposal rather than the ILnits and criteria

proposed. To t-e coontrary, It appears Uiat the for-er would offer worth.

while benefits. C:rated. Subpart D does a-low departure from its requirements

if it can be shown that there will be compUance with Subpart C; however.

the very existence of the requirements of Subpart D will inevitably present

a major obstacle to An applicaat endeavoring to benefit from an especially

_cd site or operational provisions.

/7wD U)E CONSERVATISM

:D-!;_) 'Se feel that there Is gross ove:cznservatism in ite NURTC. The proposed

requirements are, to a great extent, not cost-effective and extend far

beyond ALARLA requirements. There are many examples of this, Including:

* Both NURZC40456 and NUARE/CR-1005 are frequently referenced

\ ithe NUXR'C. Indeed the conclusions of all three documents

bear many similUaities. However, in the two referenced documeats

no credit was taken for the waste package nor for waste stabilization

or solidification. The proposed regulation carries with it require- mernu for all of these. That all documents are similar at the bottom ) -S-| Hline but so very different in basic premises shows the extreme

\ onservatism ia the NUREG.

* It is well known that the mlxing of 1291 with stable (1271) iodine

results in directly proportionite reduction Ln iodine related dose

to the thyroid and other organs. This ls recognized Ln the NlUtRZO

(for ea Zle, oan pages 4-16 and 3-73) but then ignored La consideration of Z9 limits.

a As addreased below, the only scenarios for transport of radionucides

from a disposal trench when the waste is emplaced at moderate

depths (say 10 meters) below grade are the water pathways. Sections

61. i(a)(4) and (6) require that the disposal site design be such as

to prevent water infiltration and to eliminate the contact of water

with waste. IU the proposed regulation is adopted.. it seems fain

to presume that a prospective disposal site operator would be

required by the NRC to give reasonable proof thst 't is probable

that these requirements can be and will be met. 'S so, then there

exists no credible water pathway. making limits proposed quite

irrational

SOURCES OF WASTE

The NUR- pointedly Ignores signilicant sources of waste. references

what ls now kaown to be an interim federal policy against recovery of

valuable, irreplaceable energy resources by reprocessing spent 'el.

This is no longer the policy, as was recognized by the Commissioners

D ..SS. 2 la their Second Preheanrig Memorandum and Crder dated November 6. 1981

in the waste disposal confidence rulemaking (PR-30. 51). In that document,

the CommissIoners stated. "Ca Cctober S. 1981. the President issued a

statement outlining a policy favoring commercial reprocessing." 1It is

well kaown that the operation of a reprocessing plant generates sizeable

quantities of "low level" waste. Cae must include in such quantities the

waste also discharged from the operation of the plutonium and "high Level"

waste solidification facilities.

Further, it is the policy of the current Adm=nistration that the oat on should

B-372
*. s ,r , ,

Secretary of the Commission

January 11, 198Z

Page Four

Secretary of the Commission

Jazzury 11, 1982

Page Five

proceed with a breeder program. This will require the processing of plu.

tonlum for fuel. generating more waste not addressed in the 'NURGO.

- Ideed, the NRC in its proposed IOCFR Part 60 recognizes the possibility

of reprocessing In :he defaitdoa of "high level radioactive waste. " (60. 2)

The nature and quantity of reprocessing. high level waste solidificatidn,

and pletenium processing wastes mandates that they be included in consideration of land disposal regulation.

ILANSURANIC (TRU) WASTES

The definition of the waste form called "transuranic" most be redone for

at least several reasons:

* The quantity of wastes from those portions of the entire fuel

cycle ingored il the NLREG, much of which would likely be

in the 10 to 100 nCt/cm3 range. must be taken into account

in assessing the cost-benefit balance on the ALARA principle. D-SS--3 \ One of the more significant compcnedts of these wastes is,

for instancei leac'ed fcel cladding hulls. it is llkely that

the transuranium content of hulls will be below 100 aCI/cm3

To unnecessarily Identify therm as being excluded from land

burial could result in large and wasteful expenditures cf

money. COter components of these wastes likely will fall

in. the same range.

* It appears that, in tying the 10 aCl limit to lIng dose, the

inhalation pathway has been used. With layered diiposal

(see below) this pathway for transuranrcs should not be

applicable. The water cathway would lead to, first, only

an ingestion cat'way, and second, only to the requirement

for an inventory limit rather than a concentration limit.-

* The "fact" that the 10 nCt limit Is readily compLied with now

loses Its meaning when all real (even if not now generated)

wastes are taken into account and the principle of ALARA

ts sincerely applied.

(VALMTMY OF PROPCSFD .117S

nAs oted above, the NURZG frequently references NURRZ-04!6 and

NURCG-CIRilO05. B0th cf these documents (with deep involvement cf

NRC personnel) concluded:

* Intreder-construction and Intruder-agriculture scenarios would

require concentration limits to be Imposed on waste to be disposed

of by land burial.

\ The potential for other Intruders and the potential (lIkely or not) man-rem consequences to a few individcals lead to the cnclcusion

that such a sdenarlo is nImportant In the future.

e Water migration'scenarios would requIre not concentration ILmits

but total site Inventory limits to be imposed.

Nne o* of these scenarios Is expected to tace place while there is

inastituional control (62keina the NUR-TO to be 100 years).

T The "layered" mode of disposal, as described In the NtUR--

obviates the need to address any intruder scenario for the

higher activity wastes.

- There Is no need for special packaging or stabilization of wastes

to make the above conclusIons valid (the referenced NURECs

assumed no such requirement).

Therefore, the limits proposed in the draft IOCYR 61. 35 must be recomputed. There should be a clear recognition that wiste buried at the

bottom (say 10 meters deep) of an operation Is only subject to sitesecific inventory limits (a performance objective). Further, credit

*hould be given 'or compliance with the requirements of 61. 51 "d'sposal

site design for land disposal."

Also, the consideration of subsidence should be redone. t.e can see no valid reason why, during the period of Institutfonal control with monitoring

by the 'MC. any subsidence could net and would act be prormtly corrected.

Dn line with this, we believe that even without the proposed requirements

to prevent or minimize subsidence, all significant subsidence could be

expected to take place well before the expiration of the 100 year period

(after site closur=of Instltut'onal control. Accordingly, the costly require-

/ments proposed i Part 61 are ur ecessary both during the pried of institutional control and after.

Finally, througout the NUREC, numbers on concentrations, doses, etc., are expressed to as sany as three or four s'gnIficant figures. Sueh a

presentation !s very misleading in that it implies that our kmowledge Is

that precise (which It !s not) or that suc- accuracy !s needed (which It

is not).

pVt do note with approval that the dlscusslcn on 46 FR 3 80S! indicates that

B-373
Secretary of the Ccrm ission

January 11, 1982

Page Six

K'...:

(de minimzis waste classificatons will be established. Heace. potentally 2 lower cost disposa1 options m~ay develop for materials at lower concentration

0- 55-L' levels. We encohrage establishment of such de minimis limits outside the

cope c£ Par: 61. T~hs approach should allow consideration of both the

£orm *d a type of waste.

Ln conclusion, lOCCR Part 61 should be rewritten based on simple performance

objectives. Any competent applicant has available all the necessary tools

(hydrological, geological. climatological, etc., data, codes. etc.) to support

appropriate site-specific limits for his proposed operation. e urge that

he be givea the latitude to take advantage of site-specilfc benefits or to

search for an improved site which would give hi= an opportur-:y to offer

a better service at a reduced cost.

We request the opportunity to answer any negative response by the NRC

to any aspect of this discussion.

Sincerely,

COSFE.REXCE OF .RA DIA.7; CO.V TPR DiRi COiS. 7'ROGRA. INC.

P. 0. 8ox 148

Concord, New Hampshire 2330l

January iS, 1982

C6( FR3- O'1D t

3 3;; LE PR- !

Kr. R . Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

C7zieSI7 4)

R.L. Newman

Chirman, Nucloar %Vaste Task Force

Past Chalroan, Nuclea:r ZgtIeerig Division

Dear Dalet

The following comments relate to the Proposed Rule for a new Part 61, and other related amendments, as published in

Volume 46, No. 142 of the Federal Register, dated July 24, 1981.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to be commended on this proposed regulation. This new proposed rule provides a vast improvement in guidance and requirements for the control

of land disposal of radioactive waste. The existing regulation on the disposal of radioactive waste contained in Part 20

provides only a limited guidance that has resulted in proble=s

at both NRC and state licensed burial sites.

The Con'erence has taken the position since the late

sixties that more federal guidance and criteria is needed in

the area of shallow land disposal of radioactive waste. The

Conference has passed various resolutions addressing this

concern. Such guidance is imperative for uniform management

of the country's radioactive waste.

many of tee improvements in the proposed Part 61 are

resporsive to some of the recommendations made by the Conference.

Proposed Part 61 also establishes, in the NRC regulatory

system, many 'state of the art' improvements that have been

developed by the states in the operation and regulation of

low-level radioactive and hazardous waste burial sites.

The Ccnference concurs and supports the following

proposals contained in the new Proposed Part 61:

K 1. An improved waste classification system that divides

~ | the present all-inclusive low-level' waste into

several categories based on hazard evaluation.

Confirmation of the definition of transuranic wastes L as recommended by the Conference several years ago.

B-374
: .a -**

Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15. 1982

Page 2

Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 3

. Technical requirements for burial that become more. C. - I 5 stringent based on the increasing hazard of the

radionuclide concentration in the waste.

D - . Technical requirements on stability of waste packaging.

5. Technical requirements on burial site operations that

minimize voids in trenches with emplaced waste.

6. Technical and financial requirements associated with the site

t \ closure phase and the post-closure observation and maintenance

phase.

. Defining a period of time for institutional control, and

-- relating the classification and disposal of waste to this

time -frame.

For e design purposes of new proposed sites, and until specific

recommendations are forthcoming from the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Conference supports the objective in Proposed

C-t Part-6l.that any movement of radioactivity should not result in c-3 J calculated'doses in excess of 25 mrem/year to an individual

_at the site boundary, and support the application of the

EPA drinking water standard to the-nearest public drinking

ater-supplye- We also recommend the application of these

vdose limits as guidelines for existing sites. Of course,

5 )the acplicatIon of ALARA should be applied to a near surface

.buriai site, as with other licensees.

( we strongly support the proposed amended requirements to Part 20

for the certification and use of shipping manifests to track waste

Shipments. - -

We offer the following specific comments on the proposals.

(1 1.2 Definitions:

a.DShould include a definition for arino custodrial ocares

ab. Disposal -d As stated, the temporary storage of waste

RE I ould meet the definition. Disposal into land generally

connotes long term or permanent removal of the waste

from the biosphere; Possibly the words 'llong terml

should be added before the word 'isolation.'

(c. ;Waste" - The definition should include levels of

] cocentrations of radioactive materials specific to a

particular waste stream below which regulatory control

is no longer required. This position was previouslyD- sS-_7transmitted to the Commission in the form of Resolution I!!

which was adopted at the thirteenth annual Conference

,meeting.

riAlthough-the definition for waste may not be the area in

which the following-concerns'should be addressed, we

strongly urge the Commission to consider the total

hazard,Fboth radiological and chemical, in the

classification of-acceptable waste for A-radioactive

burial site. Although this concern is somewhat addressed

under 61.56, criteria or guidelines are needed which

-s- specifically consider the appropriateness and/or

procedures of combining waste which is highly toxic,

chemically, but low in radioactivity, with chemically

nontoxic radioactive material.

Consideration should be given to a definition of toxic

chemical/radioactive waste which may require different

handling and burial requirements. This concern was expressed to the Commission in the form of Resolution II

adopted by the Conference.

(2) 61.7 Conceots:-

Under section Cc)(4), "The Licensing Process," the concept

of license transfer to a-state or federal agency after finding -

of satisfactory disposal site closure is-discussed. Under

this concept, if transferred to a state, the NRC would be

licensing a state government until institutional care is

not required. This concept for a low-level waste site may

a - 8 need further discussion and refinement before implementation. For example, what criteria will'be used to judge the

adequacy of the state government licensee? If 'state

government" violates the conditions of the license, what

enforcement actions would be taken? Additionally,: why

would the license be terminated if transferred to the

Department of Energy, but not terminated If transferred to

a state? Experience and-history has shown that states have

been as effective as the federal government in assuming

responsibility for long-term care of existing sites.

Therefore, consideration should be given to license

termination after transfer to a state government.

3)'61.12 Soeciflc technical Information:

Section (d) would require a description of the design basis

natural events or phenomena.. Requirements should be

IS

8-375
Mr. R. Dale Smith

January 15, 1982

Page 4

j- )placed on the applicant to cornsider the maximun creditable

accident anticipated, and a description of actions that

would be taken should such an event occur.

4) 61.50 Site Characteristics:

Consideration should be given to a nonsuitability 8 } requirement for burial into areas high in natural C radioactivity.

5) 61.80 Records:

6-1 Consideration should be given to the requirement for

the maintenance of a duplicate set of vital records at an alternate location in case of destruction by fire or

othe: loss of primary records.

We would also like to comment on the Summary Draft E.Z.S.S

NUREG-0782, Volume 1. We believe the Draft £E7.3. adequately

supports the need for the Proposed Part 61. and identifies

impacts. Cur specific corments are as follows:

1. Pace 15, Tmvact Measures:

Another pathway which should be considered is trench

overflow and/or pumping of water from trenches.

2. Pace-16, Table S.4:

Impact measures should include trench overflow or pumping

of trenches, an-d the release of tritiated methane.

3. Pace 30, 5.1.2., 4th Daracrauh:

The 'bathtub' problem not only 'leads to costly long-term

trench pum:ping," but may also release radioactivity in

the process.

4. Pace SS, ITmacts on the ublic:

An additional beneficial impact with the implementation of

the requirements of the Proposed Part 61 is the reduction

of potentially large, long-term financial cost. for taxpayers in states in which sites are located.

4r. R. Dale Smith

January 15. 1982

Page ;

.tandards of 'he new Proposal. We recommend Imectiate consideration

be given to the following:

1. Standards for acceptable solidifying agents for liquid

low-level waste.

2. Acceptable testing procedures to determine if solidified

liquids meet the above standard.

3. Comprehensive licensing guidelines for waste reduction

methods such as incineration and compacting units.

4. Guidelines for types of acceptable or optimum geological

formations for the land disposal of low-level radioactive waste. -

5. Standards or criteria for the opt:imm design of a site,

considering dry vs. hmid climates.

6. Guidelines as to acceptable or optimum burial practices.

7. Guidelines relating to the minimum acceptable health physics

program for a near surface burial facilIty.

8. Guidelines relating to the minimum acceptable nonrad'olocizal

occupatior.al protectIon program for a near sur'ace buraal

facility.

9. Guidelines relating to the specific areas that must be

considered for emergency planning for a near sur'ace burial

facility.

10. Guidelines on environmental contamination trend analysis, and

recommended protective actions based on potential increasing

environmental levels of specific radionuclides.

11. Standards or criteria which specifies what constitutes

stabilization and a decommissioned site.

12. Guidelines wh'ch identify the minimum acceptable activities

to be cerformed by a government acency after closure.

13. Guidelines on =aethcds'of determining-financial needs fc~rlong-term care.

14. Guidelines as to the minimum acceptable environmental

monitoring programs for a near surface disposal facility.

15. Guidelines on the application of AA or near surface

facilities.

16. Guidelines on ground water modeling for near surface facilities. (gEj-2.[a

- GENERAL CoYMNTS -

There is an urgent need for written criteria and/or guidelines

to what constitutes acceptability '.n meeting the performance

B-376
Mr. R. Dale Smith

January lS, 1982

Page 6

Again, I would like to comend the Cormission for the excellent

work1 contained in the new Proposed Part 61. Such regulations have

been needed for many years. we appreciate the opportunity to ccro.nent on this very vital need to our country.

Yours very-truly,

John R. Stanton, Chairman

Conference of Radiation Control

Progran Directors, Inc.

JRS /CY2H/pch

cc: Board

Federal Liaisons

Executive Secretary

G. Wayne Kerr

PULRDLUEUIN IV ERS!TI r SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES2 i :;

Januery 1S 1932

Sanuel Chilk - * - ? L'..O

Secretary. Nuclear Regulatory Conn1ss1on

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Washington. DC 2055;

"ear MIr. Chilk:

I am writing you as Chairran of the Program 2eview Corittee, an independent

review ccsittee corprising representatives from industry, institutions,

environrental groups, and state and federal ooverrnent.

EG&E Idaho, Inc., as Manager of the 5epart^2nt of Energy s Low-Level .laste

Managem1ent Program, has constituted this rviewv comittee. The Co-nittee

has reviewed your proposed regulaticn 10 CF2 61. Miost of cur ccrents have

been included with the Departrent of Energy corments through SG&G Idaho.

However. there is one matter that tie consider -erits soecial corrent.

From our review and discussions aith IC, 5CE, and EGIG :daho staff, we find

that the inadvertent intruder' Is the doninant or controlltnogfeature if

the regulation. The waste categories, radionuclide concentration 11lits,

and cther iratters are set by the calculated dose to the inadvertent intruder.

In cur judgment the NRC has given too -uch weight to the intruder scenario in

t e develoonent of the regulaticn. !e do not fe-l that safety regulations for C 4 the general =o-ulat1on should be dictated.by the hyoethetical number acticns

of a very s-all number of tndividuals.

Our Judgment is that the inadvertent intruder scenario is more analrcus to an accidental exposure zathway than to a chrcnic exposure oathway. Action

to nitigate the consequences of the event and to lessen the 11kelih1o= of

the event seems -ore acorcoriate than usin; the event as a basis for

operational regulation.

We agree that the inadvertent intruder' should and rust be considered In

t:e regulation. H$owever. More emphasis snculd be olace! on recuirenen:s to

reduce the likelihood of intrusion. One such r-culrement migct be to use durabl; mcnurents lar, e enouch to warn ,otentla; intruders. The orcoosed

waste form and centainer rejuiriments for structural stability -ay also serve t o :!tigate the consequences of an iradvertent intrusion.

Wxei: Iafriet-e. Jc j" s?7*

IK.I I I.. .:.

B-377
.I. , I " ': --N~itTHE UNAVVERS ML CF TXCAS SYSTMI CANCER MCM

Samuel Chilk

January 15, 1982

Page 2

,_ ,a above discussion reoresents the ceneral feelings and consensus of the

)cmmnit:ee. There was unanimity among the Committee merbers that this

(,$ues0ion and our judgments should be brougnt to your attention. The Program Review Committee would be happy to elaborate on these corm.ents or answer any further questions concerning our conclusions. Please accept our ccmpl1ents on your efforts and our thanks for the help and

assistance received from the NRC staff, In particular. Ms. Kitty Dragonette.

who was very helpful and attentive.

Sincerely,

Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman

Low-Level Waste iManagement

Program Revie-x Committee

PLZ:vhf

cc: 'ale Smith

Division of Waste ,management U.S. I1uclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, 0: 20555

M. D. Amderson Mospitaland Tume jii.te2 o0

Tcsxji lcadil cr Houiton. Tcaa 77030 t - eC1

DqW*W4Oe Ph;S I

January 13, 1982

Secretary of the Commission zz, F

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 205SS f z

_s38g Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

-Cear Sir:

I apornciate this opportunity to comment on Prcposed Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. There definitely needs to be a single, coherent set of licensing requirements regarding burial sites and I am glad to see these regulations formally presented for review. I am particularly gratified to see the waste classification scheme. Part 61.55.

The University of Texas System Cancer Center generates radioactive waste

in the course of redical therapy, diagnosis, and research activities and

may be directly affected by parts 61.55, 61.56 and 20.311. 1 will confine

my ccrnents to these parts.

art 61.55

The waste classification of isotopes and activities is acceptable. All

radicactive waste generated here would fall under Class A segregated waste

with regard to activity.

Part 61.56

Hy uncertainty with portions of this section is NRC interpretation In D fapplying these requirements to medical research waste containing organic

solvents such as toluene, xylene, dfoxane. etc. used in liquid scintillation counting. As I understand this part, crums containing liquid

scintillation viils, which in turn contain organic solvents, would be

unacceptable due to parts (a) (5). (a) (6) and primarily (b) (2). It

would be worthwhile for the NRC to refer specifically to liquid scintillation vial waste. Due to-the low activity and small voluzme of solvents.

I think part (a) (3) is sufficient for liquid scintillation vial waste.

CampIying with part (b) (2) might be practically impossible due to the

usually unknown mix of solvents in scintillation cocktail.

!'eaidyw

I)

k.641.oil " cifin CTmh. Ull;-mmis l'-n- FounJ~tirn Thd AnJcrso. M..a fir

EXzr.jnr.t; Pr t,)LIM. a!wa k---~. ; ' rr F:; -%..x- w= 4Il¢J~I4%X~-*S.;Xb$w ti. 

8-378
Secretary of the Ce-mission

Page 2

January 13, 1982

Part 20.311

It seems to me that certain parts of this section put an undue burden cn

generators of low level *edical radioactive wastes in terms of increased

cost epd manpower required to implement these rules. According to this

section all waste generators are considered shippers and are responsible

for meeting all of the implementation and recerd keeping requirerents of

this section regardless of arrangements made with other parties (i.e.

collectors. reprocessors) for shiprent of wastes. The minimum requirement

for mredical low level waste generators shculd be to accurately indicate

IA - 4 radionuclide identity, activity, physical forms, and NPRC waste classification for each drum or container.

If other parties are willing to take responsibility for wastes leaving

*the generator's facility, they should be permitted to do so. Otherwise

,this is yet another requirement forced upon medical institutions which

cCuld better utilize their money aed personnel en other more pressing

safety problems.

-I have the following specific cerments on this section:

.(b As stated above, for medical low level rad1oactive waste I see no need

for information provided by the generator other than radionuclide

identity, activity, physical-forn and NRC waste classification for

each container.

(c) The generator should as a minimum certify only the proper classificatien, description and packaging of wastes. Other parties (i.e.

ccn.ercial firms)' should be able to certify the remaining information

if they contractually agree to this.

The generator Institution should be able to allow individual authorized

-users of. radioactive .materials to certify the abvee infermation.

(d)(3) Other parties should be allowed to perforn this assurance under ( contract. In any case the NRC should specify what a quality assurance / I- t and management audit program should entail. For Class A waste this

should be minimal.

(d)(4) See corments on (b) and (c).

J (d)(S) This is unnecessary when another party is receiving the waste at Mi-I- the generator's institution.

(d)(2) Gererators should be exempted form this requirement when another

party receives the waste at the generaer's5 institution.

Secretary of the Cormission

Page 3

January 13, 1982

f) The licensed waste processor should be allowed to perform duties for

the generator as cominented upon above. This will also eliminate

unnecessary duplication of effort by the generator.

ih) See (d) (8).

Sincerely,

cc: Edgar Bailey,

Texas Radiation Control Bureau

MEN:e9

B-379
I . j" .C 

Ciml;rts poxtr C i;-11 Con.; st

January 1&, 1 !982 = -_

J2H

-2-

Secretary of V-& Connission

v. S. Nuclear iegulatory Co-ission

l"ashingota, D.C. 20555

Attention tocketin2 and Service Branch

CO"'^TS TO ?7-?CSr- 1OC!r? PART 61

a.-; ba rnuzolf, r) c a vDo,. -D t a_ I I, ^u 4 

C 'G F[?- 3 c, 3

Dear Sir:

As reques:ed by the notice published la the July 24, 1l81

Federal Reais:er, Carolina Power S Light Company (C?&L) hereby subitis

comments on the proposed 1OCTI Par: 61. As generators of low level

waste, C?&L has concerned itself primarily with the portions of the

troposed 10CF161 which address waste classificateon. However, in regard

.o the entire regulation, we express our support for the concep: of

scatang overall performance objec:ives for low level waste disposal

supp:~enaetd by prosc:ipctve design requirements only where necessary.

This approach provides needed flexuliility, particularly in landfill

deisig :;are local condi;tcns vary.

C^ments on specSfiC sections of 1CCFR Part 61 are as follows:

Sectson 61.27. Aoolicacion for ?ene ia1 or Closure

This paragraph discusses the licerse renewal requirements. On

page 38087 of the preamble, NRC ind'caces that the ronaval peircd will

e five years. IA thitk this is inappropriate and unnecessary. SectIon 61.25

Chantes, already requires Commission approval before changes can be made 3 5 to th*e sife. Section 61.24(a) al:eady provides authority to revoke

modify or suspend a license. Therefore, the automatic five (5) year

reneve! is aor needed. Also, a nuclear power plant is liconsed for the

life of che planr (norally 40 years). Since the desree of public rigk

is very low for a low level -as:e dispcsal faizlicy, the licens4 should

be issued for the Life of che fa:!l1t-, sinilar :o a nuclea: power plant

license. In this way, a private operator of a low level waste facility

can be assured thSA his initIal lavestnent would crt be los: after

fIve (5) years. sheuld his license not be renesed

£ecion 61.55, V*eta Classification

The waste classification system as outlined in Table 1 is

unworkable. The Draft ZnvircrmenCal 'npact Statenant (CZIS)

S ~y pages :3 and 46, zddrassa6 :ne difficulty of meazsring

;::;.-n -4. .t fi I

such isotopes and proposes the use of scaling factors based on =easured levels of indicator isotopes. This wording must

be includedin rCCFSql to avowd future enforcement problems.

The standard error associated with this technique must also

§).. t f~, be reco.gnized ird allowed for enforcement. Language must

be introduced into ?arc 61 reccgnizing that the specific

activity of isotopes need nor be measured directly and perrittin& the use of indirect methods for reasonablv est iatint

them.

An attractive and reasonable alternative which would avoid

these isotopic analysis problems and still acccplish the

Commissions objective of having an inventory of all waste at a site at Eine of closure, would be to entitle each

column in Table 1 as typical wastes or waste sources (simIlar

to the list shown on page 3s6o8 of che preamahle). For

enforcement purposes, a simplified indirect measurement of

indicator isotopes in each package would then suffice to categorize %4asce packages as falling within the "typical"

levels shown for each column of Table 1.

- 4t~ strongly support the XRC's efforts in. establishing a "do

\ nin::is" class i:icattion which would essentially be exempt from

D *.5-- 4, arr 61. For clarity, we would su;gest a coluna for the "de

Innin =s" levels be added to Sable 1. We would also suggest a

colu be established to cover all low level wastes that

exceed Class C wastes, so that ic is clear what is to be

doze with these wastes as well.

- n establishing a linit of 0.11 by weight for chelating agents

in waste, the :RC is rct taking into account the stability

requile=ents of Class B and C wastes. Va feel that applying a

O.L chelatin5 agent limit to these wastes will discourage :he

D- x- use of present and developing decontamination techniques

useful in reducing occupational exposures. If the irrC believes

it is necessary to establish additional protection, guidance

for proper and reasonable packaging should be developed as opposed to concentration limits. General performance guidelines

could achIeve stated gcals without requiring the *xtrese

efforts necessary to routinely denonstrate compliance.

/ e recommend a 100 nCi15M limit for tranSurAnic waste. .he

\proposed lOnCi/g is an a.bi:rar7 level and 's very conservative ) from a health and safety standpoint. Although lCnCi/la is D S 3 achievable du:ing normal power plant operations there are

docueat:ad reports of levels occasionally reaching the 10-100

(nci4aZ range (ER: Pro ec: 6132 August. 1930). these events

wars aasociatel with unusual fuel performance. Raising the

liit: vwuld accomplish two-tchn;s. First, the very small

a mount of power plant waste falling in the 10-100 nCi/gm range

B-380
-3-

(can be readily disposed of safely. Second and more irportantly,

allast11 efrom operating power-reactors could safely be assumed _ - Ito fall below the 100 nCi/sm level. - thertbr achieving compliance

Lby definition and making it unnecessary to perform direct or ndirect measurements which are technitally very difficult.

- Ta~ble 1 is designed to provide a limit of 500 mRen/year exposure

to an inadvertent intruder 100 years after closure of the

site We feel the 5 Rem/year limit currently applied to

radiation workers represents en acceptably low risk and should

be the standard used in this intruder scenario. The low

probability of intrusion and the limited number of individuals

who would ever be involved in such an event would justify

calculating risk based on individual exposure and not population

exposure. This change would increase allowable capacity at te disposal sites and would reduce the total number of required sites in the future.

- The limits established in Table 1 assume an intrusion 100

ye2ar5i *ftr the waste is placed. Frot: our review, it appears D1'h -5&hat no credit has been allowed for the decay of the preyeoinately thort-lived isotopes. chc would occur durit aphe

operational phase. If so, higher activities could be allowed

per wnste class in the early ye-rs had suild oeec the intrusion

riteria after 100 years.

D- 5ue to the expected increase in paperwork associated with G- | lOC'R 61, we encouraSe that existing forms and documents be

) used whern possible to avoid unnecessary addit'onal administrative burden.

- A general commzent cancerning;abie'I is that it contains far

t too much information to be limited to the space given. t: w ould suggest that narrative be provided to explain the

intent of each classification and footnote.

O Cf final concern is that Table 1 and the waste classification

shee-e in geeral would appear to discourage waste volume ) reduction which is contrary to the 'MC Policy Statement of

D -s -8 f CeOober 16, 1981, concerning volume reduction. as well as CL policy of promoting total waste volume reduction. If volume

reduceron is to be enccuraged, a waste classification system..

-use be developed in the final lOC.R6l whereby users are re--

- warded in some way forcusing waste volume reduction techniques.

Section 61.56

D- -11 T-he prescriptive requirement of 50 psi compressive load for "L waste form stated in 61.56 (b)(1) should be replaced by a rerfornarce

objective allowing specific requirements td be develcped on a site-byID_ site basis to avoid subsidance at that specific site conft;uration. I:

os cur understanding chat to maintain the waste stability to within 52

would require filling the waste container to less then 95. This is

-.. mfixpreacical from a large operations standpoint, and should be changed to

a performance ob'eccive which would require filling the container as close to capacity as reasonable.

Asr.eament St:s Status

Within the proposed lC0MAl. the status of agreement states is

ambiguous. There are several places in the regulations .here it would

be appropriate toexplain how lOCTR Part 61 would apply in states with

agreement status. Specific language is suggested as follows:

Section 61.1(b)

-Except in Agreement States where a compatIble waste disposal

program is in plse or as provided in Section 61.6 'Exemptions'

Section 61.70

"This subpart describes sechonisss through which the Corvmissol

will implement a formal request fram a non-Agree=ent State, an

Aureement State without a cospatible disposal program, or

Tribal government to participate in the review...."

Draft Environmental Iract Statement (EIS)

DEIS is unreasonably voluminous based on the small degree

of environmental or safety risk from low level waste. The disposal of vastes has received significant public attention recently and has becone

a very sensitive topic. A DEtS of this volume tands to inappropriately

legitimize these overstated concerns.

Should you have questions concerning our comments, please let

me know. Se appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed

regulation.

Very truly yours,

'Pat V. move

Vice President

Technical Services

Pvd dcj

:....

I

B-381
@-(- |IThe American Socic3ty of Machanicrl Engineaers

I

Nuclear Enginaerin9 Division

(Fzuraad in 11541

&XECUTIVa Co^.JITTIE

|l1a.Itsl

Ce,""..

E74ca P. wAsIZINr

P.O. S.. 19218

4T11o..P3L2: January 21 vr c. C..,.. 1WITON 0. ZIILS

P.O. &. 41S Secretary LU-,1,r'. OI 43130 U.S. Nucle 11141 637,4O9

IRINTA. SHELTON Washington Clw Ewm.5

P.O. S3o 7S7 Attention: Ch4450. IL 6H040Atno: U1121 294-2537

JOHN SUSOdIC Subject: M.l - a. N.' L-c 700 ri ww ?w. Ortc l. NJ C7U49 1201 ;C3 C30 ht. 21;2I

VW LUAUL4,yCOWN We are ple Yesl^0. .wto' t Co. on the pro P.O. to. '.6,0. W:1123 eurne C! AA^ :.; 3'2 ReCUre;Ten CsC) 376A.409

AD01PV1STfiATVI EC.Lrrtf CPAli UrV The attacb

Systems Cc SO. .ZISLS

L 0. ZIILI

L1U OA. iD_-

T. W. ECWAAOS

Kenneth E. XO"N$S~LISN Member, Ra

P.b.460IC. Nuclear Er 4A.:AYIA. J A. American S

LIAiSONv REPRESINAM rIVES

L. C. 0Y'.$ !w ,.,.N.r.,Sc.v L. C OYU!: I' r N.V.. ;CsovCC.10 .u. NcLI:0(o A~-e c Ps.- Cinf/, .,. z:..u,.r.Sg1S AS N . C" Enclosure

V14 r:,n,, C.-M.U.-ItCAME SA. UAY;I, .A !S0C--UnNO Co-w seu

. 0.. rAC..4A

N.ew l*1 I A"4

$t::II Stg Hl. 0. NjLCM6AA

A 0. SIANiSTM:1

ladr,. St- m . -e

_ _ AE;T..r

*.'. :I 'N, .cer a

4MVc w

General Electric Ccapany 175 Curtner Avenue

San Jose, CA 95125 MA411 r.-l 771

REVIEW COMMENTS OF PROPOSED RULEYAKING

ON LAND DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADICACTIVE WASTE - IOCFR61 , 1982

of the Coczission ear Regulatory Comission

i, D. C. 20555

C.n

=Zl- -wteR ' 1=__=D9X P-2Ng,

Docketing & Service Branch

Transoittal of Coments to lCCFR Part 61,

'Licensing Requirement for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste'

eased to take this opportunity to coc ent

:Posed rule, 10CFR Part 61, "Licensing its for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste'

ied corcments are those sf the Radwaste

noittee (AS;1E), chaired by Larry Relter.

SUBMITTED BY

CODES AND STANDARDS SU3COM4ITTEE

R.ADWASTE SYSTEMS COM4ITTEE

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DIVISION OF

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF IIECHNNICAL ENGINEERS

I Kolb

adwaste Systems Co.'nitte of

ioineering Division of

Society of !Aechanical Engineers

6-*| f ** " j .

J. S .,s..:

s L P0311.

!,t:-: '.* As.,4,..;iC. of tEr-.zrurin; Oizo'iss * A=4461C.t er. !:¶rd for Esgiu.c.1rg x-d 72=M~Gy

B-382
PAGE 3803d - PARA. V. C - WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND CLASSIFICATION

"Stability should last long enough for the radicisotopes to decay

to levels where they are no longer of concern from the migration

standpoint."

What criteria deternines the length of time migration concern?

<.PAGE 38087 - PARA. G - OPERATIONAL PHASE

'At intervals specified in the license (the ncrmal term for materials

license is currently five years) the licensee would be required to

submit a license r-newal application.'

Suggest that the site be provided a full term license with subsequent

periodic reviews not subject to public hearing. The review should

ascertain that the conditions supporting the full term license have not

changed significantly.

Paragraphs 61.25 and 62.26 in the proposed regulation provide adequate

assurance that licensee-originated changes will receive review by the

Commission. New-found issues of national concern that are independently

identified by the Conmission can be applied on a national basis to the

sites as such issues are identified and are not dependent on waiting for

a renewal application.

PAGE 38087-- PARA. G - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL BOARD

".. .surveillance to keep people off the site..."

The Instituticnal Control Board should have the prerogative to determine the extent of site access on a site specific basis.

4. PAGE 380S6 - PARA. V. F - MANIFEST TRACKING SYSTEM

"...to provide copies of the manifest to proceed and acconpany

shi-pents..." -

The need for a manifest system to assure traceability of waste shipments

from a generator through the transporter and finally to the disposal site.

Is recognized. We question the need for a ccry of the manifest preceding

the shipment for the following reasons:

1) The copy of the manifest accompanying the shipment will allow the

transporter and disposal facility to verify the shipment content.

2) The expressed concern that a missing or delayed shipment would not

be detected can be reconciled by other methods such as an independent

transmittal of the manifest at the time of shipment or by telephone

notification to the receiving facility at the time of shirment.

3) The requirement for the manifest to precede the shipment implies

- 1 that the shiprent should not leave until notification has been

received by the shipper that the receiver has received said copy.

This can result in a shipment sitting at the Initiating site for

an extended period while these notices go back and forth.

S.. PAGE 3CS°9 -. PARA. 61.1(a) -

"...Cormission issues licenses, for the disposal for others of

radioactive wastes ... set forth in Part 20 of this chapter.'

While lOCFR Part 20 covers the disposal of waste by an individual

p-. l E 1Ticensee, the quantities are limited to very low levels. The purpose

and scope should be rephrased to allow an individual licensee to

,operate a burial site. The words "for others" and the last sentence

to 61.1(a) should be deleted.

o. PAGE 38C90 - PARA. 61:2 -

,Disposal, means ... facility.,

Suggest: "Disposal" the placement of waste In a licensed land disposal

facility for radioactive waste.

. PAGE 38C90 - DEFINITIONS

"Near surface" disposal facility means land disposal facility in

which radioactive waste is disposed of in or within the upper

15-20 meters of the earth's surface."

_p_ I It Is suggested that this definition be changed to read as follows:

'Near surface disposal facility' means disposal facility in which

radioactive waste is disposed of in or within the upoer 15-20

meters of the earth's surface or to whatever greater depth can

be demonstrated as capable of meeting the required perfornance

criteria and tecknical- specification."

Rationale: The restricticn in or within the j^per 15-20 meters could

prevent utilization of greater depths at locaticns where hydrogeclogical

conditions and waste stability characteristics would allow this. The

criteria of the proposed regulation are established to prevent exposure

to the public by transmittal through ground water flew end to prevent excosure to the intruder. The establishment of an allowable depth should

be rade on a site-specific basis and with the objective that the criteria

will be .et. The unsubstantiated establishrent of a nationwide depth

limit is not in keeping with the logic used throughout the rest of the

proposed regulation.

I 2

B-383
J- I -

'8. 1.11PAGE 3e090 - PARA. 61.2 -

'Earth's surface' should be defined.

This could be the final surface elevation of the dis;osal site as used I

in the site closure and stabilization plan.

9. PAGE 3SO90 - PARA. 61.2 -

'Stability' 

Itis a basis 

should 

for separation 

be defined. 

of Class A 

C

and B waste. 3

10. PAGE 38090 - PA2A. 61.3(a) -

Change: (...issued by the Cormission pursuant to this part.)

to: (...issued by the Comcission pursuant to this part or unless exemption has been granted by the Commission

under Paragraph 61.6.)

Rationale: Paragraph 61.3(a) as written would prohibit transfer for land 14.

disposal of any radioactive waste to a ncnlicensed person. This is overly restrictive and would force the shipment (to a licensed facility) of radioactive wastes that are not of a health or safety concern. The suggested addition to Paragraph 61.3(a) would allow deter-minations to be made by the

Comoission on a case-by-case basis where it could be demcnstrattl that

health and safety concerns could be met by alternate disposal r.ethods.

pAGE 38091 - PARA. 61.7(a)(1) -(

*...uppermost 1S to 20 meters of the earth.' .

Suqqest: Addition of sentence:

(Surface burial deeper than 20 meters may also be satisfactory.)

Rationale: Deeper surface burial ray prove satisfactory relative to

protection of the public and economics. 16.

2. PAGE 38091 - PARA. 51.7(b)(1) -

*(b) Waste Classification and Near-Surface Disposal. (1) Disposal of radioactive waste in near-surface disposal

facilities has too pricary safety objectives: prevention of is-i migration of radionuclides. oriarily through groundwater; and prevention of exposure to Inadvertent intruders.'

A paragraph change to include the following is proposed:

... has the following safety objectives:

1) Minimize migration by surface and groundwater and

wind effects.

2) Keep personnel dose ALARA.

_ 3) Keep environmental impact within specified limits.'

PAGE 38091 - PARA. 61.7(b)(2) -

This paragraph states that for certain isotopes a maximum disposal site inventory will be established based on the characteristics of

the disposal site.

Because this rule is site caoacity and size limiting, criteria such?.c6'.Z_ as the isotopes, their maximum permissible inventory, and inventory limiting site characteristics should be established.

PAGE 38091 - PARA. 61.7(c)(3) -

Suggest that:

'During the period when the site closure...'

be changed to:

'During the period when the final site closure...'.

PAGE 38092 - PARA. 61.13 -

It is not apparent what is required for *demonstration' or how analysis will be accomplished. This section should be clarified. This corent

also applies to Paragraph 61.2(f)(1)(j). Once buried, the waste is no longer in the 'possession' of the licensee.

PASE 36094 - PARA. 61.24(b) -

'The licensee shall submit written statements under oath

upon request of the Commission. at any time before termination

of the license, to enable the Cormission to determine whether or not the license should be modified, suspended or revoked.'

It is suggested that this paragraph be deleted.

Rationale: The paragrach is very vague as to intent and niethod of irople- mentaticn. It is not clear under what circu.mstances such an oath would be required and has a direct implication that the licensees are untrustworthy. There are certainly sufficient written transmittals required In

4

8-384
L other paragraphs of the procosed regulation to obtain necessary documentatien of deliberate falsification of inforr.ation.

17. PAGE 3594 - PARA. 61.24(h) -

It is suggested that this r'equire ent be deleted.

Rationale: This appears to be inconsistent with ICCFR2.105 which provides the applicant an opportunity to petition for a hearing on any

additional requirements or conditions. The "...or therealfter..." is

partlcularly onerous in that it permits the staff to byoass the rules

of procedures as described in Part 2 of the chapter. The Commission

already has methods to require inanediate action bya licensee through

either an Emergency Order or a Compliance Order.

I PAGE 38094 - PA2A. 61.25(a) -

It is suggested that this paragraph be changed to read:

"...approval; (3) those features and procedures which may notbe changed without 60 days prior notice to the Cormission; and B- 4 (4) chances that do not imoact oublic health and safety can be race ii.eciately witn suosecuent notiication of the Coinnissicn an a timel manner. Features and procecures failing in paragrapn (aj(3) of this section..."

Rati1nale: The necessity to rake ninor changes that do not impact on the public health and safety occurs reutinely during the operation of a facility. The requirements in Paragraph 61.25(a) that no changes can be made without 60 days prior notice to the Corr1ssicn. are overly _ restrictive.

19. PAGE 32095 - PARA. 61.29

The recuirement that the licensee maintain responsibility for the

disposal site for a minimum of five years is an open ended requirement. A specific time period should be set. Since this period may need to be 8-7 s extended or possibly shortened as determined by site specifics, it should

be included in the site closure plan rather than the regulation.

As currently stated the criteria does not provide sufficient guidance to

establish adecuate funding. Since wastes will not te received during this period all funding must be derived from fees charged during oceration.

It Is necessary for planning purposes to know the time period over which

the licensee will be responsible. -

P)5-1-

PAGS 3EC96 * PARA. 61 51(7) -

This paragraph states that the disposal site shall be used exclusively

for the disposal of radioactive waste. This seems to be unnecessarily

restrictive. It should be acceotable to allow disposal of other waste

types at long as there is no cooningling of the waste types within a

disposal facility. Once an acceptable cisoosal site has been found.

maxirum use of the site for the Isolation/disposal of any environmentally

dangerous materials whether they are radioactive or not should be provided.

PAGE 38096 - PARA. 61:51(a)(3) *

Remove the words 'and improve". An acceptable site must meet site

criteria. Improvements, if made,.need not be mandatory.

PAGE 38096.- PARA. 61.51(a)(4)

Replace "prevent' with 'minimize". . -ev

PAGE 380^6 - PARA. 51.51(al(6) -

Replace 'eliminate' with 'mnimize")

PAGE 38096 - PARA. 61.52(a)(4) -

'Orderly ranner" reeds further explantion. For example, 'orderly manner"

may meanlike ,ackages together or higher dose packages at the bottom

elevations.

PAGE 3809S - PAPA. 61.55(a)(7) -

'Accurately located" needs further exolanation. For example, the drawings or calculations are independently verified, there is a record that

the survey Instruments have been recently calibrated, or the surveyor is

licensed in the site's state.

PAGE 3E096 - PARA. 61.55(a)(9) -

"Adequate" should be defined.

PAGE 3_097 - PARA. 51.53(a)

Suggest thet the early warning of radionuclide migration must be given

before the migration reaches site boundary.

PAGE 38097 - PAMA. 61.55 A'NO TABLE 1 -

The waste classifications scheme presented here with the associated

concentration limits presented in Table 1 would have a substantial impact

on the nuclear power industry's waste disposal costs and hence. upon the

cost of nuclear eenerated power.

6

D' -s3 -f

S23.

D-.;S_ it2

B-385
(he concentrations given in this Table are much more limiting than is

necessary. In the study prepared for the USNRC by Ford, Bacon, & Cavis

~ ( Utah. Inc., 'A Radioactive Waste Disposal Classiftcation System." NUREG/CRlOQ5, conservative radioactivity limits for various waste classes

were established through detailed hazards analysis. The limits recoozoanded

In NUREG/CRIOOS should be incorporated into IOCFR~l in place of the arbitrary values in Table l.

An alternative method of determining the waste classification should be

provided. Provisions for classification by external dose determination

should be made. For cases where the types of isotopes of concern are

known, this method would allow adequate classification. This alternate ~D' ; '-4 method would be particularly helpful for nuclear power plant trash.

Generally, trash has a very low specific activity compared to the Class A

fimits. A determination of the radionuclide identity and concentration.

as required by Part 20.311. would require the purchase and use of a portable

spec:r.- analy:er. Instead. a contact dose rate measurement of the containerized trasn could be made to show that the activities were below the

Class A limits. Also, since a radwaste classification system is already

established in lOCFR71, is it possible to tie the two systems together?

The logic behind the numbers selected for this table is not apparent. It

would appear, for. example. that carbcn 14 which contains less than 0.8

.icrocuries per cc cay be disposed of as segregated waste but that any

concentration greater than 0.8, even if it is only a tiny increase, immediately recuires tnat the disposer seex special permission from the government for disposal. The abruct demarcation needs explaining so that the

logic of it can be understood.

Ce Min'.nis Classification of Wastes

Section 61.55, Table l; should consider a de minimis' classification of

wastes (i.e., wastes that would be considered of non-regulatory concern);

we believe strongly that this should be addressed In the proposed IOCFR61

regulation. De minimis levels for uranium, technetium, Plutonium, and

neptuniun should be stated. A de minimis or lower acceptable level for

-j~- ; ~ .atural and depleted uranium should be stated; we recomnend that a value

of 0.035 cercent natural and deileted uranium be set as a lower limit in

Section 61.55, Table 1. Recent information received fro.m Nuclear Regulatory Cormission staff meibers reveals that proposals concerning de minimis

levels for uranium are being prepared by the URC staff that would establish

multi-tiered acceptable levels for shallci-land burial of uranium wastes.

One level propcsed by the NRC would permit disposal of uranium wastes in an urlicensed burial ground (i.e., saniteryltype). A second Proposal would

permit disrosal in a shallow-land licensed burial site, ard a thiri propcsed level would Permit disposal in a shallow-land licensed burial site

which has a ccvenant in the title on the property. These multi-tiered NRC

pro;csals are consistent with out reconm.ended lerels. We recormend that

de minimis levels consistent with those proposed by NRC relative to "Tc

ard low-enriched uranium as residual contaqination in smelted alloys

2-75-2. Addendum to lOCFA Parts 30, 32. 70, and 150) also be stated. In this

regard, we reco-mend that serious consideration be given to establishment of de minimis levels of 3.5 ppm zsnU, 5 ppm To, 0.01 ppb Pu, and

1 P;b Np.

in Section 61.5;, Waste Classification, Table 1, we believe that the

raximum concentration for alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes should be

increased from the 10 nCI/g limit presently proposed to 100 nCl/g. Part

of the rationale behind the 10 nC1/9 limit is stated to be that this value

has been imposed by QOE; however, DOE is at the present time seriously considering revision of DOE Manual Chapter 0511 to raise this limit to

100 nC1/g dated 7/30/81). The 10 nCi/g value is also inconsistent with

the value of 100 nCI/g used by the Environmental Protection Agency in

their proposed regulation 40CFR Part 91 for the disposal of spent fuel.

high-level, and transuranic (TRU) wastes. This regulation states that

TRU wastes containing more than 100 nCI/g of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes

.ust have the same controls as are required for high-level wastes. We

reconrend that the 103 nCi/g limit be reflected in each of the columns

1-3 in Table 1. We also recomnend that a im1it of 100 pCI/cm1 for transferrable surface contamination of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes (not natural . or depleted uranium isotopes) be imposed, consistent with

the proposed revis.on to OOE Manual Chapter 0511.

Additionally, the value of 10 nC1/g is based on naturally occurring radium

deposits. Radium ts significantly more hazardous than 2'3U or the transuranium nuclides when dissolved In water, as the MPC's for the soluble

forms of these nuclides are about 100 times (1000 times for "

1 1

U) greater than that radium. Thus, It would appear reasonable to set activity limits

for alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes at 100 times greater.

The supplementary information in the NRC document also states that there

is no need to increase this limit from the standpoint of achievability. Much of the waste presently stored as-transuranic waste is segregated

from low-level waste on the basis of waste origin since the 10 nC1/g limit

Is too low for accurate measurement and certification. However, segregation according to the 100 nCi/g limit could be achieved, eliminating expensive retrievable storage and deep geologic disposal of 'suspect, transuranic waste.

Another corcern is the footnote to Table 1 that refers to isotopes con- tained in metals, metal alloys, or permanently fixed on metal as contamination. The footnote, which states that the values above may be fncreased

by a factor of tean." should be modified to include concrete and other

media that exhibit low leach rate behavior. An incentive should be pro- vided to reduce the volume of wastes by Incineration or metal smelting.

These treatments ray:normally be avoided by waste generators since they would convert so.e low-level wastes into transuranic wastes. For example, a volume reduction of 30 by Incineration of a waste containing 5 nCI/g

would convert a low-level waste into a transuranic waste at 150 nCi/g. However, the residual ashes could be incorporated into concret:, glass, m l etc. The leach rate of transuranic isotopes from these materials

7 8

B-386
/is very low (i.e., many orders of magnitude lower than the untreated

waste form). Thus. a combination of leach rate and transuranic content

could be used to determine the disposal options for these waste forms.

4 Many of the nuclide concentrations limits may not provide a practical basis for classification. In many cases, the measurements are difficult

and some are alrost ii-ossible. Perhaps the CcrmIssion would specify

practical analytical methods acceptable for determining nuclide concen- tration.

Table 1, Footnote 4

1;L a) The term 'significant geara radiation' should be defined.

9- 5 - 'f lb) How Is radium treated? A value should be established.

The footnotes .c) place a restriction on wastes containing chelating

agents 1n concentrations greater than 0.1.. Is this limit

i intended to be 0.1t by weight or volume? This limit is too low.

many agents were developed to decontaminate piping and euPient

to reduce radiation levels to workers. A restriction on the

solidified product of 0. 1 mi1ht cause utilities to not use them

because of the restriction on disposal and then let radiation

levels rise.

9. PAGE 38097 - PARA. 61.5B(a)(l)

It is suggested that this paragraph be changed to read:

... and of the Oepartment of Transrortation set forth in

49CF;R Parts 171-179, as applicable. In the case of uroackaoed

(bulk) shicnents. these must meet the reauirerents of ;CFR1i3.392."

Rationale: The proposed regulations should provide for the shipment of

bulk (unpackaged) wastes under conditions that comply with Oepartrent of

Transportation requirements for such wastes and that the wastes can meet

the procosed Part 51 criteria when disposed of at the burial facility. A requirement on packaging would serve no useful purpose under these

circumstances and should not be imposed.

PAGE 38097 - PARA. 51.'$(a)(7) -

)D Suggest that this oaragraph be changed to read

at does not significantty exceed atnos;here at 20 decress C."

91. PAGE 32093 PAA. 61.56(b)

'Stability for 150 yeaes' needs to be modified to indicate what forms

of proof are acceptable. Some metal, wooden, and concrete structures

(can be shown to have maintained their 'stability" for 10 years past.

Very few of these are applicable to waste packaging. There is no way that deformation alone of the waste form can be a hazard to the public.

The key requirement Is to keep the waste from being dispersed, which is

little affected by 'slumping" or a "St" deformsation.

It is sug5ested that Paragraph 61.56(b)(1) be changed to read as follows:

"Waste must have structural stability. A structurally

stable waste form will maintain its ceneral physicaldimensions and form under the excect-o cisoosal conditions and factors sucn as tne presence of moisture and

mi7crobial activity, and interna1 factors such as.."

:b-•.-J Rationale: The requirement of withstanding a compressive load of SO psi

(more than 7,000 pounds per square foot) appears to be a very rigorous

oading requirement and is above that available from many soils. If it s still felt that anurnerical value is necessary, then consider one of

hese apcroaches:

Make the co.:ressive load requirement for the waste when buried no more than that of the surrounding soils at the site under consideration.

Evaluate a structural approach recognizing that the waste is constrained

by surrounding soil and other wastes. This could conceivably reduce the

compressive load requirement by a tenfold magnitude and still have an dequate safety factor.

Similarly. requiring that the waste retain its form within 5A under leading is a very rigorous recuirement and using the second potential approach listed above, could be eased or eliminated.

The 5S limitation on physical wastefcrm is too restrictive for stable.

-.sl- q solidified, structurally strong waste handling. If applied to the drumcontainer-liner outer dimensions rather than to the solidified waste

.tself. In this case, drums-oentainers-liners which are typically filled

to 80t to avoid sills/splashing during the filling procedureprovide handligr appurtenances and a clean surface for filling-transportationburial actions. Once in the ground, these may be breached or oxidized in

time, leaving the contained solidified and stable waste without effect on safety to the public or environs.

2. PAGE 33093 - PARA. 61.56(b)(2) -

'Non-corrosive liquid" should perhaps be changed to "liquid'. If the

intent of this article is to minimize corrosivity it should say so instead

of setting arbitrary limits. Is the radioactivity In the liquid of any concern? Is there intent to limit the amount of 'clean' water in the

container?

. 1

*1

. . _-

9

10

B-387
33.

.D-si - I

G-l I

PAGE 33098 - PARA. 61.56(b)(3) -

It is suggested that this paragraph be deleted.

Rationale: This is a very subjective statement and open to varying

degrees of interpretation. Does this mean that filler material must be

added to packages containing irregularly shaped solid objects? Or Is it

the intent of this article that all such objects should somehow be chopped,

melted, or otherwise compacted? What forms are acceptable, i.e., ash,

pellets. copressed trash? The goal of reducing the void spaces In a waste

package is desirable and will be attained because of economic incentive

independent of regulations.

PAGE 38098 - PARA. 61.5? -

These labeling requirements should be expanded. clarified, and made

more specific.

PAGE 38100 - PARA. 61.82 -

Eliminate radioactive waste already disposed of and covered from NRC

inspection requirement.

Nuclear Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc.

Se.Ving Lbcratories, Hospiuls a Induscy

.. *IOL t 1 )

L4 b FR- c;

*c2 J:.' : 25 r :3

*poztfu u Sos 791

914. 7 57.7330

Jnu&ry 19, 1982

Stcrezary o' the ozmission

Unrted States Nuclear RegulatoryrCommission

Washington, D.C. 205i;

Aztention: Docketing C Services Branch

San.tlsmen:

This is to further ecer.n: on the proposed chang.es to Part 2^,

as publis..ed in the -aderal Reg:s:er, Volute 4e, No. 142, Licensing

Requirementns fc- Land Disposal of Radioacatve Waste.

ND; :s a radioactive was e disposal service (collector). We

i ck -up prepacka;ad various-sized containers from some 1SC cus--o-rs.

Xhen an NDL serviceman &oas in to pick up was:e cen:eanars from a

cus-om-r, .he druns are logged on an NDL Radioactive Manifest Rec.rd.

The _anif:as: Record has spaces for twenty-f.ve o^ontainars.

When the servicesar. returns to NOL's fac"lity, the var'ous

containers are -n'loaded !n:o our storage area and separated ecco-rding

to the ftllcwing waste ca:egories and sizes:

_S Callon(D)

(Dry Waste) Destined for land burial in South Carolina

5 Gallon (L)

(Absorbed Waste) Destined for land burial in Washington./Nevada

S Gallo.n (S)

(ScIntillation Waste) Destined fcr land burial in Washirn::n/;&eve-a

' Gal'on C?.)

(3'ological Waste) Destined for land burial in South Carclina

S Gallon C1)

(Dry Waste) Destined for land burial 'n lashing-n/iNevada

...___

- -i .. -, .

B-388
Secretary of the Ccmriss'nn

USNRC

Page Two

I Secretary of the Commiss'on

USNRC

Page Three

(a)

30 Gallon tD)

(Dry Waste) Destined for land burial in South Carolina

30 Gallon CU)

(Dry Waste) Destined for land burial in Washington/Nevada

30 Gallon (S)

(Scintillation Wasts) Destined for land burial in Washington/Nevada

30 Gallon (L)

(Absorbed Liquid) Destined for land burial in Washington/Nevada ________________________________________________________________________

55 Gallon tD)

C3ry 'laste) Destined for land burial in South Cirolina

SS Gallon CW)

(Dry Waste) Destined for land burial in Washington/Nevada

SS Gallon CS)

(Scintillatlon Waste) Destined for land burial in WashIngton/Nevada

S5 Gallon CL)

(Absorbed Liqtid) Deetined for iand burial in Washington/Nevada

SS Gallon CV)

tVMals non-scintillation) Destined for lard burial in Washington/Nevada

SS Gallon (R)

(Slological Waste) Destined for land burial in South Carolina

83 Sallon (2)

C3Bological Waste) Destined for land burial in Tvuth Carolina ________________________________________________________________________

kic ups.frem a number of customers. If the proposed rule was in

/effect at the time this particular shipment was made, the paperwork would, to put it mildly, be indeed voluminous., As a burial site

emplyee aptly put it "You would need a van to travel behind the

shipment, just to carry the paperwork".. -

tWe cannot emphasize enough the severe burden this rule would

place upon this company and others with similar operatIons. In addition we find this rule highly impractical and totally unnecessary M-k inasmuch as all data can readily be obtained from the files. It is

merely duplicating paperwork.

With our current practice every container is assigned a unique

number and is readily identifIable. When a container is picked up,

its unique nuaber with the other necessary data is logged on our manifest. Wben tha. drum is loaded for shipment to an authorized

burial site, that same information, Including the unique identifying number, is transferred to the shipment menifest, while the originating

customer manifest is kept on permanent file at NDL. Shculd someone have need of any additional information regarding a particular con- tainer.(which is unlikely for the disposal manIfests are quIte complete), t can be readily made available.

We thank you fer your consideration of the above. 'f you have

aimy questions or desire clarification, please contact me cr Alan Jones.

Very truly yours,

.2ej at~ar M-i

PJP:5sZ

Conceivably we could make i pick up frcm one customer- with every one of the above containers listed cn one Radioactive Hanifest Record.

And because of the four contaIner sizes and the three separate destina-

.ions for the different types of wastes: it is also conceivable that

the above sixteen containers would be shipped in sixteen separate

trailer-:oad sh'rpents to the three buriea sites within the course of a year. -

With the above in mind one may understand that the rule, proposing

to include copies of the originating generator manifests of all con- ta'ners along with the new burial trailer-load shipment manifest,, would

be the creaticn of addLt-onal paperwork in the extreme- and entirely

unnecessary, inasmuch as every container on a trailer-load shipment is on file at NDL.

As a concrete example, on January 9, 1992, this company shipped

1,931_ five-gallon containers, one ten-gallcn container, fifteen thirtygallon containers and eIght *f'ty-five gallen containers in one trailer-

;oad to the lichland. Washington site. These containers represent

NB-389
,e.. ..

STAT: OF liCORTlH CAROL::iA 02 j:I

DEPARTt.ENT OF HUMAN RfSOUVCZS .

The North Carolina Radiation Protection Conmrnission. JAsES & .NT J. P. 0. COX 12200 "A -MoH 2?6O5 SAAI T. MOAACW. MZ. M.PM

AAYIAC

1k.*

~AUSS

CUt.

MCHAi 2,.i

PACM.C

C~r

S TLPF

C'i.,.

A ~U I;CU

. Ct-Ll

So tlfr

C3-l

M'*TVV .....i

LNLLUMAV. P. January 2, 1982 AC 919j737-3313j2301

vICI-""UA Secretary of The Commission

NU.S. uclear Regulatory Cormission r-@-r NU° I_

EL &P-CGAttention: Docketing and Service Branch .L Washington. D.C. 20555 .;:;..: I sC 2 4 AGentlemen:

* -The North Carolina Radiaticn Protection Ccmission is responsible

L.p AP Aas - .O. for promulgating, adopting. amending and repealing statewide

tW4.''.. regulations governing the possession. use and disposal of radiation

- sources in North Carolina. Since North Carolina is an Agreement

i.U Cn~M.o). 5State of the N R C, we have a particular interest In your proposed

licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive wastes

is PATTONA. c published In the Federal Register, ;ol. 46, No. 142. Friday.

July 24, 1981.

P SANA.'&S. PR&

We are cognizant of the importance of having adequate radioactive waste disposal

facilities available and of establishing, for protection of the public and the

environment, adequate regulations and criteria for the siting, construction, operation

and closure of such facilities. In this regard, we believe that the above referenced

proposed rules include considerable and cc~sendable improvements over earlier drafts.

At the same time, I have attached for your consideration a number of coowoents and

suggestions for change which are intended to further irprove your proposed rules.

It Is requested that the Nuclear Regulatory rcomission give these comments and

sug5estions favorable consideraticn despite this technically late submission due to

recent adverse weather conditions in our area.

We appreciate having the opportunity to provide our conments on these prcposed rules

and would support your efforts toward their further improvement and early adoption.

Sincerely yours,

/_4r /I~

Raymond L. Murray, Ph.D.

Chairman

Attachmcnt

I

i

I

Cowmnents on N R C Proposed 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Lana

Disposal of Radioactive Waste, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 46,

No. 142, Friday, July 24, 1981 -

l. On page 380S7 in item H,.Cther.Ccnsiderations, the Nuclear Regulatory

/ Comisson (N R C) expresses its intent for all radioactive waste disposal

facilities to comply with the provisions of Part 61, even though such facilities

may be licensed by one of the 26 Agreement States. This statement Implies that

all aspects of Part 61, both administrative and technical provisions, would have

to be adopted by Agreement States.

From the perspective of N R C responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act,

it does not seem either necessary or important for most administrative provisions

A .-2 to be uniformly adopted by each Agreement State. It is agreed that most, if not

all, of the technical requirements related to protection of public health and the

environment should be imposed by such states. Accordingly, it is recommended

that the stated intent in item H should be elaborated more fully in order to

clarify its impact upon the prerogatives which will be left to the Agreement States.

We feel that the N R C should leave as much latitude as possible to Agreement

States in their Implementation of programs for siting, licensing and regulating

disposal facilities, consistent with N R C responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act. In so doing, the N R C would, to some extent, allow individual Agreement

State programs to minimize the rather major burdens which will be imposed upon them

by Part 61.

2. It is recommended that the 12-month preoperational monitoring requirement

in Part 61.53(a) be revised to requirethat the applicant shall have implemented

such preoperational monitoring by the time a licensee application is submitted.

The current language would have the effect of arbitrarily adding 12 months to the

length of time required to site, buila and initiate operation of a new disposal

Since Part 61.3(b) already prohibits construction until after license issuance

and N R C review will probably take about 18 months, it seems clear that the

purpose of 12-month preoperational monitoring would not be compromised by the

suggested change. Considering the important January 1986 exclusionary date in

the National Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the- probable four to five

years required for opening a new facility under the proposed Part 61, it would seem

ustified and prudent to shorten the process by up to 12 months through this change.

3. We endorse in principle the concept of a waste classification system asproposed by

the Nuclear Regulatory Co.mnission. This is a significant step in the right direction;

however, the three-class approach in Part 61.55 does not address those important

wastes lying at the two extremes of the Class A, B and C system.

leFirst, the proposed c iofnotin gimit for Class C wastes does place higher

wastes revel in the position of not being suitable for near surface disposal.

4-5; 67 Such wastes must be addressed at the earliest possible date and not left hanging as is presently the case. Dilution or volume expansion to rake wastes disposable

at near surface burial sites under Part 61 appears undesirable and counterproductive,

as well as inconsistent with the M R C position which favors volume reduction.

Second,. the proposal does not address the admittedly difficult question of

D- iminishingly low concentrations. Clearly there are, and should be, such low

concentrations of radioactivity.in some wastes that they should not be considered as radioactive for the purpose of disposal. Such wastes should not be required

y regulations to consume valuable space in a near surface burial facility.

(Page 1)

B-390
Cotments on N R C Proposed l1 CFR 61 -

Page two

In this regard we support the N R C's stated intention to systematically

D-55-"" develop 'de minimis" classifications for specific radionuclides and waste streams;

however, this process should be accelerated as much as possible and not allowed

to 'bag down'.

4. While we endorse the N R C policy of encouraging volume reduction, we are

concerned that the proposed Part 61 does not appear to include any incentives

for volume reduction. In many respects the proposed rules may provide disincentives

for example: - excluding wastes with higher activity than the limits for Class C

from near surface burial sites, without providing a viable alternative

for disposal. may encourage dilution in order to gain access to such

- arbitrarily limiting alpha particle emitting transuranic radionuclides

)-<5~3 to lO nC1 per gram;,thereby discouraging volume reduction in order

to ensure an available disposal option; and

the added expense and complexity for disposal of wastes as Class C

'rather than 9 or as Class 9 rather than A, and the lack of disposal

opti0ns for higher level wastes than Class C will have the effect of

discouraging volume reduction when 1: would raise waste from a lower

to a higher class.

While part of this dilerma may be unavoidable, it does support the concept

-sc-n f carefully restudying the more expensive criteria applied to higher level wastes

omake sure that they are necessary (e.g. the S: dimensional tolerance and

Opsi compressive load requirements I1n Part 61.56 and the limit of lO nC1 per

ram for alpha particle emitting transuranics without regard to actual environmental

' pg5 ad health risks).

Table I of proposed Part 61.55 includes a multitude of footnotes which have

major Impact upon interpretation of values In the table. The brevity of the

footnotes and their interrelationships result in deficient clarity. Since the

subjects of the footnotes are regulatory In mature and of major importance, It is

/recmmended that they should be expanded and clarified. possibly in the form of

egulatory text rather than footnotes.

With respect to these footnotes, questions remain as to

D-5s -t ^- specific limits for Class A, B or C Radium wastes;

relationship of maximum concentration limits to averaging techniques

D- for various containers and to routine analytical techniques for

evaluating container contents;

wastes containing specific chelating agents which do not promote

DUmigrati0n through the soil; and

(- the implication that the N 2 C might approve special additional limits

for an individual licensee; hence raising a question with respect to

.Justif1cation of special treatment of one licensee over another.

The language of proposed Parts 61.55 and 61.56(a) could be construed to

require elaborate and sometimes impossible assay and analysis (chemical and radio-

>53S4( logical) of every individual container of waste. Such an interpretation could

make it impracticable to impossible for many generators to adequately declare their

wastes for disposal at a near surface burial site.

Co'ments on N R C Proposed 10 CFR 61 -

Page three

( It is suggested that the N R C proposal be revised to provide for detailed

D -s licensee characterization (chemical and radiological) of their radioactive waste

streams and development of more practicable routine essay procedures for individual

(Containers of waste from etch waste stream.

7. The nI R C's stated concept of employing a 5-year license issuance with

potential requirements for public hearings on each renewal may well have the

effect of discouraging private industry from risking entry into the waste disposal

business. This could result in failure to establish needed new regional burial

sites.

It Is recocmended that the N R C consider a concept of Issuing long-tern

life-of-site licenses and reserve subsequent public hearing for requested license

amendments which would have the effect of expanding the disposal site or the

license authorizations. Since the N R C already proposes to require licensees to

keep their applications fully-current, make various reports to the N R C and obtain

prior approval in specific instances, and the N R C will have modification,

revocation, suspension and civil penalty authority; the five-year expiration.

public hearing and renewal process appears to serve no purpose other than to

arbitrarily place the facility's license in jeopardy.

8. As referenced by the N R C on page 38083 under 'Protection of the Environment."

the E P A has not yet fulfilled its responsibility to prepare a standard that will

z)set limts for releases of radioactivity to the general environment from disposal

facilities.- This has led the N R C to necessarily develop proposed rules based

upon other existing standards in anticipation of what the E P A may eventually do.

- It is unfortunate that the 'Cart has had to be put ahead of the horse'.

We would t urge the E P A to assign high priority to meeting Its important responsiiIities In this area at the earliest possible time.

9. The word "orderly" in Part 61.52(a)(4) Implies careful stacking In a

rectangular array. Since this would probably result in higher worker radiation

exposure inconsistent with ALARA principles and less efficient use of disposal

units (trenches), It is suggested that the N R C consider replacing the words

an orderly' In Part 61.52(a)(4) with the word 'a". It would appear that this

change should not compromise this rule's intent of "maintaining package integrity

during emplacement and disposal' and would reduce worker exposure, promote efficient

site utilization and lower disposal cost.

10. We iecognize the'difficulty in using regulatory language which is always

specific and subJectsto uniform literal interpretation; however, it is recormended

that the proposed Part 61 be carefully reviewed giving special attention to terms

such as: significant, prevent, eliminate, few and adequate.. For example:

-"significant" In Part 61.50(a)(4), referring to nitural resources.

does not lend Itself to literal interpretation and would be subject

to a wider range of Individual options;

- prevent" in Part 61.51(a)(4) would appear to imply 'zero" or "none"

when perhaps "minimize to some low level" may be the intention;

- 'eliminate" in Part 61.51(a)(6) also appears to imply "zero";

'a few percent" In Part 61.5Z(a)(6) would result in a wide range of

defensible Individual opinions; and

- similarly, 'adequate' In Part 61.52(a)(9) Is not directly interpretable

and would be largely a matter of opinion.

5-391
|v

Co-nents on N R C Proposed 10 CFR 61 -

Page four New England Nuclear'

To the maximum extent feasible, use of such terms should be minimized.

For example, in Part 61.52(a)(9) it might be more pal table to require the

licensee to carry out the closure and stabilization procedures specified 1n

hils apication and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Co-mission. There are adequate provisions elsewhere to require revision of procedures, correction of

problems, et cetera, when previously approved procedures later prove to be

nadequate.

Raymond L..'Murray, Ph.D., Chairman

North Carolina Radiation Protection Cormission

January 21. 1982

i2J 2 7 2? ,

January 21, 1982

R. Dale Saith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

P. C7 ;D R W

< 3( JIVIsaon or haste anagemgnt - Nuclear Regulatory Commission _. ut,..

Washington, D. C. 20555 S PSDear Mr. Saith: C4 6P.5 i,

I enclose this letter to alert you to the fact that New England Nuclear

chaired the 'ELRAD 10 CFR 61 Subcommittee and was actively involved In

the development ot the detailed co=*ents. As such New England Nuclear

endorses the report and redomends due consideration be liven to it.

Shncerely,

J: I C. rantl e V1./P. Administration, XLNYC

JCB/da

- -; . - - .. I I a

549AItanyStreet, cston MastachusettsC2118 Teleohone617.482.9595 Telex94-059

B-392
I . .. 4 -.

. ,. . W

":`.17 "..,'r TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

NELRAD Committee

NELRAD 10 CFR 61 Subcommittee

Comments on Proposed Rulemaking on Land Disposal of

Low-Level Radioactive waste.

1/j20/82

:a.itry 21, 1982

'. Dale Smith. Chief

lzw-Level Waste Licensing Iranah

:,vision of Waste lanagement

Nuclear Regulatory Cormission

vushington, D. C. .20SS

:eair Hr. Smith:

enclose torments on 10 CPR Part 61 and the accompanying Draft Environ.

e:%tal impact Statement. These comments are written from the generator's Perspective, compiled from safety officer input from several waste zener- sting firms in New England.

*ese ColleCtive comments are a product of NELRAD activity. NELRAD is a :=tsortium of New England firms and institutions who use radioactive -. Terials ansd have a common need for a nearby low.level radioactive waste

Lisposal facility. Our group was formally organi:ed In 1981 to support

-te efforts of the six New England state' 4' -^o)lying with the Low-Level -..d..oative Waste Policy Act.

;-e are pleased to be a part of the process that allows review of proposed

:erilations. In general, we approve the intent of 10 CFR Part 61 and

tncourage expeditious progress.

rcerely,

f;. -'. .%/':&A~t

.Xis D. Stelluto

Ixecutive Director,

::5/da

DATE:

The enclosed report presents detailed comments on 10 CFR 61, the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0782) and the accompanying

summary of the proposed rule. The detailed comments are preceded by a summary of the main points.

Members of the subcommittee which prepared this report are:

F.N. Brenneman (to Dec. 1981) Northeast Utilities

P.O. Box 27-0

Hartford, CT 06101

M. Galanik 77 Main St.

Room 208, 238, MIT

Cambridge, MA 02139

0. Gomer Nuclear Metals; Inc.

2229 Main St.

Concord, MA 01742

L.R. Smith (Chairperson) New England Nuclear Corp, DuPont

549 Albany St.

Boston, MA 02118

J. Stelluto NELRAD

549 Albany St.

aoston, MA 02118

E. Tarnuzzer Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Rd.

Framingham, MA 01702

Thanks are due to K. 8ennert, J.D. Bernardy, J.C. Brantley and

C.B. Killian for their helpful comments and to K. Thomas for processing

this ieport.

L.R. Smith

0.. O"X 1267 CONCORD, MA 01742-167' Tel. (617) 371-035S

B-393
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON LAND

DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE: PREPARED

BY THE NELRAD 10 CFR 61 SUBCOMMITTEE.

10 CFR 16 Scooe.

We believe that the development of performance standards in 10 CFR 61

C- is the best approach to establishing licensing requirements for land-disposal

low-level radioactive waste. We agree that only essential generic prescriptive requirements should be included in the regulations and all site specific'

requirements should be incorporated in individual facility licenses.

Site Licenses and Insoection.

The scope and sequence of activities in establishing safe operations

and ensuring proper closure of a facility appear realistic. We recommend

that safeguards be strengthened by:

j_ a. granting disposal facilities a full term license with appropriate review instead of subjecting a license to the public hearing

process every five years.

Jb. assigning a full-time NRC inspector to each LLW site during the

G-I A operational phase.

(c encouraging active monitoring and review of site records by

state authorities.

Peobability of Inadvertent Intrusion.

The. method used to establish generic prescriptive requirements to

protect inadvertent Intruders is appropriate for estimating the lower boundaries

of concentration limits. However, these limits are unnecessarily conservative

because the probability of intruders encountering radioactivity has not

been factored Into the calculations.

C-4 We believe that better estimates of maximum permissaole concentrations an be made if the following consiceraticns are included in the calculations:.

a. The probability of inadvertent intruders encountering critical

waste forms.

b. The concentration of radioactivity in waste sent to a site exhibits a log-normal distribution with an average concentration at least

an order of magnitude lo ver than the maximum permissable concentration.

If these probability factors are included In the calculations, miaximum

permissable radioactivity concentrations are expected to be at least an order of magnitude higher than those presented in 10 CFR 61 and will still

provide sufficient protection to the inadvertent intruder.

Site Selection and Utilization.

f The site could be better utilized it credit .-as given for the decay of

poo }short lived radionuclides during tMe operational period.

( It is clear that local resources and demc;raphic developments are D-so-6 important considerations when selecting a suita!be site. However, demographic predictions can be unreliable therefore we rec-mmend that the NRC consider

/zoning requirements to restrict activities that rSy adversely affect the site

.hydrology and environment.

( The potential impact of changes in natural radioactivity in ground J.- _ *water due to site excavations was not conspicu:usly covered in the DEIS.

)We recommend that these effects be considered.

Clarification of the Intent of 10 CFR 61.

We have indicated several instances where the intent of the regulations

is not clear. The following improvements are recommended:

g g I a. replace absolute statements by achieveable practical ones.

b. use units and terminology recommended by scientific standard

setting organizations (eg. ICRU and ICRP).

c. clarify performance objectives by spe:ifying internal and external

dose equivalent limits to individual crgans as suggested by the

ICRP.

Waste Concentration.

Waste generators are concerned that the difficulty in accurately

| assaying radioactivity in individual containers will cause overly conservative D-55-S values to be assigned to shipments resulting in poor utilization of the site.

We recommend that the NRC consider relaxing concentration limits on ndividual containers and accept inventory me:,ods designating average concentrations in waste shipments. Using Inventory averaging methods

would also enhance the generator's ability to determine if waste concentrations re below 'de minimis".levels. The establishment of "de minimise levels

D-5,-;;2 ftobr radionuclides and waste forms should be encouraged for better site

utilization.

The 100 Ci per container 'limit appears excessively conservative. We

recommend that DOT limits be adopted since tia most restrictive potential D-5]?-S impact scenario appears to be individual exposure from accidentlal breach Lof containment during transportation to the site.

Use of ALARA ConceDt.

In several instances the ALARA concept it improperly used to justify

excessive restriction. We recommend that opt~um levels be defined at

which an operation could be described to be ALARA. Imposing further

prestrlctions yielding small benefits at great cos: is not ALARA. For example, s..g-j ~the proposed 10 nCl/g limit for TRU contamirited waste is not ALARA

B-394
3

(Imply because industry has complied with this regulation. The EPA has

D-5s.,3 suggested that 100 nCl/g is an appropriately conservative limit. We recommend

(that the EPA's suggestion be adopted unless a better limit is derived.

Manifest Tracking.

}- We recommend that a reasonable procedure be developed to integrate.

£nforcement agencies Into the control or supervision of the manifest tracking

Systems.

Conclusion.

In general, we recommend that 10 CFR 61 should not duplicate exlsting

regulations but should reference them and be compatible with them.

Our final conclusions is that 10 CFR 61 will provide a reasonable and

necessary regulatory frame-work for low-level radioactive waste disposal. We submit these comments in the hope that they shall improve both safety

and cost effectiveness. -

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON LAND

DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE: PREPARED

BY THE NELRAD 10 CFR 61 SUBCOMMITTEE

1. Page 38084, Col. 2.

C This section specifles that waste stability should be sufficient to ) ensure that the residual radioactivity Is "no longer of concern from

the migration standpoint". - we recommend that the quoted phrase be

replaced by appropriate dose limits. -- --

2. Page 38084, Col. 3.

a The 10 nCi/g limit for transuranic waste Is too conservative.

The EPA suggests that 100 nCIg is a conservative limit. Overly conservative limits may dissuade waste generators from practicing

volume reduction of waste potentially contaminated with TRUJ.

-S - b3 . Although Industry has been able to comply with the 10 nCi/g limit for TRU waste we do not agree that this limit Is ALARA.

On page 7-13 of the DEIS and in several other instances the

ALARA concept is misapplied to justify excessive restrictions.

Operations should only be said- to be ALARA when the cost to

reduce impacts from these operations is justified by the benefits

accrued and when further costs to reduce Impacts are not justified. Compliance with an excessive restriction or achieving a lower

level of impact are not necessarily ALARA.' Reduction of environmental

impacts 2-3 orders of magnitude below comparable impacts from

other conventional industries is not reasonable and therefore not

ALARA.

3 Page 33085, Col. 2.

I'-55-2. xThe establishment of de minimis levels for other waste streams

and radionuclides should be encouraged since this should lead to

improved utilization of disposal sites.

4 Page 38087,: Col. 2.

- Disposal sites should be provided full term license with approprlate 3 _.5 < review. The financial planning necessary for long term site monitoring _ assumes a reasonable operating life. Hence the license should not be

subject to the public hearing process every five years with the possibility that renewal may not occur.

S. Page 38087, Col. 2.

to thee i toalow maite tte" shourd be replaced by control access / to the site to allow maintenance surveillance and other appropriate

I. activities

- :

B-395
- - -I

t6 In the following sections the words "assurance" and "assure"

should be replaced by "ensurance" and 'ensure" respectively. This

is to indicate that positive action should be taken to achieve an

objective rather than merely persuading that an objective can be

achieved.

Page 38089, Col. 3, line S, 61.2.

Page 38090, Col. 1, line 51, 61.2.

Page 38091, Col. 1, line 14, 61.7 (b), (3). JED I Page 38093, Col. 3, 61.Z3 (b), (c), (d).

Page 33094, Col. 1, 61.23 (e), (g).

Page 38095, Col. 1, 61 28 (b)

Page 38095, Col. 2, 61.30 (a), (2), (5).

Page 38095, Col. 3, 61.50 (a), (1).

Page 38096, Col. 2, 61.51 (a), (2).

Page 38097, Col. 2, 61.55 (b), (C), (1).

Page 38097, Col. 3, 61.56 (b).

7 Page 38090, Col. 2 line 16.

Page 38091, Col. 1, line 3, 61.7 (a), (1)

Instead of "IS-20" meters a single value should be used. "1S-20"

may be confused as meaning burial below 15 meters and above 20

meters from the ground surface.

8. Page 38090, 61.7 (a), (1).

a We agree that both performance objectives and prescriptive

requirements are necessary. Performance objectives should be

limited to occupational and environmental impact concentrations

and should be specified in the regulations.

b. Generic prescriptive requirements are appropriate to limit LLW

concentrations and to protect inadvertent intruders. These and

prescriptive requirements which provide financial surety should

also be Incorporated in the regulaticris. In the Cases where

prescriptive requirements are adopted from other existing or

proposed regulations these should be referenced or incorporated

in 10 CFR 61.

c Other prescriptive requirements which limit site inventory or

which protect against excessive migration of radionuclides are site specific and-should be incorporated in site licenses. 10 CFR 61

should specify that site licenses will incorporate these site specific

prescriptive requirements.

9. age 38091. Col. 1, 61.7 (b), (1).

a We recommend that the primary objectives for disposal of LLW 6 - | ,,are: To isolate LLW from the biosphere in a manner that maintains:

I . personnel dose equivalent commitments ALARA;

ii. environmental impact and personnel cose equivalent commitments

below specified limits.

b "Prevention of migration of radionuclides" is an important strategy

C for achieving those primary safety objectives. "Prevention of GE//-I exposure to inadvertent intruders" is a special case of (a) (ii)

and should be called a secondary objective.

10. age 38091, Col. 1, 61.7 (b), (2).

a Omit "eliminated or" since It is not possible to reduce water

access to zero.

This paragraph should be written more clearly. In particular it

a-S*-& i should be clear when 'stability* refers to trench structure or L the waste itself.

11. The generic term "radionuclide" should replace "isotope" and

/ radioistope" in the following sections:

Page 38091, Col. 2, line 1, 61.7 lb), (2).

Page 38097, Table 1 -

Page 38097, Col. 2, 61.55 (a), (1).

12. Page 38091, Col. 2, 61.7 (b), (3).

Replace "would" by "could" since intruder risk has a statistical

basis.

13. Page 38091, Col. 2, 61.7 (b), (4).

a. The first sentence is ambiguous. It may be rewritten thus:

"Institutional control of access to the site is required for at least

100 years after closure of the burial site:

J5]). ( b. Page 4-49 of the DEIS indicates uiac consensus of opinion expects

that the institutional control period may reasonably range from

100 to.300 years. Since this parameter is somewhat arbitrary it

should be the last parameter selected in the equation for determining

prescriptive requirements.

14 Page 3891. Col. 3, 61.7 (c), (1).

"Established administrative procedures" should be cross referenced

to enable recognition of specific procedures.

15. Page 38093 Col. 1, 61.13 (b).

'Demonstration" should be replaced by 'reasonable indicationf

since it is not possible to demonstrate the achievement of performance

objectives until long after a site has been closed.

16 Page 38C94, Col. 1, 61.23 (a).

Replace "should" by "to".

8-396
6 17. Page 38095, Col. 2, 61.40.

- Eliminate 'reasonable assurance exis:s that".

18 Page 38095, 61.41 and 61.42.

a. Specify whether "annual" and "year" refer to a calender or a

sliding year.

5 b. 1. "Dose' should be defined to mean "dose equivalent".

1i. It is not stated whether "dose' refers to internal, external i or a summation' of these conymitments. lil. We advise that the ratio of dose equivalent limits to various

organs should follow ICRP recommendations.

19 Page 38095, 61.42.

* a. Since the inadvertent intruder Is identitfed as the critically

exposed Individual for most radlonuclides, more effort should be

directed into determining the probability of Intruder scenarios

d occurimg Waste concentration limits could then be relaxed If

these Interaction probabilities are factored into the - impact

calculations.

b. --We agree with the proposed dose limit provided that waste

concentration limits are calculated to ensure, with reasonable

probability, that the Inadvertent intruder does not receive more

than 500 mrem/yr.

c. Dose equivalent limits following CftP guidelines should also be

specified for the Inadvertent intruders' thyroid, skin, bone and

other organs. -

(0 Page 38.095, 61.50 (a), (1).

-The second: sentence should be clarified. The "long-term

performance objectives of Subpart C' should be specified or cross U referenced Individually.

( 21. Page 38096, 61.50 (a), (3), (4), (11).

If Industrial or other activities which may adversely disturb the / ground water should not be located near the site, consider the need to

-t establish zoning restrictions to exclude these activities.

22. Page 38096, 61.50 (a), (s).

"Coastal high-hazard area or wet land" should be defined or a

50 3 definition else-where in the regulations referenced.

23. Page 38096, 61.50 (a), (6).

Clarify whether "upstream drainage area" refers to onsite or

other locations.

24.

D-*o-2 .

w25.

Page 3809S, 61.50 (a), (7).

It Is not appropriate to specify that ground water intrusion

cannot contact waste. This section should be rewritten to specify the

maximum permissable probability for ground water Intrusion as Is

similarly accomplished when defining 100 year flood plains etc.

Page 38096, 61.31 (a); (4).

Replace "prevent" by "minimize".

Page 38096, 61.51.(a)* (6).

Replace "eliminate" by "minimize".

Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (1).

This sentence requires clarification. "no interaction" should be

defined since migration of released radionuclides could be considered a form of Interaction.

Page 38095, 61.52 (a), (3).

It is not clear whether 5 meters refers to the distance from the

top or bottom surface of the cover. Does cover Include an Impervious

cap?

Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (4).

Remove "orderly". If it is intended that the waste should be

emplaced in a specified manner the intent should be described more explicitly.

Page 38096, 61.52 (a) (6).

a. Replace "radiation. ... levels" by "exposure rates" or "dose

rates". Include exposure to X-rays and bremstrahlung. Consider

contributions from neutrons.

b. "A few percent above... background" Is too vague. Specify a limit and require adherence to the ALARA principle.

Page 38096, 61.52 (a), (8);

If concentration limits are relaxed, more emohasis should be

placed on isolating critical radionuclides from ground water and preventing access to potentially contaminated ground water. -The latter might be

accompiished by extending the buffer zone in the direction of ground

water migration.

D-,

9-'

-P-51--s

B-397
tU

32. Page 33096, 61.53 (a).

We recommend that the potential impact of technologically enhanced

natural radiation due to excavation operations or changes in pH D-53- I should be considered in the DEIS. Radon and '

0K levels in ground

water may be increased due to site operations. The DEIS should

show that such an impact would not be likely to violate EPA drinking / water quality regulations. Then T.E.N.R. can be explicitly excluded

from 10 CFR 61.

(23. Page 38097. 61.53 (d).

* A?. Place this section before (b) to indicate that It refers to all eD- e phases under the licensee's control.

34. Page 38097, Table 1.

a Use scientifically accepted notation or provide a definition of the

convention employed (eg. tritium is properly indicated by the

symbol 3H).

- b. Table 1 is unclear and could be improved by:

~~ \ . lining up decimal points in a column.

I ii. using larger type

iii. indicating units by subheading instead of by note.

c. Table 1 should reference a list of.de minimis levels for particular

waste streams and other disposal methods for waste exceeding

table 1 categories.

- 2_ fi The limit on concentration for diluting agents should be specified

D as 0.1% of the container volume.

e. For a 55 gallon drum the concentration limits specified in UCi/cm 3

should be multiplied by 200,000 ml to determine the maximum

permissable total activity expressed in pCi.

f. The use of scaling prefixes for units should be minimized. In

g I particular multiple prefixes should be eliminated and in fractions a single prefix should be placed in the numerator. (eg. instead

of pCi/mI write Ci/m3; instead of p Cl/ml write mCI/m3

g As suggested on page 5-76 of the DEIS, site utilization maybe improved if site licenses specified the option to dilute 1261 by

inoculating potentially contaminated waste with tt21 sufficient to

reduce potential thyroid uptake and exposure by 2 to 3 orders

of magnitude.

35. age 35097, 61.55

a In the DEIS the product of a large number of conservative.

estimates will be unreasonably conservative even If individual

estimates are only mildly conservative. A better method for

combining parameters is to use the best estimates of each parameter

and propagate uncertainty errors to generate upper and lower

confidence boundaries. A simplified version of this approach

using a range of values for each parameter (eg. as used In the

BEIR Ill report) is preferable to compounding conservative

estimates. Credit. should be given for improving critical waste

forms to reduce plant uptake in the Intruder-agriculture scenario..

,Studies are quotedsin the DEIS which indicate that the average

radioactivity concentration in waste can be expected to be froqm

1% to 10% of the maximum concentration. Hence concentration

limits should be relaxed by at least one order of magnitude and

will still provide adequate Intruder protection.

/D If concentration limits are to be Included in the regulations we encourage the development of concentration limits for other

radionuclides and compounds. However a 'generic nonsite-specific

waste classification systemu will be too conservative. Waste

generators should normally only need to consider one site to

dispose waste. They should normally only need to be conversant

with the classification system specific to that site. A site specific

waste classification system should allow optimum site utilization.

. Industry will have difficulty in economically assaying waste to ensure that it complies to the conditions of a particular category.

I. This may lead to generators assigning conservative estimates

to waste concentrations and consequential under utilization

of a waste site.

ii. The Inability of regulatory authorities to assay containers

of waste renders control by assay unenforcable.

iii. The scaling factors recommended to simplify waste analysis

are not applicable to industries making a wide range of

custom products.

Page 38097, 61.56, (a).

ED~ 1 Clarify whose health and safety Is being referred to.

37. age 3S097, 61.56 (a), (1), (7).

Individual container limits appear excessively conservative and

) -' should be justified in the DEIS.

1. For waste disposed as received the DOT limits should apply

since airborne release and non-occupational exposure is the

controlling factor.

ii. For waste processed an site the limits for individual containers

should be 10 times the DOT limit since it Is occupational

exposure which provides the limiting scenario.

B-398
S _ , ! ' '

12 11

38 Page 38097, 61.56 (a), (5).

Add "normally" to read "waste must not contain or be normally D-a_3 capable of generating..." This is to ensure that plastics with high / Ignition points but which are capable of emiting toxic burn products are not unnecessively excluded from the waste.

39. age 38097, 61.56 (a), (7).

a. Add 'significantly" to read: "... at a pressure that does not

significantly exceed one atmosphere at Z0C." If this sentence

Is not modified, watte generators may be constrained.to packaging

gases under reduced pressure or elevated temperatures. -

D b. It is not clear whether the 100 Ci limit applies only to gases.

This should be clarified. 100 Cl limit per package Is too restrictive

for certain radioactive gases. eg. 1CO2 and 3H.

Although there is provision for exceptions to the proposed limits on a case by case basis, calculations should be included to show

the impact expected from radioactive gas. Also the wide range

in toxicity of labeled compounds should be addressed in the

OEIS.

Page 38098, 61.56 (b), (1).

The Intent of 'within 5%" should be clarified.

I. Page 38098, 61.566(b), (2).

"Non corrosive liquid' should be defned as it is in the DEIS, D5 -3} le., 'pH between 4 and 10 and Incapable of significant galvanize and

chemical reaction".

42. Page 38098, 61 58

a. Provision should be made to allow waste generators to categorize

waste by an inventory process. The quantities of waste generated

In a year or present In an individual shipment could be determined

with greater accuracy than by making separate determinations

- for individual containers. This comment is particularly relevant

to very low contamination levels and radionuclides which are restricted by the ground water migration scenario.

s Scenarlos assume that all waste is placed just before the site was closed. However In practice waste will accululate over a 20 to 60 ~55 1 year period and a considerable fraction shall have decayed before site closure. Hence a relaxation in concentration limits

can be applied to short lived radionuclides received during the

initial period of burial activities.

i3.

'44.

M-l

Page 38100, 81.82.

a. We recommend that a full-time NRC inspector or agreement state

agency inspector be assigned to a LLW site during the operational phase.

b. The State authorities should be encouraged to monitor the disposal

site and review site records.

Page 38102, 20.311

From the language in the proposed rule, it is not clear how

enforcement agencies would be involved. One possible procedure

would require the site operator to return a receipted copy of the

manifest system to the generator vice merely notifying him of receipt.

If the generator were then required to maintain a file of all shipment manifests and backrouted receipts, the enforcement agency could

check for compliance at each generator's place of business. Such a system closes the loop on the process and allows one to readily check

for compliance during a regular facility Inspection. It has the further

advantage of not burdening the enforcement agency with volumes of

manifests. Additionally, generators could reserve making payment to

shippers until the backroute is received. This would provide a strong economic Incentive to comply with the manifest tracking system.

In any event, some reasonable procedure-should be developed to

integrate enforcement agencies Into the control or supervision of the

manifest tracking system.

B-399
: ;-. - ., .. -

C6 CO 5/;

E::C:L~~~mA= CEC ZC-d (-:'-ALTi -1 Mcnarcd Lamm < ; , rnT~sc&Pc!,9l

Governor IZ D_ E ucae Dretior

January lS,' l9 .

*l 5PULA4AN CovengmO

PR 17I

DomW W .COI

STTlm Of WAPOCTON

DEPARTMET OF ECOLOZ !-7.-I p7 P 7.

Aiud Stop .II 1 * O bomi. W'gt oi W1305J * /I .> 4 516X0 ,

Donald Nussbaumer

Assistant Director for State

Asreement Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=si5ion -2^t "R

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Nussbaumer:

I:e have reviewed the proposed Part 61, "Licensing aequiremencs for Land

Disposal of'£Rdioactive Wsste". The following commOnts are offered:

i The use of a uraniul snd thorium limit of 'OpC'/l above background

has not bean justified, and is not related to 40CFR141, as it has

not been adcpted.

. The limit of 25 millrgm to the whole body to any member of the public

has not been justified. This standard has been Legally :hallenged

by the uranium industry, and should not be applied here until that

challenge is settled.

c.* asree ignprttcipal that radioactive waste should not be disposed

2 of other wastes. However, the exclusion eith in 61.51(a)(7) is too

D~Of } j sAbsolute, as there may be instances where an existing hazardous

waste site may be best site for a radioactive asete facility.

. Transuranic wastes should be linited to lOaCi/5 regardless of its

3 decay node due to the faci that the daughters nay be hazardous.

If you hava any questions, do not hasitete co cvntuc t4L&s division.

Sincerely.

RAD:ATICN CON-1OL DIVISION

AJd/WJ/rs

,ita

E-Z 3 aD5

January 13, 1982

Hr. R. Dale Smith, Chief

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety I (L7 FJ s?7174)

Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coission

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Yr. Smith:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental

impact statement on 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste". As the state's coordinator for

NEA documents, we notified all state agencies of the availability

of the E1S. he Department of Social end Health Services was the

only agency to respond. A copy of their comaents is attached.

If you have any questiong, please call Ms. Nancy Xirner, Department

of Social And Health Services, at (206) 753-.AS9 or Mr. Greg Sorlie.

Department of Ecology, at (206) 459-6016.

Denniz Lundblad, Supervisor

Comprehensive tanagement Division

DL:lc

Attachment

cc: Ms. Nancy Xirner

Mr. Greg Sorlie

cc: Bob Doda, ReSion IV

42t10 EV;!AS 1T ; COO . ,(303)...........2..0-83

4210 EAST I11TH AVENUE CE14VER.COLORADO e0220 FHONE (303) 320-83333

B-400
5TAntc0WV9*<T0N

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

C*ria. Wa,'*Von 9W53J

January 13, 1982

W-4

5M

TO: Barbara Ritchie

Department of Ecology

PV-I1

FROM: ancy P. Kirner, Supervisor

Radioactive Materials Unit

Radiation Control Section

SUBJECT: COINTSON4 PROPOSED 10 CFR 61 EVRIYONEbNTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

The environmental impact statement for 10 CFR 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Dlisposal of Radioactive Waste." appears to be well

written and it adequately supports appropriate regulation of a radioactive waste disposal site having more than 10 Inches of rain each

year. The environmental Impact statement and Its proposed regulation,

however, fail to accurately address realstic concerns and place

realistic conditions on the operation of a radioactive waste disposal site at an arid location. Among the major problems ofi an

arid site are slumping and wind erosion. 'ore emphasis should be

placed on mitigating these two Impacts, absent infiltration of ground

and surface water.

While It is conceded that the stability of the waste form enhances

safety, the strong reliance placed upon scenarios Involving groundwater infiltration appears Inappropriate for an arid site such as the

1ow.le.el waste disposal site located near Richland. Washington.

Without the liklihood of groundwater or surface water transport of

rodionuclides, segregation of class A and class B wastes seens to , be unnecessary when weighed against the burden of operating separate

disposal units. For the arid site, a case can even be made to allow.

co-mingling of waste classes in an attempt to lower the average concentration of the most harardous wastes. The same logic can likewise

be used for class C wastes at an arid site, provided class C wastes are placed at deeper depths and solidified Inma reletively leachfree matrix or otherwise segregated for their hatirdous lifetime.

The proposed regulation and Its supporting environmental impact statement do not appear, however, to make a convincing enough argument

for the establishment of a third disposal unit to handle only class C

Barbara Ritchie

Page 2

January 13, 1982

N (wastes at an arid site. Washington does not believe that the segrep-5z- I ) gation of waste by classification should become a matter of compati- ~bility.

Since the draft environmental impact statement on 10 CFR 61 was written,

the state of Washington has Increased Its perpetual care and mainten- ance funding. Descriptions of Washington's funding mechanisms should

be revised on pages 9.6 and K-SO to reflect these recent changes as

follows:

a. The Perpetual Care and Mlaintenance (PC34) Fund contribution

by U S Ecology, currently at S0.275 per cubic foot. will

increase to 51.7S per cubic foot. This renegotiated contribution will provide a total fund of approximately 56 million

by July 1, 198S. The total accumulation will be determined

by the actual volume of waste disposed.

b. In addition, US Ecology will contribute S0.2S per cubic foot

of waste disposed to a newly established Contingency Closure

Fund. A contribution at this rate will yield a fund of

S00.000 by July 193SS assuring that the state of Washington

will be able to adequately close the radioactive waste disposal operations conducted at the site if and when needed.

c. On Jaunary IS 1982, the company will post a surety bond in

the amount of $500,000 for a period of one year to protect

the state if the co-pany should leave the site without meeting

closure conditions as stated in the license.

Thank you for the opportunity to Incorporate our concerns.

2D-SSb- 13 NPK/db

D -tL- 1

B-401
@ . b b

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

iuclear Engineering Oivision 2 FE -I p (Founoed in 1954)

CZECUT1VI COmmTT h s

RCaAO 0. 5 - , I. ' alack & Veatch h. S- vma. C. -: P 2. 0, tax 8405 AL P-K.. 6 N _ 0711 htKansas City, YO

O.. CP. -n"

e . &Icm _Subject: Proposed Rule 10 CTR 61

,.O 1I I4, Supplemental Comments Prepared

ts(91 - -= by Radwasta Systems Co=ictee

Su'row 0. ZL"

-02.. 0. -3= *::nc' '

Secretary of the Commission ._,a _

8. W C.MN C. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coczss2.0 C4L fR3t

Washinlton, D.C. 20555

entsT s~l-TX ttstious: Dockatiag and Service Brnc

co_4-.- I.,.. Obt M8"M 80a ew Deer Sir: 0M.1 . 35

(a,554*m* The Radwaste Systems Committee of the Nuclear Engineering

S_ L Division of ASYE recently submitted cozemnts on the pro-

, " _113 cposed Rule 10 CFR 61. Subsequent to the preparation of

"US that submitcal. additional comments were received. We

17"1:37 request that these additional comments to accepted by the

.4TNISMAAT COumfllg CHAARN Commission as input to their deliberations oan the final

P- 01- rue.

K.wa Both sets of comments have been submitted to ASMZ for review and approval, but neither as yet represents the formal

Isw " position of ASHE. They do, however, represent the considered

opinion of a large niber of individuals intimately involved T. w. EOWAAOs in the area of low-level radioactive waste.

4.. s-e 16.Om Sincerely,

LIAISON LAPAISNTA SIViS

k P. A SZ:NK 1.0 APC 9---f4 LC.a0VO

M CoGa^0 ~Michael e Y10 M. Thomas, Chairr.-n

W.SCVL7HES .I8. P0 CM.# Codes and Standards Subocit:i * S'AM.SS Cc. ) of the Radwaste Systems Coefits

OPOA 71A804 CCUMME9f CHAA)AMIN

A#,.e A.-" bg W. J. cROAN Attachment

S. hL I1O

T. O. efPI*N

P-. V, A#".

A. Prllan

'8.1 Monzer Amernca Asseealjon cf En;.rgneerng Sotetzis .Ac-rS.nis:;, 8oa ec for Entlnte'-g r*1 ra cnmiogy r 

ixeedby caird.

64114

DgI

Suppleental Review Comments

oC Proposed Rulemakiag

on Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste - 10 C0R 61

Submitted by

Codes and Standards Subcommittee

Radwaste Systems Committee

Nuclear Engineer3in Division of

Americen Society of %eaianical Engineers

La

Me

8-402
;s * S.49

SUPLDMETAL COW-,MXS ON

PROPOSED ANMED£NTS TO 10 CmI Parts 2, 19. 20, 21,

30, 40, 50, 51, 61, 70, 73. AND 170

LIC£SfnM RQUIRSMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF

RADZOACS'VE VASTE

Ceneral Comments

The proposed regulation is consistent with the philosophy and recomcended

approach for disposal of low level radioactive waste espoused by many

groups aad other government agencies.

ghile some of the technical requirements (e.g., limits or conceratrations and quantities of various isotopes) may prove to be a problem in

Ij the futurc, The NRC's approach is generally compatible with current utility and dsposal site operating practices. The proposed regulation seems

appropriate in light of some pest problems with bural sites and the lack

of consistent practices and requirements disposal sites.

2. How vill 10 CFR 61 affect NRC Brench Technical Position 11.3 regarding

mandetory solidificetion?

Ce'Ii $. Are there acceptance criteria which verify prescribed criteria after

( cotpletion of the facility?

The terms "short term" and "long tern" should'be defined clearly when

used in 10 CFR 61. - -

6 The dr ft 10 CtX 61 regulations require a "quality assurance" program Ce. I wuithout establishing what program to' follow. There are no National

standards on such a program. A "quality control" progran probably is

)1. CL mcaore appropriate and could be implemented at less cost.

Ts. The draft 10 CF1 61 regulations discourage volune reduction of radioactive

wastes. This conflicts with a recent NRC policy statement which promotes L. volume reduction methods.

p'oecific Comentas

I. Page 38083, first paragraph, second colu=n - The wording "coming in contact with the waste" should be changed to "becoming exposed to the wastes." t Page 38087, last paragraph, second column - The NRC should define what

requirements are necessary for a period of postclosure observation and

D-2.-C rsmaintenance. This would preclude opening this issue up in a licensing

effort and prevent the need fot such a plan.

Page - 38090, last paragraph in column 1 - This paragraph rigidly defines

the "Land disposal facility" associated with the disposal of radioactive

_ wastes "into the subsurface of the land." This should be rewricten to

IT / include aboveground, engineered structures and should be discussed in

(_section 6.1.7(a)1 of the same chapter.

-""Continuing into the next paragraph - Reference should be nade relative to the licensing of.'onsite storage" facilities.

(4. Page 38091. the first sentence. column 2 - it is 'not clear why for

-IS-Ds ' certain isotopes a maximum disposal site inventory should be establ shed

-based on the characteristics of the disposal site.

- fin the sa:e colu the second paragraph states that "institutional

control is relied on for periods up to 100 years ... ' Now was this

(jamounc of ti=e arrived at?

?. Page 38091,first paragraph; last column - The'last sentence of this

paragraph refers to a "final review of licensee's site closure and ) stabilization plan." It is not clear if an initial review was nade or

when it was made. Without establishing a plan initially, how will the

public evetaccept that the licensee will meet the criteria. This

should be discussed in detail in part (c) of this-section, 'The Licensing

Process."

6. Page 38092, Section 61.11(c)(4). second colucn - This sentence is not

clear as to whether the plans are relative to before, during, or after

useage as a land disposal facility. -'

. Page 38092. fourth paragraph. third: oluan - The quality assurance program

description requirements should be discussed intfurther detail. Reference

should be made to where it: is docuented that such a statement exists.

Pate 38093. third paragraph, first column - Uhat is neant by the tern

,agss wasting?"

Page 38095, Section 61.42. third column - It is not clear as to what tire f-4 / frame should be applied, co the inadvertent intrusion necessary to evaluate

the 500 aPJyear.

10/ Page 38097. Section 61.55, Table 1 - This table serves no purpose other

( chan to possibl- restrict the utilities' radvaste disposal efforts without

consideration to individual waste inputs. This table should be deleted

and/or revised to represent typical comprehensive radwaste inputs which D-s _p ) possibly have some deviateons fran the radioisotopic concentration ranges

given in Table 1.

Other reviewers cocmented chat most of the isotopes listed are prinarily

beta-emitters which would be difficult or impossible to detecc with

C' 2

1

B-403
.. Z " . j .

equipment suitable for power plant operation. It is recommended that

the final rule olake explicit the rational. provide in the draft US.

especially the provision allowing an isotopic inventory to be based

on ratios from the concentrations of more easily measured isotopes.

i1. Page 3S097, Section 61.56, third column - It seems appropriate that

this section ahoue discuss the voluma reduction techniques and advantag*Qus "*pcct ralxtive to ln4 impacts.

This section should establish detailed waste form criteria relative

to maaningful requirements, such as flammability, leachability. The D-^-/ J waste characteristics described are too simplistic And almost apply

to any waste currently being produced.

Thi section requires that the waste package presented for disposal comply with NU and DOT transportation regulations. This implies _ that the disposal package could or must be a Type A, Type a, or Large

Quantity package including Al related shielding and other transpor- tation related requirements. While it is unlikely that this is R's

intent the wording of the paragraph can be interpreted in this -manr. sNRC hould clarify and reword tha requirement.

2. ?Page 38097, Section 61.56, second column - The tern "ClLas A segregated C D- ||_ wvaste" needs clarification.

The requirement that waste packages presented for disposal retaia 95S

dimensional stability After burial is inconsistent with the capability of ost ,solidification processes. A solidified material can be packaged

in a degradable container. Most solidification processes cansot fill a 3>''-9 1 container 95; full. Therefore, when the container degrades, the vwste

form can compress to less than 951 of the original package volume.

The 95? stability requirement as written, therefore, implies or requires the use of high integrity containers for solUdifid materials. The

option of using a high integrity containar in lieu of solidification then

becomes no option at al.

?i at* 3elO2, 1O MT 20 paragraph 3U1(b) - This change to 1O MZ 20 La

related to the 10 CiR 61 changes.

.- The shepnant manifest should also indicate the "radiation level" of the

waste container to be buried as well as the other waste characteristics

noted.

* United States Departrnent of the Tiiteior

OFFICE OF THE SECIRTALY

WASHIWTnN. D.C. 202iOp .-2 P3:13

ER 81/2250 JAN 2 8.1982

Secretary of the Commission @j 0cr

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i< U u e: 'fV*4

Washington, D.C. 20555 At HUME I I

DearSin St" P .F IT 3 _ou%)

We have reviewed the proposed licensing re uirements for Land Dispastof Radioactve

Waste (10 CFR 61).

Geners) Comments

general, we re in agreement with the overall technical philosophy and strategy ployed In the rule. It appears to be a major step forward In Improving low-level

sdioactve waste management. We concur that many acceptable sites should be possible

I most areas throughout the country and we agree, In general, with the flexibility end

oertLsm of the combined prescriptive and performance objective approach. Finally, we agree that waste classIfIcatIon is a cornerstone for a good waste management rule

and that the classification scheme proposed is sensible and practical In terms of

vocnualds cont nt.

Our principal concern with the waste classificatIon system is that It falls to address

nonredoactive toxicity of the waste. We believe that ny waste classification scheme

should be based on total hazard. It would seem Inappropriate for a particular waste to be

asd u Clas A radologically when It might contain toxic metals or organic pounds with potential harmful effects several orders of magnitude greater than those o the radionuclides. Perhaps the rule should either prohibit components with greater

potentnia toxicity than the ralonudlildes or provide for additional classification options based on other-tha-radlologlcal toxicity. This position would be consistent with

recommenatons of the C onservati on Foundation Dia logue Group on Low-Level

adloactlve Wuste and the Department of Energys Ta Force on Radloactive Waste

Management. --

We believ, that waste volume reduction is an Important element in reducing overall

I>- 1 ) aegitude and complexity of the problem. We therefore suggest giving it greater wnphasis and perhaps offering aodltonal Incentives. We also believe that

FederaliDefese generated low-levetradioactive waste should come under the s me earth-scienee guidelines and criteriaL

(Pertictotlon of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BWA) end the Indian Tribes

F- | The Secretary's trust responsibilities apply to waste disposal sites that are to be Located on Indlan reservations. The B.-eau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides the support services necessary

to carry out the Secretary's trust responsibilities. Therefore, BI area directors or their

authorized representatives should be Invited to participate in the review of applications for

the location of low-level radioactive waste disposal sites on Indln reservations. In addition,

.; ;Z, d. ?! lie a ,Z

B-404
Secretary of the Commission 2

I reguiatory polcy should also be coordinated with BIA's Office of Trust Responsibilities with I respect to locating, lcensing, operating and maintaining commercially operated disposal sites on lndan lands. Because ot variations and changes In Indian land ownership, BIA's Involvement

Specific cormeniw on the proposed rule end the environmental Impact statement are attached

separately.

We hope these comments will help you In the preparation of a final statement.

Sincerely

l7B81anchard, lrector

Environmental Project Review

Enclosures

PROPOSED RULE

The following more specific comments are addressed to the rule Itself but would also apply to

corresponding sections of the Summary and the environmental statement.

Secion 61.2. Definitions

Buffer Zone. The buffer zone definition should Include depth as weil as lateral boundaries, and

should be described as a three-dimpnsional zone. The performance standards might then apply

to releases beyond the boundary of the buffer zone. Unrestricted use of land and resources

beyond the buffer zone (laterally or at depth) would then be allowable during and after site

operatlons.

61.50 Disomsal Site Suitabflitv Reouliements for Land Disoosal

D-fo-I (~aX2 We suggest being more specific In the "modeling" requirements. Do you mean physical scale model? numerical ground water/solute transport model? conceptual model? (There are

C -many kinds of possible models.)

PaXM) We endorse this option but suggest using "molecular diffusion' Irplace of difusing"

1-5U . (,and/or defining maximum hydraulic conductivity allowable such as 10- cm/sec.

61.51 Dlsnooal SIte Desirn for Land Disoosal

G5~J- (eX4) It is Impossible to totally 'prevent' Infiltration suggest using "minimize" in place of

"prevent."

|(aX) This requirement appears Inconsistent with 61.500X7). The option of dispcsing In the

saturated zone should be mentioned agaln.

51.52 Land Disoosal Facitv 0oeration and DIsDosal Site Closure

(a)(8) We believe the location of the buffer zone should be determined on the basis of site

& 5 3I performance. The zone Ideally would be enclosed within a three-dimensional surface

3 surrounding and underlying the burial site. Our concept of the buffer zone is a zone that

provides a controlled/restricted-access volume of earth material around and under the site,

beyond which unrestricted use of land and resources, surface or subsurface, could be allowed

during and after site operation. The 100 foot lateral extent listed in the rile appears

somewhat arbitrary.

1.53 Environmental Monitoring

| (a) We believe that "geochemistry" should be listed with the other subjects (ecology,

meteorology, climate, hydrology, etc.). Although geochemistry Is often an implied aspect of

hydrology we believe It deserves specific mention because It plays such an important part In

radionuclide mobility In ground water.

B-405
2

6LSS Waste Classifleatlon

pDf51.I Generat: We believe waste should be classified according to total toxicity as described above

l under 'General Comments."

4 S (dl It is not clear what the dibpcsition will be of wastes which exceed Claw C coneentrations.

LWhat type of disposal is envisioned by the Commission for those wastes?

t'tL56 Waste Characteristics

D<t 7) Generals The non-radiological toxicity of the waste needs to be considered here, we believe.

(7bt Is apparently Ignored.

3EFORE S JUCLR REGULATORY C010CSSION

'82 £,N22 PA:22

CCWlETilp & SE[rs'1C SUINCh

Cocents

Kaerr-McGee Corporation *-c

Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation

and

Kerr-McGee Chemical Cor oration

on

Proposed 10 CFR Part 61

(46 Fed. Re7. 38081 (July 24, 1981))

January 1982

.td.. :/2qaw £*

B-406
(3 AERR.MCGEECORPOh477ON,

t--nt nI-4 . eo^ 00, o . ri

MRis *q...ooe

(202) 662-5538

(LOVINGTON & BuRLINO

1201 PENNSYSVANIA AVCNUt. N. W.

P. 0. Sax 7556

WASHINOTONO. C tO104 .

January 18, 1992

I2 V! 22

.* C.G ,*(t S.C

Mt% *.s tce f .e:

.stesX.gtsn en-c cst. 4..

PA:22 ;

Secretary-of the Cormission ,.

Nuclear Regulatory Commlssion -. * 3C!LWashington, D.C.- 20555 -

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch I

Rea Prooosed 10 CFR Part 61 -P 01CIE;

Gentlemen: - id -

<Enclosed. please find Kerr-McGee's comments on the

above-referenced rulemaking proceeding. It is our understanding (from-a telephone call to Mr. Smith's office) that

the comments will be considered timely so long as postmarked

today (Monday) in view of the storm that paralyzed the D.C.

area (where the corments were finalized) last week.

- -- . Very-truly yours,

Charles H. Montan

- - Attorney for Kerr-McGee

4C ~ ~ ~ .. is....?is-s _~ .

January 14, 1982 2'LE PR^I:: rw Q.ct, R2 JS. 22 P 4:22

CErIIFUID FAIL, R!=iO RECEIPT RZQUESE D *

Secretary of the Cotsissiou ' 7 ,

U.S. Nuelear Regulatory Comisaion

Washington, DC 20555

Re: Proposed Rule 10 CrF Part 61

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste

Deatr Sir:

The Nuclear Regulatory Cossuisson (NRC) recently published an

invitation for comments iD connection vith the proposed Rule 10 CR

Part 61 concerning Licensing Requirements for Shaeloy Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste. (See 46 Federal Register 38081, July 24

1981.) The attached COments of Kerr-MceCe are in response to that

invitation.

Sincerely,

U. J. Shelley, Vice President

Nuclear Licensing and Regulation

ba/bec

Enclosure

cc: Mr. R. Dale Smith (w/encls.)

4F-4J: . .

B-407
- 2 -

Comments on Pr-posed

10 C." Part 61

Theae comments. suhb ttad on behalf of Kerr-McKee

Corporation. Xerr-McGee Nuclear Crporation. and Kerr-KcGoe

Cheiical Corporation (Kerr-McGee), are addressed the Licensing

Requirenents for Land Disposal of Radioact:ve Waste, proposed

by th'e Uuclear aegulatory Cczmission (NRC) at 46 ed. Reg.

38C81 (July 2S. 1981). A au-ber of the standards proposed in

10 CTR Part 61 are premartre and beyory the autho-'ty of NERC

In additi-on, many of the standards and other requirements a:e

uneasonably stringent and are not supported by the rationale

offered in the underly'ng doc=ent:ation. Karr-McCee's specif:c

objections are detailed el'ow.

1. The Exposure and E'isiion Standards Prcposed 'or

Part 61 Are Premature and Beyond the Agency' s Author'ty to the Extent that They Ara Not

Alreadv Tcodied !n 10 CYR Psrt 20

Aeor;azizatlon Plan No. 3 of.1970 by its terms.

anaferred to the Admiaiszratzr of the Environmental Protect-ion Agency (SPA) the author'ty under the Atomic Energy Ac_ to

set generally applicabl* radiation standards. Assuming aru:endo

the val'dity of the 2Plans the SPA Administrator, not NRCI 's

See section 2(a)(6) of the Plan, 35 Zed. Aeg. 15623, A8 Stat. 2c86, 42 U.S.C. 4231 note.

Xerr-M4Ce- has challaenged, in a laWsu~t currently pending in the Tenth Circui:z the validity of the plan insofar as it purports to transfer authority over radiation standards. This section of.gerr-4cGee's comments apply in the *ven: that IRC iS correct and that the validity of the plan is upheld.

responsible for Issuing standards relating to exposure to I Lonizing radiation from a Low level radioactive waste di'sposal

site durifg and after its operation. NRC in fact appears to

C - admit that EPA is responsible for Issuing the pertinent stasdards.

EPA, however, has not issued standards governing waste disposal

of the sort involved here. 1n the absence of E2A standards,

NRC is limited to the existing standards found 'i 10 CPR Part

20.'

The 10 C1P1 Part 20 regulations li:it public exposure

to 500 mren per year, and specIfy str:nge-t limits on the

release of about tvo hundh-ed radionuclides by air or water co

|uresaticted areas. A n=b-er of the standards specIfIed in

proposed Part 61. however, are not currently contaIned in ;0

CTR Part 20. ror exa=ple, proposed 5 61.41 limits release of

radionuclides such that no nmer of the public may be exposed

to a dose of more than 25 :are to the whole body, 75 mrem to

the thyroid, and 25 3rea to any other organ. No such standard

appears In 10 CSR Part 20 for waste disposal operations. NRC

accordingly lacks authority to adopt it here. To take another

example, neither the purorted concentration l mit for radionuclldes in proposed I 61.41 nor the 10 pCI/l uranium/thorlum

See 46 ied. Reg. 38083.

With one exceptIon, the Part 20 standards, insofar as they deal wIth exposure of the public, were issued by the Atomic

Energy C: ¢issioa prior to loss of standard-settIng authorIty to SPA pursuant to Raor;ani-zaion Plan No. 3. T'e oe *xcep- tion is that portion of Par; 20 incorporating _2A's 10 CL Part

'90.

B-408
- 4 -

f standard is contained in any regulation under 10 ClR Part 20.

It is therefore invalid.as beyond NPC's power. All portions

of proposed Part 61 predicated on these Invalid standards must

be withdrawn pending final action by 'A on pertinent standards.

11; Various Standards and Requirements

Specified in Proposed Part 61 Are

Undulv Stringent and Vnsupoorted.

A. The-25-mrem Rule Set ort' In Proposed

61 .41'Is Unsutorted

Proposed 1 61.41 Limits release of radioactive

MRterial from a low level waste facility such that the release

11 'not result !In en annual dose exceedig an eq.ivalent of

S Minil rnsto the whoLe body. 75 mill'rems to the thyroid,

ed25 miill'rems to any o-her organ of iny medber of the public."

This proposed limit appears to be derived tror EWA's 40 C7X

Part i 190. _ is derivation is Incorrect for a nunber of reasons.

it is incorrect for a purely leal reason EPA specifially excluded operatiens at waste disposal sites from Part

190's coverage.' NRC may not prcmulgate its own standard

in the absence of action by EPA.

Second, the 25 mrem standard specified in the regula-

:'on is too low. 2S nerm is a mere one--en:ieth the level

(5CO mi-m) specified in 10 Crt I 20.105 for releases Z* rrestricted areas.' There is ro evidence that complicance

40 C- 5 190 02(b).

See also 25 red. Reg. 4402 (May 19, 1960) (Uadiaticn

rc:ec- on CuLdance for _ederal Agenc.es).

with the 5C0 strem standard has resulted In any untoward results.

The 25 nrem restriction is demonstrably too lvw for anotherreason. Average natural background- rad4aticr. (cosmic, terrestrial, and internal body radiation) varies frtn state to state

in th-s country between 90 nre= and le9 nre= average exposure

per year. Variation is caused pri'ar'ly by different altit:des

above sea level and by natural rock formations. Living near a

gramite rock formatIcn, for example, ray result in 25 to lC0 rrem

additicn exposure per year. 25 mrem is thus only a small frac-

::on of natural backgrourd- excnsures. - 25 -rem is also only

about half the exposure incunred in an ordinary chest x-ray.'

!pidemiologlcal evidence unan-icusly Indicates that Increased

exposures discernible adverse health effects.' Leading

See 3ioloqical Zffects of Radiation. 3 Encyclopedia

Fritannica 382 (1979) (qives SO nrem for chest x-ray and

100-;iO nrem for na-rall backgrturd); Lcw-LevL :on':' _?adiat'on Hearings before the Subco n~tt~ees on inercy Researcn and

Profuct:on ac SaouIal esourres a ;t En

m o sC.e:ce ant --e no!-von 960- Con. 1s Ses.

at 3-9 (1979)

See, e Lu Hickey, et al, Low level Ionri:rc Rad'_ticr and

Human Mortal'tv:- - ult±-Recornai E:enzoLoccea! St-dies,

40 Heaith Physics 625 (1981) (Z-I Mt A); ::ter:cet al,

The Arcunne Rad'cloe0cal Inract Program (A3P?)-I. Car-'noIenic Hsaa from Low-_Leel .e ow-race Radiatucn (Ar^cmne Nat'l

Lao. Repor ,-ANL/S-2 'ar I (1973) (Exzi:z_ 3)- Sigh Background Radiation Research Croup (China), Health Survey Ia 'c'

3ackground Radiation Areaslnr ChIna, 209 Sc:ence 8,7 (1980)

(EXh_:bi C); Gopal-Ayenqar Ct aln Ealuation of the Lcne rer

Effects of High Backqvrund Rad'atioa :- Senectee Pomulanlon

Croums on -ae Kerala Coast 'n Peace:lu Uses of Atomic Energy,

Vo. II Proc 4th Int; Conf. Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,

rp. 31-S1 (1971) (Exhibit D); Cullen. et a*, osimetr-c And

Cvtoinenet'c Stud'es 'n 3raz'I1an Areas of R'rh Na:-ra; Natural

Act:ivit. 19 Heatb Phys5cs 185 (IS70) ,z bi 1).

8-409
- 6 - - 5 -

authorit.es believe that low level radatiom is not hazardous.

As Dr. Evans recently testified, Psay we double tue background

radiation (tol us. what will that do to Us? The answer is

nothiqg . .. CTjhere are no rad'oicological effects."'

Third, the 25 mren rest:iction deviates In a s'ign"

cant way from that specified in EPA's 40 Cfl girt 190. EP

excLuded radon and i:3 dau e-trS from 9 art I9C's coverage.

:he proposed =C regulation does no% contain a sinilar exclusion. tI is possible that certa!' zadloactive ore rusadues

(L.~' sCm5e Uramtu or tharium wastes and $Cm* raze earth

wastes) nay be disposed in low laval reposltories covered by

proposed 2art 651. S order to attaL.r a 25 =%e: standard as

applied :o radon. it may be necessary tO CoVer the wastes :_

question with many meters of earth cover. The besfiits from

-I's action are speculativ* and sight. Becauae o' the inportazae of -he issue, te purported rtsk from radon LS discussed

L= dzat:! below.

NRC has elsawehre Lrdicatsd haz the prizar hazard

posed by disposal oC uranium, mf.lL wastes is emanation of

radom-212 , a rad-ioacs, inert gas. NRC in the past has

attempted to v'-'OcA:t tz-..;Cnt atd, n conro::s on the b-aS'

o (1) risks to personrs 2.L'vin t some dlatance Izom -he

.est:mony o Dr. Robley tvans aefore the* Nev Mexico SIM

rprir.ned in Uratiua Oor Residues Hearings, ?otenztia

vazard - spcsit.on, 3 atings efore '* ?rocure zent and Military Suclear Systets Sutotn. of the couse Comm. cm Araed

Sest Sews., at tSO '2.' -- e :CeS 97a. Cg ,. .98,l). et also

T. Zuckey, Ra -ortesIs _ion (1'90).

uranium wastes in quest-Cn and (2) risks to persons living

near the wastes. Neither justificatlon has mer't

Radom-l22 emanation from uranium waxtes does not

pose a sg:cnif'ant rIsk to persons living outside the nearvicnizty of the wastes -a guestion. Mhe amount of radon likely

c -J to result: from the wastes is miniscule compared to 'he m=ount

of radon released nat:rally from soils in the United States

and from such accepted economic activtles al agriculture",

Moreover. I'creased radon fozm uranium wastes caonct be detected

zore t-an a short distance from such wastes, even I3 a downwind direction.U :Se effect of the wastes is vastly ove-borno

cy matral discha_9es.

St-ingez: controls for radon emaatcin similarly

Ann0t be :ustilled an the bassa of zr1k to nearby residents.

NRC ac)=wvledges that there aze no dIsce=' 1e adverse health

effects from exposure to radon from uranium wastes. ,I S the

L Sea. c ,ranactpt C of Eear:Iaq before the Sav Mexico

MI3 a: 461-62 Q470 (testimo-y of Dr. Ivans) reprintad La

Uran Iu Ore Restduts, Potentiul a:ards and D'stos.ton.

Hearings !efore the Prorure"ent scd 'i"ar, Nulear Susos

Suboor. of the scuse Aretd Servto Cor s., 97t Cong., 2st

Ss.45 (Jun 24 25 1901).c C1

u See. ;: Shearer S Sill, T"alat o o Atrmsonherc

9 a t on n ±az the Vi nit't , of Urar__- Miii - s2. - s. 17

ae*: Pbys:cs 77 (1959) ( =acmen 1); Letzer, Crseenlolg

(DOE) to Selander (EA); dated july 1%. 1982,. at 2 (C comnents on Z-A ±nactive site standards) (Attachment 0)G Uranium

Or. residues Searings. Surra, at 457; 127 Corg. Rec. s 12964

(aly ad. Nov. 5, 1981).

N RC. Centric £SI on Uranium 4lling (CZ51) at A-35 ("We

(NRCj kov of.no data or *_uedles which Ind-;ate daS'natively that hnalth affects do or do not occur az the low lavsls

of exposure that are aantlopatsd to result from operazCon of

B-410
.: 4

. - - 7 -

sence z of data, NC a; Parently assumes thst some health

affects may occur on the basis o' theo linear non-threshold

model. =Lis model has been aptly cr ticized by numerous

authorities. ror esample, the model is based on the assumption

that tumor induction is a straightforward "one-hit' process in

which any unit of exposure Wit. result i-n some carc'nogenic

activity. Bur 'the bulk of the evidence" ar'ues against the

hypothesis that neoplastic transfomation is a linear function

of dose." Additionally. many prominent health physfcists and

other .xperts believe that the body is capable of repairng'

damage caused by low-level radiation." Koreover, the linear

non-threshold model is contrary to direct evidence that seccqogieaily realistic, low-level rad'ition is bioloplcally

s2aimulatory, and presumably beneficail. Eis effsct, known

as "radiation hormesis2 is a researenent ofthe Arndt-Schulr

lav that small doses of substances are st ulatory t(.e..

benefiesil) even 'f large doses are-harmfuL. As one biochemist

recently explamed.

-"(rsadiaio hornesis denies the valid!ty o

st=&Lqit lite extrapolation fremknown harnful

"' Anderson. ?atholoqy 347 (7th ad. 19 7).

1. See, *.tJ.Robbis 6 Cotan.' ?atholotc. 3asis of Disease

55 (2d ed., l979) Transcrlpt of New Mexico _'3 hearing at

495-96 (testimony of Dr. Evans); In the Matter of Du3e Power

Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1 2 and 3). 9 NRC 87.

[197S-78 aramsfer 3±nderl Nudlear Req. Rep. (C=) 5 30,312 a=

p. 2a,669 (1978).

"t SIckey, Letter? Cancer ard Corctnsus, C'emical & -- g:neerIng News 65 a.75 -(Sept., 4., 196l) ace

C -3

doses to zero. <he argumen: that low doses

give harmful effects in proportion to dosage

is invalid. O

tinally, per-4ren- epidemiological studies are consistent with

the proposition that low-level radiation is not harmful.

Indeed, thos studies Indicate that people in high background

radiation areas enjoy better health than people in low background radiatien areas.e or example, people living on the

Colorado plateau in the United States have signiftcantly lower

death rates from carcer and chronic disease that people in the

r. T Luckey. Radilatca 3ormaess 162 (ClC 19S0). See also

Luckey, Latter, yor-nets. Nuclear News 48 (Dec. 1981);

trickey, Lettert, .iones's. Nuclear News, at p. 54 (Dec. 1981).

_n any event, even : cartciogenOesi is l1naarly related to

dose, there may Also be a second beneficial effect at low doses,

and these benef-ts may cutwetqh the risks. Such a relatIonship

would appear graphically as follows -

_,___urde: tLnea: non-threshold model)

;1

beneficial effect (horteses)

See Sagan Some Thcuthts on Dose-Resnone Hormesls and All

that, Nuclear News, a_ p. 02 (Cc:. :93)

1' S ee -, ; ickey, a: I, Low Level to-nI Rln adia-'on

ard wuman Nortallt MuL.:±-Re :ona.I ti'enlo~ica1

S-d es.40 iteaIun Physzcs 625 (1981); 'rigerzo, ct ai, -e

Areoone Radioloo'cal rI- act ProqTram (A~t1i-1 Carc'-cce- _ ara Srrm .Low-ieveJ. Low-raze Raedracon (A -;orns N-a1 Lab.

.epor: A&L/7S-26, Par% 1) (1973): i gh Background Radiation

Research Croup (Ch'na). gesith Surrev in qIh Pa Ic rourd Radiateon Areas in C" na, 2C9 Sc-ence 877 (l980J;Gopal-Ayengar

e: a' . zvaiua:::n of Lont-Ter:'Effects of j th-3ackground Radtation on Selected Poulcon Orouns3 on t.he -Ceaa N -oesc inpac12: 

4:1 uses O£ AtOmF c Snery. Vol. ;, Proc. 45t in-. Conf. Peaceful Uses of AtomIc Energy, pp. 31-Sl (1971).

B-411
* a a

eastern costal plains where natural ionizing radiation is much

lower. Another striking example involves the people of Kerala,

India.

'The people of Kerals are reported to have

thae ±ghest literary rate and the best health status in India: yet their expenditre on health care is not appreciably above average. and they have the lowest food intake and the _3 least adequate diets of people of all states of-India. -A vartial ex21anat'on for this

paradox is that rac.aeion from e urusuallv

h'ch radium and thor:un in costal and r'ver

rocks exmoses many residents to 10 t'Ies nore terrestrial radatiton tan the U.S. averace."

NRC admits that the linear nmcthzeshold model may te

erroneous." In fact. ax o3e stat:s ica3n has charged, the

pu-porzed general regulatory "acceptance' of the model 's I's

large pa__ (a] misuse of statIst'Ics.' 1 Zxclusve or even

primary reliance on the l:near =on-threshold model 'a an

over-simpL±:s-tiou and may result in an over-Invesuen: I'a

controls to aver, hypothetical risks.' Lhis tr:aslates 'ato

t Luckey, Letter: Honarr in, Nuclear News 52 & 34 (ZeC. '1s81) (emphasis aded).

' GETS U-4.

is Sickey, suora note 15.

as In the words of 'ro'essor David kreant of UCLA. "Resources

for the reduction of risks to the public are rot 'ini:te.

At some point, a c-cater Improvement 'n health and safety is to be expeczed from a more stable and viable economy than from a reduction i: pollutIon or the rate of accidents." Ckrent:

Comment on Societal Risk. 208 ScIence 372. 374 (1980). .RC should also recogniza -hat szrIngena controls a'ned at reducing

exposure to radiation from atomic energy activIties can easily have a reverse affect. Sor example. new and costly NRC con- :ols will result in Increased energy Costa to consumers.

('cot-o:t con:'4)

- 10 -

an unwarranted burden on azo3mc energy activitIes and a waste

sofciety's resources. NRC should re-evaluate and modulate

its reliance on the linear non-threshold model for purposes of

assessing the risk from exposure to low-level radiation. In

C 3 particular. NRC should gIve greater weight to the possibility

(indeed. likelihood) that the ionizing radiation, particularly

from naturally occurring concentrations of radionuclides such

as are involved here, is not harmful and may in fact be bene-

::::a:. -

Even assuming that the linear non-threshold model is

appropriate, the risk which it projects la te *: at:ons

(foctace comt'd)

This will induce Increased reliance on insulation. T-is means fewer al- changes In residences and buanesases. Tis in turn leads to Increased exposure to naturally occuing Indoor

radon. EPA *estiates (under the l:near non-th-reshold model) that the rlskposed by Indoor radon ls about : in 300 lifetize

(approximately 1 In 21.CCO per yea-r) ' A Draft ElS for

Remedial' Ac:on Standards for :aact:ve Uranlum Processing Sizes a: pp. 4-20 C 21. T=s-means that. under government estlmates, _ about 10.000 people perish per year from natural

indoor radon exposure in this ccun-ty alone. This is far More

than the maximum number of deaths (6) projected by IRC from

radon emanatIng from three t'eas the amount e: uranium mill

tail-'mgs -ov in existezce. Increased InsulatIon, prompted by

risI'q energy costs- already is leading to about 1,CC0 ae- 'lonal hypothetical deaths from Indoor radon per year and will

eventually lead to about 10.OC0 additional hypothetical deaths.

Cohen Eealth Effects of Rador from Insulation of Buildinas.

39 Heialh ihysIes i3. 543 (10). Leass costly uranium fuel cycle regulatory requIrements car make a =ajor :cntr'iutIon in decreasing hypothetical radiation fatalities in this country because less costly regulation will result in less expensive electricIy. This in turn will lead to less reliance oan conservatIon measures which are ICC to 1000 times more hanardous radiologically speakIng than radon releases f!o. Z

the u-.Lum fueL cycle.

B-412
- .11 - 12 -

involved here is insubstantial. NRC calculates that the

|aaxitu risk posed by radon-222 from even totally unreculated

m|lls is 1 in 70,000,000 for th-ee times the nu-ber of nills

|now In existence.' 2 ThistmaximUM risk, which ia only hypotheC szed to xist anyway, is insienificant and de mnimisr.t NRC

has admitted that even if it actually eventuates, It is 'about

e'qual" only to-the risks posed by 'a few puffs on a cigarette,

a fey sips of wine, driving the family car about S blocks,

flying about 2 miles, canoeing for 3 seconds, or being a man

aged 60 for 11 seconds."I Indeed, the risk perceived by NRC

is far less than many risks cortmonly and ordinarIly accepted

in our society."

See, e.gc CZS at 19.

" 46 Fed. Reg. 15167 (March 4, 1981). See also 127 Ccrg.

Rec. S 12984 (daily ed. Nov. 5, 1981).

T' he following table iets'forth many commonly and ordinarily accepted risks in our society.

Cause 1ndividual risk/vear

Kerr-Mcee understands that NRC staff may take the

position that thIs de mininis risk is not dispositive because

the risk to people lIving next to, or on top of, uranium

wastes, is greater. To Kerr-McGee s Xaowledge, NRC has not

provided a detailed'quantification of thIs alleged risk f:r

C, .~3 public rev'ew. Zowever, the risk -- which is purely hypcthetical to begin with -- cannot be large in comparIson to many

customarily accepted risks. his view is strongly supported

by the Commission' s admission that radon exposures at the edge

of uranium wastes stabil!:ed in accordance *ith the agency's

eov suspended Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements will result

In exposures which are only 'a small fractIon of any reascnab e

health protectIon limiZ.""2 Moreover, ,urported fears for

persons l'iing atop such wastes are groundless tnI view of requirements such as these in proposed Part S: and In the 'Jranium

(footnote cant'd)

Cause - nd'iidual-risk/oear

accidental poisoning - solids and liquids 1/170,CCO

electrocution 1/200, CO

vaccinati:on far small pox (per occasion) 1/330,000

air travel - ore transcontInental flight/yr 1/33CZCC

Source: CMSA Testimony of Professor Richard WIlson (?xt:_ 1) reprinted in "utt: Unresolved Issues In Conflict

Setween :ndividual Treedom and Government Control of Fooe

Saiet, 33 FDC L.J. 55a, 564-66 and 562 (1978).

CZiS at p. 12-15 explains that "[ejxposures as close In as a fencettst near the edge of the pile would be about

:.1 x 10-4 WL above background levels.-. .. whIch is a small

fraction of any reasonable indivIdual health protectlon lImit

('l of the Surgeon Goneral's quideliaes)."

saokeragricultuial employnent

ntotor vehicle - Total (19735

air pollution - sulphates

governmtert employment

:t:ck Xrlvig employment

falls

alcohol

living for one year downstream from a dam

motor vehicle - pedestrian (1975)

drov ing (from recreational actIvities)

inhalation and ingestion of objects hone accidents (1973)

birclr.Ing

person in room vith snoker one pint of milk ;er day (aflatoxin)

(!oot0:te

!/3C0

1/1, 7CC

1/4, 5 Co

1/6,700

;/91 lZ0

1/10, CCO

1/13, CCOO

1/20, CC

1/20, CCO

1/25, COO

1/53, C0

1/7-', COO

1/03, OCO

1/!^CCZZ

:-/lZO CZ0

eort'd)

B-413
*, ':. .

- 14 -

C-3

- 13 -

ill Tailings Radiation Control Act, that ownership of the disposal site generally be tansferred to the government for actual

tailings." Cbviously, Congress presumed that the government can

and will keep people from occupying the disposal area."

NRC's risk estimates under the linear non-threahold

model, which already predict Insubstantial hazards, are in

fact excessive because the agency has relied oan erronecusly

high risk estImators. The latest study by a panel of eminent

scientists from EPA, the Departena of Energy (DOE) *Camany

England and Canada Indicates that the maxlmum hypothet::al

risk from radon-222 cam be no greater than 1/3 that employed

by MC per unit exposure and mav in fact be Zreo Moreover

Professor Cohen, after analysis of risk estimates 'or radoninduced lung cancer employed in the BEZR-1;' report, concluded

that the rIsk estimators advocated in that report overstated

the risk from low-level exposure by a factor of twanty to

I 42 U.S.C. 5 2113(b).

"? NRC Is author'zed to waive government ownership reu.irseme.ts

with respect-to byproduct material as defined In sec-'on

lle.(2) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 2113(b). Gover-emnt cwne:rshp is ummecessary for purposes of assu:ing that people do rot

In-trde on properly disposed uranium ard thorium wastes. Deed

covenants barrIng such Intrusicn are suffIcIent for -'Is purpose.

NRC's iranch Technical Position. published at 46 'ed. Reg. 525C1

(Oct. 23. 1981); properly recogn:zes thIs fact in adoptng; a policy of relying on deet covenants in cptions.3 and 4.

so Evans at al., 'sti:ate of Risk from Envtroenrtal' _Zxo- sure to Radon-222 a-d its Decay Products, 390 Nature 98

(March 12, 1981) (at.achment .) Sj cn'':caaly, DCE bas

expressly eAndorsed reliance on the stLdy by -vans, et al., for

standard-setting purposes. Uranium Cre Residues Zearlngi,

supra, at 176.

forty." TO the exten: that NRC pu-ports to rely on a risk of

exposure through an inj t'ton pathway, that rIsk estimate is

similarly excessIve. Professor Evans has specifically crIticized risk estimates for inJestion of lou-levels of radium as

ucduly conservative =a as unsupported by the evidence."

The 25 area rule may also apply to thorium-bearing ores

or thorium wastes. It is therefore pertInent to examina problems

arising from application of the rule to such wastes. ThorIum

wastes do not pose a signifIcant radon problem. The radon

decay product (known as thoron) in the thoriu decay chain has

a much shorter half lIfe (only 55.6 seconds) '- comparison to

rador.-222 &ad accordingly cannot be expected to diffuse tn s*g-

' ':canr amounts through even nominal cover. ;t furthermore

camnot:be expected to travel any significant distance off-site.

Moreover, the decay products of th'roan, 1th one exception, are

short-lived..ia.ccmpar:son to decay products of radon-222.31

The primary hazard NRC identifies with respect to thorium is

direct gamma radiation.

" See also Cohen, Failures ard Crl:tcue of the 3E!R-TT

Lunq Cancer Risk Estlmate, __ Sea- hysUcs _ (in

publIcation) (attachment K).

s See R. Evans, at al.,.i Raediobiology of Plutonium (Stover

& ee, eads. 1972) at pp. 431-68 (practical threshold for

humans)s Raube. ct al., Sone Cancer frem.Radt=m Canine Dose

Resose Exmlatns Data for Mice and rumans, 208 Science 61

( 190).* -

" The przperties of the tzorium decay series are described

in Ruado, The Radioactive Procertles erd 3toloctca! Behavior

of ""Ra tTh X) and-Its Dauhters, ;5 _it ysics 13 (1978).

B-414
- 15 -

NRCts risk es.i=ates for low-level gamms radiation

are even more uspect than I1C's risk estimates 'or exposure

to low-levels of radon-222. NRC'e estimates. ilsofar as they

exist at all. are traceable to exclusive reliance on a linear

non-threshold model. All the criticisms already made with respect to the linear non-threshold mcdel apply wIth equal or

greater force. Indeed, the objections are even more.tellinq,

C3 because the epidemiologlcal studies in _di'a, Srazil and China

on high-background radiation were in -thorium-rich ar-as. None

of these epidemiological studies detected adverse effects.

They are instead consistent with the view that h.Igher exposure

to natural rad'tiaon may be beneficial. Moseover. various

adv4sory groups have ackrowledged the lower likelihood of

gasma radiation to result -I harm. The lCRP has indicated

that gasa and beta radiation (termed "low-LZ ^) is an order

of magnitude less effect^ve in doing bIologIcal damage than

hiSh-LE radiation.3" The Bz:R-ZII Committee have also

admitted that the linear monthreshold model 'probably Leads to

overestimates of the r'sk of moast cancer . . for exposure to

low-LZ radiation at low doses.^"' The 3E:R-1I report in

fact recommends the use of a range of estImates for the risk

o such rad'at:'n, and notei that the risk may be zero. NRC

" International Commission on Rad'ological Protection.

Report of Committee It on Permissible 'ose for Internal

Radiation (1959).

See NatIonal Academy of Science.' The Effects on Population o £1xposurs to Low Levels of ronIr'ng Radiation 4 ('950)

(3ZZX-rl: Report).

- 16 -

and EPA have Lmproperly rsl'ed exclusively on a linear nontreshold model for projectinq the risk from gamma radIation

from thorium wastes.

In sum, the 25 mrem rale 's unduly strIngent as

applied either to uranium or to thorium wastes. The costs for

ccntrol of exposure to uranIum or thorium wasites at a level of

25 mrem are totally out-of-line with the speculatIve benefits

uch control would produce. T'e American Mining Congress (AMC)

.has estimated that the cost to comply with a 25 mrei rule (excluC'rg radon) at uranium mills would approach 51;000000.CCC

(one billion) per hypothetical health effect avert. The cost

per health elfect would obviously be even greater if the

rest:ict'en-applied to radon;'6 The ratio of low-level waste

repositorIes would not be more favorable. NRC should exclude

radon and its daughters f!rm the 25 _ren standard propoied in

t 61.41.~

B. The 10 pCi/i UranIum/ThorIum Standard CI- _Procosed in Section 51.41 :s Utnduly, Stringent

MP-C's justIfization for the lC C'/; Ura-n,.m sad

thor'ua limitaticn appears to be based on a Suggested Acticn

Cuidance (=-A-SAC) ent'tled "Advisory Cpinion for Uraniu'm

Issued in draft farm cr July IS, 1981. '_is ?eA document is

labeled ^do not cqote or cite," indicatIng the extremely preliminary nature of its conclusions. A crItique of the EPA

' Uranium Ore Residues Fearings, suora, at ;P. 253-as et sec. (hereby Incorporated by reference).

. 4

B-415
- 17 - .a

(document is attached (Sxh±ait L). -he critique explaIns the

)deSiciencces in Z-e rationale for the 10 pC'/l ur.aniu. limit

C.3 % and applIes equally to that 1-mit as proposed by NRC In S 61.41.

The critique also applies to the proposed 10 ,Ci/I thorium limit.

a subje ct uranium/thoriu limit should be deleted.

C. Te ProvisIon Relating to Protect'on of

rJviduals ± from Inadvertent In-tusion

Are Arbitrarv and Unreasonable.

Proposed 1 61.42 requires that a Low-level radioact±ve waste facIlity be designed, operated, and closed such

that no '3ndIviduaL Inadvertently Intruding Iato the disposal

site and occupying the site or contacting t-e waste after

actIve itc tutiontl controLs over the disposal sizs are

renoved. could r ace~ve a dose to the whole bcdy 'I excess cS

5C0 millirem per year.' For pux-oses Of pr:posad P4rt 61, NRC

hypothesIzes active insltutlonal controls to las: :00 years.

4 err:-McCee c bects to the rostrlctlon ecod4I*d In

5 61.42. The proposed reguLatlons provide C--at -' low level

waste repository rust be located 'ca Land owned 'I fee by the

Federal or a State goveranen.'_ Proposed 5 61.i5(a). XC's

"Inadvertent int-ruder hypothesis Is prsdicatcd on the rot:oa

that the governent w'l:L scnehow fail. allowing people to

occupy the site of the low-level waste rspoeitory for dwell1ngs

and agricultural purposes. NRC's assumption that the gove=-

oeat will fail is Inconsistent with the concept of a naz:caal

overnment and h'e firmly estab::shed prInciple that the

rated states is a Union of states estaolished for perpetuity."

It is arbitrary and unreasonable for ,YC to propose a standard

based upon a action anmithetlcal to our C-st:iut:cn. This is

doubly the case since the proposed regulatIons authorize X.RC

to require a low-Level waste repository loans.. to provide

/-f14=ag for institutional controls of IndefInite duration.

2roposed S 61.63. SImilar ob5ections apply to .RC's arqument

in surpport of its proference against any disposal which may

require lorn-term zalatenance.

fl. D he Concentration Limits for Alr a.-nitt:ag -

r.ransuranioc Isoopes Specif"ed in Column 3

\of T'able 1 Are Unreasonablv tow.

-3ble I to Part 61 proposes a '0 nCi/gn L'-:: om

alpha-emitznag ranasuranic (-7U) waste for purposes of disposal

as-low-level waste. he '0 rCi/ga limit for T'J was:e is totally

arbitrarl. :t was no: eszabl's ed on -he basis of heaLth effects

is Cur Constitution contaIns provIsion for the dIssoLutIon

of our government. Marbury v. Madscn, 3 U.S. 1 Cranch) 137 -.

(1SC3). As Chlef usice Marshall explaIned. "Ctlhe [Constitution's) principles . . . so established. ars deeaed f!udamental.

And as theauthority from which they proceed is Supreme, and

ca seldom act, they are desIgned ta be perianen:. Id. A

Civil War was fought over -'>s *sse.' As PresIda:t Lincola

observed In his rsr:t Inaugural Add-e-s (March 4. La6)

'A disruption of the ?tderal Union heretofore only menaced, Is now formIdably attempted.

I hold, that in con:enplation of universal law, and of the Constimutlon, the Union

of these States Is perpetual. Perpeo:ity in

Implied. If no: expressed. in -ae fundamental

law of all national governments. Is Is safe

to asserz that no governanet proper, ever had

a provision in Its org'a-c law far its own

termination.' IV Co!!ec-ed Wcrks of Abralhsa

Lincol' 264 (R.I. Basler, ed.. 1953).

B-416
- 19 -

or hazards. listead, It was *derived from the u;;.: rangse of

concentrations of radium-226 in the earth and is subject to

modification based an lcng-ter= studies of nuclide m.iration

in soil.* AEC manual, Chapter 5l1 atp. 51 (Sept. 1. 1973).

Karr-McCee Is aware of no health-or sa'ety-reason.for maintaining the 10 nCi/qm TRU lImit. The limit may readily be

raised by at least a factor often without posing any serious

health or safety hAzard under the ccnd:ti'res NMC applies to.

Class C iintruder" waste.

NRC's rationale 'or retaIning the limit a: 10 cCn/gm

is three-fold. Sirst, NRC asser-s that past experience has

dicated that the 10 -C'/gm lImit is "achievable." S5. Draft

31S on 10 CX Part- 61 at 7-13. The noticn of "achlevabil'ty"

as used by NRC apparently meats that NRC believes that wastes

can be limited for Low level dlsposal tolO rCi/qm.- Th.e 'act

that 10 =Ci/S is "actlevabe in the sense that some wastes

meet.thae limit does not mesn that the standard. Is defensible

or desirable. 'o the contrary, 10 nCi/gm is neither defensible

nor desIrable. The.bulX of the.TRU was:e in the hands of NRC

liceusees exoeeds 10 CI/qm in-conce:rat::on. :t carnot

realis:ically be reduced in concentratIon. Mo:eover. most of

-uhs waste results from decommissIoning activtites.3' There

are curren:ly no facIlitIes available 'or dIsposal of the T711

" eSee cenerallv Roecwell rnt'l (RoRky Flats), ans. ur s lRU) Waste Management Program: U.S. Departmnt o' Zrerry Acce;ztnce of Conoserclal Transuranlc.wasze (Feb. 1980 (revised)) (descrIbes amount of -.uU waste reld by NRC-licmnsees).

- 20 -

/ aste In uestion. This essentially precludes prompt decormissioning of the NRC-licensed faclitties." This is contrary to

| the public interest in timely deccmaissioninq ard is wasteful

of resources. The 10 nCi/gm standard is therefore not 'ach'evable'

if viewed It the context of the SRU-waste disposal problem.

Second. NRC contends that the 10 rCi/7m -' limit is

warranted by radiatior dose cal:ulations. This contention is

not supported In NRC's rationale. Accorin-, to the Draft EZS,

the 10 mCi/gm limit was supposedly derived on the basis of an

it-r:der/construct'on scenario and an Imtruder/aqrlculrure

scenarIo. Assuming arguendo that intruder hypotheses are

approprIate bases for. ettIng concentration limits,"

neither Intruder scenario envisioned by NRC warrants the 10

tCI/q= limit on :'U waste suggested In proposed I0 C'R Part

5l. Under the in:ruder/constmrutlon scenario, NRC assxmed

that i's:!tuticral eetr:ols would fail one-hundred years after

closure of the reposltory and that a person vould erect a

dwelling aeop the disposal trenches. excavatIng three meters

down from the surface In doIng so. See Zraft M'S on to 10 C17

'art S' at 0-58. Under the ntsrder/agriculture scenario, S'C

I' XeIrr-Kceee est-mate: that it :a3 .OCCO to 30,COC c'ie

feet of '-U waste from decormissieonlg actIvities a_ its

former snall mixed oxide plan: An CimarrCn. Cklahoma. :his

waste exceeds 10 nCi/qn in TRU concentration. No commercIal

facIlIty is available for disposal of this waste. Xerr-M.cee

cannot complete decommIssioning untIl a reposItory is avaIlable

fo:r this :R waste.

" Farr-Mc:oe objects generally to the :se of Intruder

scenarios for setting conomntratlon l!-!:s for the SLm reasons noted 'a 'ar: C above.

B-417
- 21 -

assumed that scme o' tbe soil excavated in the i'truder/construction scenario is scattered about the ground around the house

and that vegetables are grown in iL. See id. at G-61.

Neither of these scenarios would result in any

xposure to TRU waste. Proposed section 61.52(a)(3) requires

D-55 .3 8-that Class C waste (which includes all P.U) be so disposed

'that the zop of the was-e is a minimun of ; meters be.ow

the surface of the cover. (Emphasis added.) Even if three

eters of soil were excavated for a house, tvo meters would of

soil would remain sepaoating the basement slab 'rom the S.U.

Me construction intruder accordingly carnot come into contact

with the n.U. Siml-arly, no ?TRU would be brought to the

surface to _esul' In exposure in the aq:icultu* -a 3 scenario.

:n sum, N= s calculations of intruder exposure to TRU are in

er-or because the agency failed to give credit for five meters

of cove:. "

Te agency's Intruder scenario caiculatlons are

Incorrect for an additional reason. NRC calculated airborne

:a intruder scenarios envisioned by 14MC are in Lay evenr unduly conservative. It Is unreasonable to assume that a

as'-dence will be constructed atop a gover-nmen owned reposItory and that pecple will occ-upy the s te for a s'gnif:ca n: period

of tine. It is also important zo noe 'that NPC cancnot-aler

the intrnder scenarios so that exposure to '=7 waste disposed in accordance with t-h regulations can be realist'cally pro- jected. Under the proposed regulations the repository will be

sited, among other things. so as :o be protected from a 100 year

'!ocd and the waste will be bur'ed. Uncer these circumstances.

the prIncipal seams o' erosion will be sheet erosion. Many

thousaaes of years will be required to ro:de five meters of cover under the applicable universal soil loss equa:ton. Set

ConservatIon Agrnronmy ^ed:ccal Notes, Note No. 291 (June .

:961) (=X!::b:: X).

- 22 -

/adioactive concentration for the Intruder scenarios using

/quation C-11, which can be represented by

\Ts * X/C 3 - (Ts&) 0 (10/V) (5/30) (SO/PE)2

whre

\sa a ratio of airborne concentration to soil

density, dimensionless.

X average airborne concentration, Ci/m3

Cs average soil concentratIon. Ci/m3 .

(Tsa) 0 - reference airborne to colL radioactive

concentration ratio. dimensionless.

a 2.53 X 1010

V = mean wind speed. =/sec.

- 3.61 p/sec.

10 a reference mean wind speed. n/sec.

S * Soil silt content. percent.

a 50

30 - reference-soil silt content, percent.

|Z * u o-rnwaite's precipitation - evaporation index.

dimensionless.

50 - reference PE index. dimensIonless.

Equation C-1; essen3ially states that the aIrborne

radioactive concentration due to wind resuspension is inversely

proportional to the mean wind speed and the square of the

moisture content. Rovever, if this were true, wInd resuspension would increase as t * mean wind speed decreases, which

cannot be.

Wind resuspension source terms have oeen shown by

Ield measurements to be proportional to the cube of the wind

B-418
- 23 -

speed above a threshold value and inversely propor--onal to

the square of the moisture content," or

Q - V3

/?Z2 where

Q = wind resuspenseon source term, Ci/see.

-:e corresperp-nd a*r'_ore radioact've concentration can be

represented by X - Q/V indicating that the greater the wind

speed the aore dilution. Hence, substituting Q - V3 fP.2

into X - QMJ we derive X - V 2 /p2. Zn Sum, the ter: (10/V)

1' Equaticn C-ll should be inverted and then squared. S' .te

term is merely inverted. the value for Tsa becomes 4.60 x 101

instead of the 3.S3 x o 10 calculated by NRC. Tiis would

result In a reduction in ithalation doses by a factor of ,77

.a the intsder scenarios.

- UNCa-rues that most of the economIc gain

from raisIng the 10 =Ci/ga limit would be negated by -easureMeOt ir:blas S n zny instances, measuremen= =ay be expensive%

--wever, Xerr-McCee believes that reasonably economic measureMent techniquas involvin'g alpha-counting xay be devised, at

least forvits T2U waste from decommissioning. Moreover, no

commercial facIlIty is currently available for disposal of RU

wastes contaminated in cxcess of 10 -Ci/cs. NRC should per-

=i. its licensees the option of disposal of at least some of

*a higher concentratIon of :RU by near-surface methods since

P. Bagmold, The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes

(1941): Momeni. et *1., The Uraniun Oisperse'n and 2osizetry

(tOAf) Code (Qtureq/cr-C553) (May 1979).

- 24 -

there are no Alternative repositories available and since there

are no health or safety reasons to retain the current stringent

disposal limit.

In conclusion, NRC's rationale for maintaining the

current 10 -Ci/gm limit for TRU is insufficient. The agency

should raise the 'imit by at least one order of magnitude.

F. The Surety tRequirements Set Torth in the

Proposed Rule Are Beyond NRC's Authority

afd S=mrceer

Proposed 5 61.;2 requires ftnancial surety for =onotorIng and closure requirements. The only surety aucho i'y

*njoyed by NRC, beyond NRC's pover to examiae financial stat-s

in reviewing license applications, is with respec- to uranium

mills. 42 U.S.C. I 2210(x). That authority was specIfIcally

conferred by Congress in section 203 of the VUrnium Mill

Tailings Radiation Control Act (=,=C Act) of 1923. - hat

specific provision would be superfluous if, as NRC now contends, the agency all along possessed general authority :o

require sureties. It Is elementary that a statute should rot

e interpreted so as to render any of its provIsions a nullity.

see; egc UnIted States v. Menasche, 346 U.S. 528, 538-39

(1945); Aoarscor Inc. v. UnIted States, 37: -.2d 332. 537

(Ct. Cl. 1978): Ken net . Schmoll, 482 7.2d 90.94 (lth Ci:.

1972); Tabbor v Ulloa, 323 F.2d 823, 824 (9t%.C:r.. 1963).

NRC's assertIon of authaority to impose a surety requirement

absent express statrtory authority is unlawful .

Proposed 1 61.62 is arbitrary for a wholly di!!erent

reasono it bars the use of self-insurance. N.C's re'tc-t!a

B-419
: .- : . .

- 25 -

S elf-insurance alternatives is also arbitrary and unsupported.

many of the Commission's licensees are large, financially scu-d

corporations, such as public utilitaes and energy companies.

Mese licensees are at least as financially sound and stable

as tho boanding conpanies, insurance companies. and banks which

wouLd be the sources of th'e surety which NRC seeks to require.

St is 3siply an unnecessxry t-e up of working capital and an

unwar:anted subsidy to the banking and insurance Industries to

require ope:ators of nuclear facilities to ;Urchase Surety bc1rds

or insurance from outside organiZatIons. Moreover, there is

no evidence that alternatives to sell-Insurance are avalaoble.

I/d14eetd, Ker-Mtc't has determined that su=sty hcnts are general1;

1 not available for stabilizatIcn of uraniun nII :aili:gs.-

UC a accepts sell-inaurance to fulfill, fancal

protection re:uiraents for cperazors of r.uclea_ reactors and

certain other ruclea: facIlItIes. See 10 CER 5S 140:1..

S40.12 140.1.140.15(b). Other agencies LaXevise endorse

seof-insurance. See, ea.g, 30 CR S aco.5s. SCO.:2, SC6.112(b),

mod'fied. 45 ed. Raeg. 523C6 (Aug. 6. 1S80) (Office of Surface

Mining autheo:rIz- self-bonding for fInal reclamation); 33 Clt

SS 135.203, 205 r 213 (offshore oil); 46 C11I 540.5(0),

S42.8(a)(3), 543.8 & S44.8 (Trar.s-Alask& P;e;:e); 45 C7.

II 1043.5(a) & 1084.7 (motor carriers and freIght for-arders).

" see, c Letter, M. Provost (Surety Ass'n of America)

to Mr. Lingo (err-M4cl;4e) (Lxhibit N).

- 26 -

seso provisions denonstrate the prcpriety and workabilIty of

Sael-insurance Surety nechanisms.

Sell insurance accompanied by a financIal test (

a demonstration of the financial well-being of the licensee an

an annual basis) will satisfy any legitimate health and safety

concerns while at the sane tine costing LIcensees much less.

:he addltior0al expense attandant upon the ': anc~al arrangenents preferred by NRC is not counterbalanced by any benefits.

It is arbl:rary and capricious for tae Agency to re4ect

obviously less burdensome but equally *Sfective controls in

favo cf =ore expensive0: or Onerous ones.' South Terninal Cor.

V. M, 504 '.2d 646. 676 (lst Ci:. 1974). NRC should at the

very least ;r--': Self Insurance accompanied by a fiancial

teat.

;II 1 N 1scel11aneous

1. U-raniun ard alcha-eml-tt e r-ad!:nucdes. -

able limits low-lvel disposal of U-235 (enriched uran U3) to

33

40 rnC/c3 and natural or depleted uraniun to S0 aC/cm 3 .

notes to table 1 ?ropose to restrIct- alpa&-em:z:'tg radioiso-

-opes other tan radium to che va*ues 'or J-235 (40 -C,/c= 3

)

for pUrposes Of low level waste disposal. In the evert: tha

the Iln:t for alpha-emitting transuranlcs is raised to !CO

3CI/lm (or more) for purposes of Class C :atrder daste, the

"-ois for U-235, natural or depleted urarnun. azd alphaemitt:'g radionuclides should be raised to a similar level fox

Class C dtsposal. NRC's basic ratIonale for l1miting dlsposal

B-420
- 27 -

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

flANooo'.? ;W9HESt3! 37401

4 w Chestnut street lowee 1

12 F-K -9 p,, :-.i of uranium and alpha-emitter's is (as a general matter) no more

applicable to these radionuclides than it is to alpha-.mitting

itransuranics.

2. Land disposal other than near surface. The

proposed ?art 61 regulations at several points reserve subsactions for requirements apmllicable to land disposal other than

near-surface. See, e.g.. proposed I 61.51(b). Kerr-McCee

supports the concept of an intermed *ta-level waste facility

permitting land di'sposal of higher-concenzration nRU waste

than is permitted at low-level waste facilities. The Coopany

believes that _RC, -?A and the Departmeni of Energy should

prsrptly finalize plans and requirements for such a facility

and that it should be made available for permanent disposal of

=RU-vasta resulting, among other things, from decoission'ng

activities-. Such a 'ac'l:'ty would fully protect the public

healri and safety end be far more economic that a dsep geologic

reposizory for bigh level wasta."

n . Pr3pcsed I 61.2i(g) refers to a S 31.60. There

g> l ts no 561.'0. --

February 4, 1982

Secretary of the Cammnission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canuisslon ' - Washington, X 20555 RULR___________ : ' 

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch E J":-R

Dear Sir: PR

5he Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is pleased to provide nments on thte

preposed ameniments to 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 51, 61, 70, 73,

and 170 concerning licensing requirements for land dispsal of radioactive

waste as noticed in the JUly 24, 1981 Federal Reqister notice (46 FR 38081-

38105) and comments on 17U-I0782.

We appreciate the ozportunlty to camnt and cur specific ornments are

enclosed.

Very truly yours,

TI;SEC VALLEY Alr=RmTY

L. M. eMills, Ma n Ser

Nuclear Regulation and SafetyEnclosure

cc (Tnclosure)t

Etecutive Secretary

Advisory 0onmittee on Reactor Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission

Washington, X 20555

Mr. br Tipton

A1F, Inc.

7101 Wiaonsin Avenue

Washington, DC 20555

I

*I See Winograd, Radioactive Waste Diszosal In Thick

Urtsaturated Zones. 212 Sc_.ence !.457 (lie!) (Z:.bf 0).

An Equal Capartunity Ernooviytt

B-421
1. Pace 38086, last Dararah in coltnn 1-Tis paragraph would require a licensee disposal facility operator) to provide financial responsibility I for a disposal site even after it has been turned over to a Goverrment

<: _-y agency for long-term institutional care and monitoring. Since the

institutional care period could last as long as 100 years, a licensee's

could be tied up for 100 years. We believe it would be preferable

to have the licensee turn over the site and any required money at the time

that the license is transferred to the Government.

. 10 CFR 61.41, first sentence-We believe the term "general environment'

should be defined aid suggest the definition should be stmilar to the same term in 40 CER Part 190.

10 CdR 61.51(a) (4)-te suggest changing 'prevent' to 'minimize' and, in

C/{-- d 10 CER 61.51(a) (6W, changing "elmAinate" to 'minimize."

10 CrR 61.51(a) (7)-We believe this item should be deleted since many activities usuallv take place at a disposal facility other than disposal D-52-4 of radioactive waste. Saoe facilities are used for transportation equipnoent storage, espty container storage, and a center for radwaste

/ services to ruclear plants. This reLgulaticn could have a significant

(L-pact on present disposal sites and conflicts with 10 CFR 61.ll(c) ( ).

5 10 CFR 61.52(a) (4)-(0) -It appears that these regulations apply to E- I Class A, B, and C waste. However, 10 CFR 61.32(a) (2) says that these

l regulations apply to Class B waste. we believe this should be clarified.

.j10 CFR 61.52(a) (8)-we believe the designation of a minim= distance of

100 feet for the buffer zone does not appear to be necessary. We support

P-$ 52-3 the need for a buffer zone but the distance criteria should be determined

by site specific and other factors of the disposal facility to meet the

performnce objectives of Subpart C of this part.

10 CFR 61.55, Table 1-The limits for sane of. the isotopes in this table are the sane for all three classes of waste. We suggest the regulations 617| should contain statements that any waste containing these isotopes in

concentrations exceeding these limits cannot be disposed of at a near-surface disposal facility.

i. 10 CrR 61.55(b) (2) and 61.56b)- ile.stability requirement of at least

150 years for Class B stable waste appears inconsistent with the

institutional control period of up to 100 years (see paragraph 61.59(b),

page 38097). As discussed in paragraph 61.7(b) (4), page 38091, Class B

b stable waste contains the .. . .types and quantities of radioisotopes that

will decay during the 100-year period to levels that do not pose a danger

to public health and safety." Therefore, for waste in this classificacation, there does not seem to be a need for stability requirements beyond

100 years.

ALso, it is not obvious why the stability requirement for Class C intruder

waste is given as at least 150 years. This waste classification specifies a nmaxtma concentration of radionuclides so that at the end of 500 years,

the remaining radioactivity is at a level that does not pose a danger to

public health and safety (see paragraph 61.7(b) (5), page 38091).

Therefore, for this waste in this classification, the stability

equirwoenzs should be for 500 years.

9. 10 CFR 20.311( (5d)-It appears this regulation requires that 3 copy of

the shipping manifest be sent to the intended recipient (possibly by mail)

at the time of shipment. If shipments are sent by truck it is very likely

that the truck will get to the disposal facility before the advance copy of the manifest. Therefore, this method would not provide a way of

providing prior notification of the intended shipment.

We believe the substance of the information required by this regulation is

already required by the Department of Transportation (D=T). We suggest

the procedure be revised to require only the submittal of copies of the

material sent to DOT. This requirement should be placed in 10 Part CR 61 or 10 CFR Part 71and not 10 CMR Part 20.

10. NURM-0782, Volrme 3, able E.2, Paae E-21 e believe the ccrentration

sncad be in qgmn- rs:ead oO mg/ca. Also the annual ave:age se=nda.ry

standard of 60 Vg/O for sulfur dioxide was revoked in 1973. The current

annual average primary sulfur dioxide standard is 30 yand. Also, this

table includes only four of the seven pollutants for which standards have

been developed. We suggest inclusion of the remaining three-carton

monoxide, ozone, and lead.

B-422
* ;

Texas Department of Hea!t 4

Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P. 1100 West 49th Street eaJ Robert A MacLean, M.D.

Commissioner Austin, Texas787S6 , a Deputy Commissioner

(512) 458-7111 ; , 3 Professional Services

Hernms L Miller

Deputy Commissioner

Mapamement and Administration

COm!!N-S ON PROPOSED 10 CFR PART 61

February 1, 1982

.. 0Jttt

Vi P X.~ R-;,A J

E,3 3 I

(41.2 - Defiritions

The definition of disposal indicates that the waste is isolated from

- I )the biosphere. In sose areas the minimum covering of five teeters of

soil would not be adequate to conpletely isolate the waste from

Lertain plant root systems or burrowing animals.

61.51 - Disposal Site Design for Land Disposal

I5| t is recomsended that preferential consideration be given to a

progressive slope design for burial of radioactive waste. The reason

is to prevent vertical walls which contain fractures, bedding planes

and joints as avenues for exit of liquids.

61.55 - Waste Classification

7Y-•5 - 1 Pr (ore consideration should be given to separation by half life prior

o burial so that the material with shorter half-lives could be

stored for several years and retrtieved rather .than this material

aking up permanent space in a disposal site.

(Part 20 - .anifest System

/- It Is felt that generators shipping to internediate processors should

not have to package and classify the material as Class A, 3, or C.

To package Class B or C waste in packages which will last 150 years seems overly costly and unnecessary for short shipments which are to

be repackaged.

Secretary of the Comission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission

Washington, D.C.. 20555

Attn: Docketing & Service Branch

Dear Sir:

1Ve appreciate the opportunity to cotmenton Proposed CFR Part 61,

Licensing Requirements for land Disposal.of Radioactive Waste

(46 FR 38081). -As an Agreement State radiation control agency,

the development of these rules is important to us since in all

likelihood they will be items of compatibility. It is our

opinion that these rules are essential to the future of the

safe handling and disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

Coments were solicited from our staff and from radioactive material

licensees of our Agency. A list of the major comnenti received is

enclosed.

Yourrtruly, ...

David K. Lacker. Chief

Bureau of Radiation Control

, .:

Enclosure

L~. - -' -. _.

8-423
¢ .- w; w 's

/ Atomic Energy LVenergie Atomique

of Canada Limited du Canada, Limitde

Research Company Socdti de Racharcha

Ch1.11 de Urm-t,*sN.4 F itMEMORANDUM

Chalk River Environmental Authorir F r 'l98i January 21

Dr Paul Lohaus

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conni_

UASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

U.S.A. R'

Dear Paul; C)ER 5 /

As discussed with you by telephone (82/1111). I would like to

make further comments oa the draft regulation 10 CFR 61 as

given in Volume 1 of NUREG-0782.

Section 61.56, section (a) makes it clear that the requirements ) in that section are minimum requirements for all three classes

of eats. Howevcr section (b) does not make it clear that it

only applies to Classes B and C as was the intent of the

regulation. This could be corrected by adding "in Classes B and

C" after "waste" in the third line of 61.56 (b).

Also it appears inconsistent to allow -natural specific activity'

for nacural or depleted uranium matal while only allowing

0.05 uCi/cm for other forms of U such as DO2 , since uranium can

oxidize in room temperature water to form DO2. Also the product

of this reaction, a flocculant uranium oxide powder, has a high

urfacs area and is much more amenable to dispersion than DO2

ellets.

As written, Table I of 10 CFR-61 allows up to 30 kg of D0Oi 3 a

drum but excludes a single D0 pellet under the 0.05 vCi c4

maximum concentration regulation. I understand that the intent

of the regulation was not to exclude quantities of natural U02

and the regulation will be revised.

I understand that the alpha emitting transuranic isotopes or

Pu-241 are allowed under Columns 1 and 2 of Table 1 at the same

level as under Column 3 and that the Table will be rewritten to

show this.

I still don't quits understand the concentration limits stated

in terms of theoretical maximum specific activity (TMSA) which

is defined as the radioactivity of a nuclide Per unit mass of

that nuclide *g; Ci of Co-60 per e of Co-60. The TMSA is

about 1.1 x 10 WSCi/ of Co-60. VOe3 whet volume of waste is

this activity to be averaged, one cm ?

- 2 -

-D A last comment. Section 61.23 (g) refers to 61.60 on the

s/ Llast line There is no section 61.60.

I hope these comments will be of some use to you.

Yours sincereLy,

MAP: sa M.A. Feraday

B-424
k OB

Department of Energy 'I f- JZ t.1 ,I

Washington; D.C. 20545

FEB 1 6 1982

Mr. Samuel Ch1lk

Secretary Nuclear Regulatory CSme issconh

Attentaon: Docketang are d Service CoT Branch ir

Washington, D.C. 20555 ' _ -r Tz ;t .L,/ eo: D UtE__"_______

Dear Mr. Chilk: CS, fR 3gaCs

The Department of Energy (DOE) is pleased to provide comments on the proposed

regulation, 10 CFR 61, published July 24, 1981 (46 FR 38081). We believe that,

with the modifications we propose, the rule will greatly assist the States and

commercial sector in establishing additional low-level waste disposal capacity.

(1e support the pnilosophy of establishing performance objectives for a

I disposal-facility based on public health and safety requirements. However.

the proposed regulation is restrictive In some cases by setting both overall

C- t performance objectives and technical requirements, which could increase the

costs and occupational health impactSiwithout any commensurate benefits In

increased safety. These Items are specifically denoted in our detailed

comments. Primary emphasis should be on the overall performance objectives.

and the Commission should provide applicants with flexibility to propose

specific subsystem performance criteria based on a systems approach which

considers site characteristics, design, and operating practices.

Since we did not have sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate all the

calculations in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). nor to

review the supporting Data Base (NUREG/CR-1759), our comments focus on

the regulation itself.

Our specific comments on the proposed regulation are provided as Enclosure A.

We are also submitting discussion papers on Issues of major concern as

Enclosure B. Our principal concerns are in the following areas which are

discussed further in Enclosures A and B:

(1) Specific nuclide concentration Limits.

The concentration limiti for carbon-14. nfobium-94, and nickel

Isotopes in Table 1 are unreasonably low and could control disposal V-D options. Application of these limits will be burdensome and expensive, and will impose significant economic penalties without

/ commensurate increases in public health or safety. These limits

appear to result from unrealistically conservative scenarios.

Alternative scenarios are proposed (Enclosure B).

(2) Dose limits under the intruder scenarios.

The dose rate limit for the intruder scenarios controls all disposal

limits and exercises inordinate control over potential disposal site

FEB 16 1362 2

options. Tnis limit is overly conservative; a more realistic

assumption for the intruder might be to use criteria similar to

those used by the National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (NCRP) (Enclosure B).

(3) The definition of transuranic waste.-

A transuranic nuclide concentration limit should be established

using pathway analyses as performed for other radionuclides.

/ We are reassessing the 10 nCi/g limit in terms of environmental,

health, and safety considerations and recent EPA and NCRP efforts

(Enclosure A, I.d).

(14) Non-near surface disposal.

A The Commission's approach may require a separate facility for non- - A near surface disposal which may result in institutional impacts ) similar to those associated with a high-level waste disposal / facility. The Department is evaluating other disposal alternatives

for such wastes and believes it is premature to commit to such K facilities (Enclosure 3).

(51 Establishment of de minimus levels.

We encourage the Commission to continue to establish de minimus

/ levels for various waste streams or specific radionuclides which

would be exempt from IOCFR61 (Enclosure A. I.c).

6) Institutional Control.

3t5^_1 - The Department believes that the duration of institutional control

period significantly affects the cost of waste disposal. The

C Commission's basis for limiting institutional control should be

examined (Enclosure A, I.a.

As you know, the Department's management of low level waste is exempt from

this regulation; however, we are aware of the need for this rule in the

commercial area and are ready to assist the Commission's staff. The revised

language which we are submitting should help in preparing the final rule.

Sincerely.

Frklin. C

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Waste Management and FuelCycle Programs Office of Nuclear Energy

Enclosures

B-425
Enclosure A

CONMENTS 01 PROPOSED REGULATION 10 CFR 61

1. General Comments

Institutional Control - The Department believes that the duration

of Institutional control significantly affects the cost of waste

disposal. Disposal of Class B waste would be significantly more expensive than Class A waste. For example, raising the institutional

control period from 100 to 300 years would increase the Class A

limits for Co-60, N1-63, Sr-90, Cs-137. and H-3. The increase of a 29 * Z factor of 100 for Sr-90 and a factor of 44 for Cs-137 are particularly

significant since this would allow larger volumes of mixed fission

product waste to be classified as less expensive Class A waste.

Therefore, the Commission's basis for limiting Institutional control

to 100 years should be reexamined. Such controls have existed in

this country for more than 100 years. Loss of institutional controls

would generate more serious public concerns than those presented by a low-level waste disposal site.

b. Intruder Scenario - The inadvertent intruder scenarios are similar

in many respects to scenarios in Paragraph 259 of NCRP report No. 39 A for accident scenarios in less urgent emergencies in that a limited

C. number of members of the general public may become inadvertently

exposed to radiation. An annual dose connotes chronic exposure and seems unwarranted and inappropriate to use for an Intruder. (For

additional information see the discussion paper in Enclosure B.)

c. De Minimus Levels - Values and/or criteria for wastes and waste

streams which could be exempt from 10 CFR 61 should be defined in

) establishing de minimus levels. We recommend that serious consideration be given to the establishment of de minimus levels for

/ radionuclides such as Z35U. 99Tc, Pu, and Up in consultation with

the Environmental Protection Agency.

Definition of Transuranic Waste - The transuranic nuclide concentration

limit, established should be consistent with health and safety limits

using realistic pathway analyses as performed for other radionuclides

in Table 1. The Department is reassessing the limit it established D 4; 5 3 for its operations in 1970 using environmental, health, and safety consicerations. The Commission should consider recent HCRP and EPA

studies in recommending the establishment of higher transuranic

concentration limits. Waste streams may be processed which would

result in TRU or low-level waste according to the level of alpha

activity, and disposed of accordingly. A concentration limit that is

presently being considered by the Department is 100 nCi/g of alpha

activity from radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 years.

2

e. Quality Assurance - Future regulatory guides should address quality assurance with respect to site characterization, designs, construc-

) tion, tests, measurements, etc. Practical. specific quality assurance

program requirements should be created for land disposal activities.

Requirements for detailed waste data - The proposed waste classification system implies detailed radioisotopic information for all

)-5--- 4 constituents of the waste. Such a requirement would be unnecessary, costly, and could lead to increased occupational exposure. The

Commission's intentions regarding this area should be made clear.

g. Volume Reduction - Some of the radionuclide concentration limits - in Table 1 may Inhibit volume reduction. This could occur when a 2)-Sic, As speci fied radi onuclilde reaches 1its limi t. For exampl e, C-14 coul d

licit reactor waste although it is not the most prevalent or most

hazardous radionuclide. The Commissioners have issued.a policy

statement supporting volume reduction and the regulations should be

consistent.

(h. Land Ownership - The United States Government owns land. Federal 5 - | agencies administer the land. The Commission should be consistent l on this point throughout the regulation.

2. Summary of Rule -

-I fSection G. - The Commission should state whether a safety evaluation

1.-report is to be prepared by staff prior to the issuance of a license.

(Section H. - The summary states 'it would be the Commission's intent that )~ Iall future disposal would be expected to comply with the provisions of

Part 61. The NRC should recognize that in Agreement States regulations

must be promulgated by state authorities.

(The summary should acknowledge that future regulatory guides will address tD I )~the Commission's thinking in certain areas, e.g., site suitability,

Section 61.1 (1) - This section states . . .the regulations in this part 2 apply toall persons in the United States.' An additional clause should - 1 Dbe added to this sentence to read . . .States where the Commission

retains authority.-

(. Section 61.2 - The term 'custodial agency' must be defined as It is

used in Sections 61.59 and 61.62.

5. Section 61.2 - To differentiate between intruder barrier and engineered barrier, FEngineered barrier' should be defined as 'a man-made structure

or device intended for the purpose of confining the waste and limiting the migration of the waste components or to protect an inadvertent

Intruder from direct exposure to the waste.' Li Section 61.6 - The title should be changed to read Specific Exemptions.'

B-426
. t"'. -*

3

Sect10n !.b(2) - In view of our comments on Table 1, the Commission

shou d indicate which ramionuclides could serve in establishing the

maximum disposal site inventory.

S Section 61.7 lc)3) - We question the basis for applying the 5 year post- closure observat on period foir all cases.-. We suggest that In some cases a shorter period may be justified, for example, if a facility 6-7 has operated for 30 years without major problems. On the other hand, a longer period may be justified when facilities have operated for shorter

periods or have extenuating circumstances.

. Secton 6I.71b)4) - Delete line I and replace with 'an unacceptable dto an ntruder or to'.

S10. ection 61.7(b)(5) - Line 17.' insert after 'pose', 'an unacceptable

Hazard to an intruder or' and delete 'a danger'.

e1. 231) at - This section states that the applicant should be

qualifTijTed y ason of training and exrerience. This might tend to rule I out new companes and would lead to po les by present companies. It

is suggested that 'and'-be replaced with 'or'.

{i2. Section 61.23(g) - There Is no Section 61.60 as stated in this section.

i Section 61.24 I:- It is suggested that the phrase 'or thereafter'

be de eted. lhanges after the issuing of a license should be limited

tFD-( to those needed to protect health end safety or should be negotiated with

_ the li1censee.

Se4. ct0on 61.27(d) - This secti1n discusses license renewal although no B-5 prior section discusseslicense duration. The Commission should indicate

the amount of time for which a 11cense is issued.

S. Section 61.31 - The Commission should specify more clearly in the regu- ) latrion the custodial agency license conditions. We assume that the

license Conditions will change as a result of the license transfer from

the operational phase to the custodial phase.

6. Section 61.41 -The basis for the drinking water 11mits should be provided.

7. Section 61.5O(a)(2) - It is not clear what constitutes a capability

- such as 'the site shall be located in areas where hydrogeologic conditions

allow reliable, technically conservative performance evaluations through

characterization modeling, analyses, and monitoring. That is,, the site

must be able to be described using basic model assumptions, and the input

parameters required for a model simulation must be measurable, attainable, _ and distributed in a definable manner.-

4

ia. Section 61.50(a)(5) - This paragraph requires the disposal site to

be generally well drained.' This is difficult to quantify and is

adequately covered by the remainder of the sentence. Delete 'generally 0-510 -.3 well drained and ... ' 'Coastal high-hazard area or wetland' needs to be

defined. The Commission should establish procedures for an applicant to . propose mitigation measures which would allow .for exemptions to specific

technical requirements.

19. Section 61.50(al(6) - The term 'upstream drainage area' needs to be

explained.

20. Section 61.50(a)(7) - Sufficient depth to the water-table should be more specifically defined as that depth completely above (or below) the

transection zone between the saturated and unsaturated zones. The

transection zone is the zone over which the water table and the capillary -D -90 - fringe cap fluctuate.

We believe that the Intent of this requirement is that the water table

shall not cyclically rise Into and fall beneath the buried waste.

Burial beneath the water table could be satisfactory, If diffusion is

the controlling rate (as stated in this paragraph), if the travel time

is very slow, if the performance objectives can still be met, and if

the water table never drops below the buried waste.

21. Section 6I.5O(a)(9)C - It would be sufficient to say that active seismic

fauluts or volcanic sites are considered unsuitable. Tectonic processes such as faulting or folding occur on a time scale so much longer than the D disposal site lifetime to make this paragraph meaningless. Seismic

effects would have trivial impact; volcanic activity would have such

overriding direct impacts as to make any effect on the disposal site

inconsequential.

22. Section 61.51(a)(1I - The term 'long-term isolation'-needs to be clarified.

) j Ad5ding 'after site active operations cease' at the end of the statement

would help.

23. Section 61.51(a)(6) - This section establishes technical requirements

which are impossin1e to meet and demonstrate because all soils contain some moisture. Oir understanding is that the objective of this section

is to minimize contact between water and waste. The following paragraph D is a suggested replacement:

6E.J- ' 'The disposal site must be designed so that storage areas for waste are well drained and protected from the weather. Disposal areas should be designed to minimize the contact time between percolating water and waste and to eliminate standing water contact with the

waste."

Section 61.52(a)(1) - This paragraph states that Class A wastes 'must

be segregated from other wastes Dy placing them in disposal units which

\ are sufficiently separated from other units so that there is no interaction

B-427
S

Detween them." It is not clear what kinds of interactions (e.g. chemical,

physical) are to be avoided.

(25. Section 61.5Z(a)(4) - It is not clear whether paragraphs (a)(4) through

L3 1 10) of this section apply only to Class B stable waste, as stated in

61.52(a)(2). or also to other classes of waste.

(26. Section 61.52(a)(4) and (5) - It is not clear why these technical

requirements, which would Increase disposal costs, are needed if the

overall performance objectives established elsewhere in the regulation

were ret- .

27. Section 61.52(a)(6) - The phrase 'a few percent' is vague. The level

of qamma Fa41atIin at the surface of a trench cover should be specific.

'Within a few percent' should be replaced with 'no more than 10 percent,

if measuring within 10 percent is feasible. An alternative approach would

b be to use survey meters in order to take corrective action following

( trench covering should the surface radiation limit exceed 1 mrem/hr, as

this has been an operating practice used by the Department.

. Section 61.52(a - No additional site closure requirements that

D-tI -z 1 would reduce the likelihood of inadvertent intrusion are discussed.

Such requirements should be added. One example is requiring that

permanent monuments be provided for the site.

9. Section 61.54 - It is our understanding that this section allows applicant

to propose site specific requirements for waste segregation and disposal

and facility oesign and operation. We strongly support this flexibility

and recommend that the Commission stress this feature of the regulation

in the future.

.30. Section 61.55. Table 1 - This table gives specific radionuclide concentration limits for three proposed classes of waste. This table could

imply that all radionuclide concentrations have to be quantitatively

measured in order to classify the waste. It would be costly, by as much

as a factor of two or three, and impractical to quantitatively measure

the concentration of each radionuclide in each waste container. Many

wastes contain a large number of radionuclices, but only a few would be

significant in determining the potential hazard and, therefore, the

category of the waste. The regulations should specifically state that

radionuclide concentrations can be estimateo by using techniques such

as: consideration of external radiation levels, ratios of known radionuclide concentrations, or the source of the waste.

31. /Section 61.55. Table 1 - A footnote states that wastes containing

J cheating agents in concentrations greater than 0.1 percent by volume

D_5-24-) cannot be buried without specific Commission approval. Strong decontamiI nation solutions used in the nuclear industry can exceed this limit.

w_ Wastes containing chelating agents which are solidified with cement or

6

other acceptable media should be accepted without limit, other than

m-5) radionuclice concentration, at disposal site. As a minimum, low activity Class A wastes should not have this restriction since the limits for

Class A wastes are based on the intruder scenario and not on groundwater

mi~gration.

32. Section 61.55. Table I - Footnote 3 does not refer to an waste class,

but only Class C intruder wastes. For clarity it shoulread: 'Maximum

1. allowable concentration for near surface disposal.'

Section 61.55. Table I - The concentration limits for all radionuclides

except transuranic nuclides are expressed in terms of microcurtes per

cubic centimeter, and averaging over the volume of the package is specifically permitted. The limit for transuranic nuclides is in terms of

nanocuries per gram, but the-regulations co not say whether this can be

averaged over the weight of the package. . Averaging over the weight of

the package should be permitted.

34Stion 6.5. Table 1 - As presently written, the maximum concentration

permitted for krypton-85 in a Class B waste would be that of Cs-137,

44 Cl/m3, or 440 Ci/n 3 if contained in metal. This eliminates disposal

of ismnobilized krypton-85 in dry wells. Disposal of krypton-65 immobili'D ized by zeolite encapsulation or ion implantation into a metal may be

the most effective means of management. The rules should be written so

as not to eliminate this mode of disposal. This may be done by categorizing the maximum specific activity (for 7: krypton-BS in stable krypton)

as a Class B waste (Column 2 in Table 1). Since for the waste forms

under consideration, the maximum concentration in the closed container

would De less than 5 x 106 Ci1i3, the specified contained.concentration

should be increased to 5 x 100 CI/0 3 .

{35. Section 61.55 - This section establishes three categories of waste

suitable for near surface disposal. Class A is the lowest radioactivity

concentration category. Class B is an intermediate category with

stricter packaging criteria to ensure that the package retains its shape.

Class C waste is the highest concentration waste allowed and requires

special measures for protection against future Inadvertent Intrusion in

the future. Waste exceeding Class C limits is not acceptable for near

surface disposal. Based upon NUREG/CR-0130, non-fuel activated components inside the reactor vessels of commercial plants would also exceed

the limits for NI-59, N1-63, and C-14. This restriction was apparently

not intended since it states on page 61.7 of the preamble that light

water reactor non-fuel activated components were expected to fall into

the intermediate Class B category. Since major corrosion of these

materials would be required to release the radioactivity, it is reconmended that such materials be accepted with a minimum increase of a

factor of 1000 in the limit on nickel concentration. (For additional

information see the discussion paper in Enclosure B.)

B-428
7

36. Section 61.55(d) - The term 'near surface disposal' Is used and therefore

implies a non-near surface disposal concept may be suitable for certain

wastes. There is a need to define the non-near surface concept.

7 Section 61.55(d).- It would be technically more correct to have this

sentence read: -aste that has a radioisotope concentration that exceeds

the numerical values shown in-Column 3, Table I ... " It Is implicit,

* by definition, that the concentration of H-3, C-14, and Co-60 cannot

be in excess of their respective theoretical specific activities.

38. Section 61.55(d) - This paragraph and the limits in Table 1 would

prohibit the disposal of waste such as uranium tetrafluoride (UFP) even

though the disposal of natural or depleted uranium metal Is permitted by

a Table.1 footnote. In Table-I, Column 3, the ridioactivity limit for 1v 1 natural *or depleted uranium waste Is 0.05 uCi/cm . UFs has properties

similar-to uranium metal and its radioactivity disposd limit should be

increased. Otherwise-packages or drums of UF may not be placed in the

facility unless the Commission gave specific Ipproval. In the preamble,

UF process waste Is listed as Class A. Segregated Waste. UF4 is

considered as a UF6 process waste.

jib. Section 61.56(a) - The health and safety statement should be more kS | specific by referring to the general- public and/or the personnel at

the disposal site to clarify the intent of the protective measures.

Section 61.56(a)II) - The requirement should only apply to receipt

of waste at the site,, not to actual disposal. Shipping containers

*_ are frequently designed for reuse and can be costly. The regulation

should not require the disposal of costly reusable shipping containers.

F Further, the regulations provide no credit for the container in terms of

waste containment. It Is suggested that 'The waste ... " be replaced wit)

.All waste accepted at the site."

Section 61.56(all2) - This section precludes the use of cardboard and

I fiberboard boxes presumably to protect the operational staff at the

regulations and are being used by Department facilities without difficulty. We recommend deleting this section as It is an undesirable and

/ unnecessary generic restriction. Individual sites may still choose not

to accept such containers..

2. Section 61.56(bl(1l) - Wastes falling into the intermediate category are

r required to retain structural stability i n the grod under a compressive

load of 50 psi In order to mitigate the burial trench subsidence. Since

large component packages would only be placed in a single layer in a

XV~ I trench, the weight on top of these packages would be due to the earth

covering the package. Therefore, for large packages, the 50 psi compression requirement Is unnecessary. It is recommended that the

compressive load requirement be related to- the depth from the earth's

surface to the top of the waste and to the covering material rather than

specifying a single value for all cases.

B

Section 61.56 states that 150 years of structural stability is required. £D- The Commission should clarify what structural stability pertains to; the

/ disposal site, the waste package, or the waste form. The Department

1suggests that waste form rather than waste package should pertain to the

< structural requirement. The 5 percent tolerance on physical dimension of

I waste packages will cause expensive high integrity containers to be used.

Experience has shown that most drums are only filled to about 80 percent

kof their theoretical volume rather than the 9S percent required.

A4.

D-s1--1

J3--9-3[45.

(47.

F-l (

t48.

G - I t

rl-o.

Section 61.56(b113) - This section states that "void spaces within the

waste and between the waste and its package must be reduced to the

extent practicable." This requirement is vague and should not be needed

If the stability requirements of Section 61.56 are met. If interpreted

literally, this regulation would require that voids In packages containing

large activated components be filled in. Such an operation would increase

worker radiation exposure and increase the package weight. -Increased

weight could have a significant impact on the ability to ship and handle

these packages. It is our understanding that it is the Commission's

intent that this section would require operators to compact the soil

covering of waste. We believe that this is adequately treated In the

definition of stability and should be deleted.

Section 61.57 - There should be clarification on the responsibility for

sorting and lebeling of waste packages. This would assist In establishing

compliance with transport requirements, Title 49 and 10 CFR 71, and in

classifying the waste on site. Presumably, the shipper is responsible

for labeling the package. Since extensive labeling Is required for

transportation purposes, these sets of requirements should be compatible.

Section 61.59(a) - Does this paragraph rule out tribally-owned lands?

This question should be clarified.

Section 61.62(a) - Replace the word 'eliminated" with *minimized-.

Elimination' of ongoing active maintenance may be the goal but It

probably will not be met. This fact is recognized in 61.63(a) by the

words "any required maintenance".

Section 61.70 - It is unclear what the role of an Agreement State would

be in the licensing and regulation of land burial of radioactive wastes

as opposed tr a non-Agreement State. Our impression is that this section

applies only tn non-Agreement States.

Section 61.71 - It Is recommended that the word 'may' be replaced by

'stil . This function should be an obligation of the Director.

Section 61.80(b) - To whom the records will be transferred should be

specified.

Section 61.80D( I- Delete the words 'if any". Licensees should be

Ncqurred to furnish an annual financial report.

\1

B-429
ED- I

10

ED- l 9

Editorial Comments

1. The Envirowmental Impact Statement indicates the-Department of Energy (Department) is responsible for disposal of all Federal government low-level waste. At present, only the Department waste and classified.

defense-related waste is accepted at the Department's facilities.

2. 61.1(b) For consistency, either delete the paragraph reference

for Part 40, or add paragraph references for Parts 60

and 20.

3. 61.2 Definitions

'Active Maintenance' by current understanding is improperly defined - what Is actually defined is Remedial Action. That

wfich is excluded is active maintenance.

'Active Maintenance' 15th line typo 'revegetation'.

'Near Surface Disposal' add 'a' after means and delete 'in

or'

16. 61.52(a)(4)

17. 61.53(d)

18. 61.55

19. 61.55(b)(1)

20. 61.55Cc)(11

21. 61.56(b)(1)

22. 61.72(a)

23. 61.72(c)(5)

24. 61.80(d)

Add 'operations' after 'disposal"

3rd line - typo 'indicate'

1st line - insert "Low-level" before 'radioactive'

3rd line - Insert after Column I 'but does not exceed

the values shown in Column 2; and,'

2nd line - insert after Column 2 'but does not exceed

the values shown in Column 3;..."

9th line - delete one 'as'

7th line - insert 'by' after 'affected'

Delete 'be' after 'should'

Replace 'takes' with 'shall take'

4.

5.

6.

7.

S.

9.

61.4

61.4

61.7

61.7(b) (3)

61.7(b)(4)

61.7(b)(5)

4th line - change 'should' to 'shall'

4th line from end - change 'at' to 'to'

2nd line - delete word 'intended'

10th line - add 'disposal operations cease,'

1st line - add an 'a' after 'for" and make 'period' singular

Next to the last line - delete "recognizable'. There is no reason to believe an intruder would recognize the problem regardless of form.

4th line - change 'agency' to 'government' and change 'that' to 'whichever'. Delete next sentence. No Federal

agency can own land.

2nd line - change 'use' to 'handle'

1st line - change 'its' to 'the'

4th line - Insert 'are met' after section

2nd line - put commas before and after 'under oath'

Change 'must' to 'should'

10. 61.7(c)(4)

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

61.10(a)

61.22(o)

61.23(g)

61.24(b)

bl.50(a)H4)

B-430
1* s6-. 

Enclosure B 2

D6SE LIMITS UNDER THE INTRUDER SCENARIO Based on the above, an inadvertent intruder Should be allowed a higher

radiation dose than the exposure limits applicable to routine operations.

Subject -

Dose criteria for Intruder scenarios.

Department of Energy Position

The design objectives for disposal sites are appropriately and properly

expressed as dose criteria. However, the intruder dose limit should be

similar to limits used for accidents.- i.e., single event exposures to a limited segment of the public.

Discussion -- .. *

The Department takes issue with the NRC's assertion that a 500 mrem/yr intruder limit does not significantly increase costs compared to a higher

limit. Nearly all of the radionuclide concentration limits in Table I are set by the intruder scenario. Significant volumes of waste, particularly large metallic components from decomissioning of reactor plants, would -

exceed the Class C limits. . Disposing of this waste by any means other than

shallow land burial would greatly increase costs. Also, the intruder dose

limit affects the limits for Class A wastes. Since Class B and C wastes are much more expensive to dispose-of- increasing Class A limits would reduce

costs. Therefore, setting an unnecessarily low intruder dose limit does

significantly affect waste disposal costs.

Section 61.42 proposes a whole body annual dose of 500 mr for the inadvertent

intruder and the waste classification limits of 61.55 are controlled by the

doses received from this scenario.- The limit in 10 CFR 20 is based on potential

release pathways and not from intrusion Into the waste. Based on release

pathways, an individual exposure limit of SOD mr/year is reasonable and

achievable, in the context of the intent of Part 20. i.e., normal operations.

We believe that human intrusion is a credible event and should be carefully

evaluated, but to a separate criterion.

A person who inadvertently intrudes into the waste and who has bypassed

warning markers is subject to the maximum radiation level potential available

.at that site. In the context of this application, human intrusion is not a

normal routine exposure scenario and warrants separate treatment similar to an accident situation or an unplanned release. In NCRP Report, No. 39. 'Basic

Radiation Protection Criteria' Paragraph 259, the limit on accidental exposures

in less urgent emergencies is 25 Rem. As we have previously indicated in

10 CFR 60, we believe that warning markers can be developed which will reduce

the probability of intrusion. Additionally, we are not convinced that discounting institutional controls after 100 years is a proper approach. We

continue to believe that sufficient institutional memory will survive most

probable events to reduce the probability of intrusion.

B-431
.1 .#wA;

3

NON-NEAR SURFACE DISPOSAL A -

Subject

The need and desirability of requiring non-near surface disposal of some low-level wastes.

Department of Energy Position

An implication in 10 CFR 61 is that similar regulations governing the use of non-near surface facilities for the disposal of low-level waste will be

issued. The Department does not consider that a need for such facilities

has been established. Our recommendation is that the Commission only specify design objectives at this time. Design and analytical guidance may also be

needed.

Discussion

As a result of the waste classification system development by the Commission

(draft 10 CFR 61). quantities of low-level radioactive waste may be unacceptable in near surface disposal facilities and may require greater confinement

in, presumably, non-near surface disposal facilities. Requiring non-near surfacerdisposal will result in a variety of impacts, beyond those of

low-level waste, including social, political. economic, and transportation

impacts.

Several social, political, and economic impacts could arise if non-near surface disposal were to be required:

1. The volumes of waste, estimated to be up to 50,000 ft 3 /year, could

only justify one such expensive facility nationally. The institutional

-and political questions associated with establishing such a facility

could be similar to those associated with a high-level waste disposal

facility. Such a situation is not particularly attractive.

2. The 0epartment is presently evaluating the need for non-near surface

disposal facilities and the technology required for such a facility.

Several alternatives exist for non-near surface disposal facilities and

other methods for achieving greater isolation than afforded by normal near surface disposal, including providing longer lasting packages or engineered barriers. Focusing on non-near surface disposal now may

prematurely foreclose other options.

3. Reprocessing of spent fuel may become more prevalent. This could create a new coemercial waste stream beyond Class C wastes requiring greater

isolation than near surface disposal, however, since the NRC has not

considered reprocessing in this rule it appears premature for the

Commission to establish a requirement for non-near surface disposal

facilities.

4

SPECIFIC NUCLIDE CONCENTRATION LIMITS

Subject

The radionuclide concentration limits established in 10 CFR 61.

Denartment of Energy Position

Some of the values in the regulation seem unduly conservative, some of the

nuclides seem unnecessary and inappropriate, and sufficient Information is not

provided for some nuclides. It is recommended that only those nuclides for

which there is a demonstrated hazard protection need and for which sufficient

information exists be included in the regulation, The Department recommends

that the limit for carbon-14 be raised by a factor of 8. for the nickel

isotopes, a factor of at least thousand, and for niobium a factor of IZ.

Discussion

While it has not been possible to thoroughly review the Environmental Impact

Statement (NUREG 0782) or the Data Base (NUREG/CR-1759). it appears that the

NRC has used overly conservative assumptions in calculating the concentration

lirits. Our preliminary review-of the calculation of the Commission for C,

nickel and niobium isotopes, and the analysis is included in this paper. We

agree that the methods used by the NRC provide conservative bounds, but using a series of conservative assumptions greatly compounds the conservatism and

may lead to the Imposition of unrealistic limits.

Carbon-14 Discussion

Three principal pathways of movement of 14C into vegetation should be

considered:

A. Direct uptake of lower molecular weight 14C species by root systems

which have penetrated the burial zone.

S. Uptake of 1

4 CO2 as bicarbonate following dissolution of microbiallyreleased CO2 by plant foliage following diffusion from decomposing

wastes.

C. Photosynthetic uptake of 14C2 by plant foliage following diffusion

from decomposing wastes.

The rate of release and relative importance of each pathway will depend on

type and depth of buried wastes; adequacy of isolation of buried zone from

wetting by soil water and upward mass movement, total amount and specific

activity of organic wastes, permeability of the soil, base organic content

of soil, soil pH. and vegetation type.

B-432
5

Since most carbon in plants Is absorbed from the air, we consider pathway C in

lieu of pathway A as used by the Commission to be the main pathway under most

conditions. The rate of transfer to vegetation can be roughly estimated as

follows:

1. Calculate rate of decomposition - An approximate turnover time of

1000 years for decomposition of the approximate 4000g/m1 of organic

carbon in an eastern forest soil is a-reasonable start.

2. Using the release rate and diffusivity of CO in soli calculate the

partial pressure of CO in soil and the transfer of 4CO to air

from soil. 2

3. Caljlate 1c uptake from soil solution by plants using concentration

of CO in soil water and rates of. transpiration of water by plant

leaves ?any physiology text). This uptake w1ll depend on soil temperature, Henry's constant, partial pressure of CO in soil air.

solubility of CO In water, and transpiration ratil in liters of

H 0/mr For these calculations assume that this CO would be

fixed photosynthetically in plant leaves. 2

4. Calculate photosynthetic uptake from air based on diffus12n of 14CO

fsom the soil surface, and content of 640 micrograms of C0 per m of air,1 1n exchange rate of 11 olume per minute, and propgrtioned

uptake of CO2 with respect to CO2 from this air.

Using such a procedure should yield an Increase of greiter than a factor of 8

in the carbon-14 concentration limit.

Nickel Isotope Discussion

As a consequence of Table 1, two land disposal waste classifications (A segregated and unacceptable) pertain to Ni-59; and three classifications (A segregated, B stable, and unacceptable) pertain to Ni-63. The tabulated waste

concentrations, in uCi/cm , may be increased by a factor of ten for isotopes

contained 3n metals and may be averaged over the package volume (i.e..

200,000 cm for a 55 gallon drum). The tabulated nickel concentrations in

subpart 0 of 10 CFR 61 which categorize the radioactive wastes are 2.2 pCi/cm3

(Ni-S9) and 3.5 70pCi/cm (NI-63).

The low-level wastes anticipated for disposal during the time period 1980 to

2000 were divided into four general groups based upon comnon characteristics

(see Table 3.1 in NUREG 0782). These groups are: (1) light-water reactor

process wastes, (2) trash, (3) low specific activity wastes, and (4) wastes.

having unique special characteristics. By combining the isotopic concentrations

(see Table 3.3 in NUREG 0782) and total projected waste volumes (see Table 3.4

in !IUREG 0782), the accumulated radioactivity for land disposal will be 6,300

and 830,000 Ci for Ni-59 and NI-63, respectively. It should be noted that

92.0 percent of the Ni-59 activity and 96.6 percent of the Ni-63 activity are

6

projected for the group 4 waste category which comprises only 1.6 percent of

the total low-level waste volume. Despite-the high nickel concentrations in

group 4, all of the projected waste streams of Ni-59 would be classified as

class A segregated, and only the four Ni-63 waste streams in group 4 would be

restricted to a class 8 stable classification. it should be noted that the

two streams designated as LWR nonfuel reactor components and sealed sources would require the factor of ten increase In N1-63 concentration permitted for

metals to qualify for near surface disposal. Even with recycled uraniui

fuels, nickel isotopes are not a problem In gaseous diffusion cascades.

Although the projected nickel isotope waste streams are acceptable for land

burial as defined by the concentrations in Table 1, certain nuclear reactor

hardware may be classified as unacjeptable. The BWR end fittings, which

contain inconel expansion springs, may contain up to S0 and 7,0005uCi/cm

of Ni-59 and N1-63, respectively, after a burnup of 27,500 MWd/MT. 3These

values, which exceed the maximum concentrations of 22 and 700,yCi/cm in

Table 1, would not permit near-surface disposal of the 8WR end fittings.

Due to the corrosion resistance of the activated metal hardware, the BwR

in Subpart C (see 61.58 In 10 CFR 61). To evaluate this possible alternative,

the respective nickel isotope concentrations in the BWR end fIttings are about

100 and 15 ppm (by weight) for N1-59 and 111-63.

A reasonable pathway analysis can be performed by starting with Reference Man. 6

The nickel content of the body is 10.0 mg with 5.3 mg distributed in the soft

tissues (60,000 9) and 5.0 mg distributed in the skeleton (10,000 9). A daily

nickel intake in food and fluids amounts to 0.4 mg/d, and only 0.6 ug of nickel

enters the body daily by inhalation. About 98.5 percent of the nickel entering

the body either goes directly to excretion or is retained with a biological

half-life ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 days. The remaining nickel entering the

Dody, 0.006 mg/d. is assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout all organs

and tissues and retained with a biological half-life of 1200 days. This halflife is compatible with the fractional absorption, daily intake, and total

mody content of nickel (10.0 mg) given for Reference Man.

With the given information, the quantities of Ni-59 and N1-63 can be calculated

which will give an annual dose of 25 millirems to the whole body (see 61.41 in

10 CFR 61). A 25 millirem annual dose to a 10,000g skeleton containing 5 mg

of nickel will require isotopic concentrations of either 5,000 ppm of N1-59 or 2.8 ppm of N1-63. It should be noted that the same annual whole body dose to

60,000 g of soft tissue (5.3 mg nickel) would require higher isotopic nickel

concentrations. Comparing these isotopic concentrations with the BWR end

fittings indicates that the potential for an overexposure due to nickel

activity Is difficult to conceive. 'Since naturally occurring nickel is

widely distributed in the earth's crust with an estimated average content

of 0.019 percent, the radioactive nickel Isotope concentrations will be

diluted as migration proceeds from the burial site. Even without isotopic

dilution, the N1-63 concentration of 120 ppm would only require a decay period

of 540 years to reach the 2.8 ppm level. - - I

.lt

8-433
7

An intruder may receive 500 mrem/year thus Increasing exposure by a factor

of 20. This results in concentrations of N1-63 of about 100 ppm for class A

waste and 2500 ppm for class B and C wastes.

If all of the nickel in an intruder's body was derived from the waste, the U1-59

and N1-63 concentration limits resulting in an exposure of 500 Mr/year could

be set as follows:

Waste Class Weight percent

A

10

0.012

Ni-isotope/Total Ni

B C

10 10

0.25 0.25

U1N-59

H14-63

Since inhalation of Nb-94 was found to be more liniting than direct exposure

in the DEIS (NUREG 0782), it is useful to consider how much metal would have

to be inhaled by an Intruder to receive a dose of 5 rem to the lungs. Assuming

the niobium corrosion products are still a trace part of the steel corrosion

products, the intruder would have to inhale the corrosion products of 1073

grams of steel with a specific Nb-94 concentration of 985 ppm. It is difficult

to postulate a realistic scenario where this amount of rust could be inhaled.

To further put the hazard frou small amounts of Nb-94 in stainless steels In

perspective.one should consider the nonradiological hazards of this material.

Stainless steels contain abut 10 percent by weight of nickel. Nonradicactive

nickel is known to have a severe acute systemic toxicity when inhaled and severe chronic systemic toxicity when either inhaled or Ingested. Thus.

nickel metal and insoluble compounds have beenyssigned a threshold limit

value of I mg/a In the workplace environment. -

Thus, one can compare the radiological and nonradiological hazard of breathing

rust from activated stainless steel with 985 ppm Nb-94. If an Intruder were breathing air w th a Nb-94 concentration at the derived air concentration - limit of 33 x IO- Bq/mr the nickel concentration in the air would be about

270 mg/a . The nonradiological hazard is far more limiting. Thus, since

disposal of nonradioactive stainless steel is not generally considered to be

hazardous, it seems seasonable to increase the limit for Nb-94 to 985 ppm

Nb-94 or 0.24 uCi/cm .

For decommissioning metallic wastes, core barrels, and reactor vessels, this would seem to be a preferred way to express the limits in Table 1.

Nioolum Discussion

If the Department's recommendations on carbon-14 and nickel isotopes are adopted. niooium-94 would become the limiting isotope for son-fuel activated

reactor components. The proposed NRC limit of 0.02 uCi/cm for hb-94 in

metal would oe exceeded by many components. in a study by Battelle, the

average ND-94 concentration in the s agnless steel core barrel of a reference

PaR was calculateo to be 0.17 uCi/cm . Thus, this metal would be

unacceptable for burial unless it could be diluted by a factor of nine. The

actual concentration of.Wb-94 in activated steel is not known since the ND-94

is masked by the much-larger initial concentrations of other isotopes. It is

calculated by assuming a conservatively high concentration of target Nb-93

atoms in the steel.

One way to assess the hazard to a potential intrucer from the No-94 in waste

is to assume that all of the niobium in the intruder's body comes from the

waste. As in the case of the nickel isotopes, this is a conservative assumptin since niobium is not concentrated by the body. Niobium is present in

many common foodstuffs and the daily intake of 620 ugm is balanced by an excretion rate of 62ap.Jgm per day. 110 mg of niobium is present in the soft

tissue of the body.

What would the dose to the Intruder be if the nicbium in his body came from

the core barrel in the Battelle stuoyl For stainless steel with a niobium

content of O.I6 weight percent and 0.17 uCi/cm of ND-94, the specific isotopic concentration of Nb-94 is 678 ppm (mg Nb-94 per Kg nioblum). The

limiting organs for a Iotal body source of ND-94 are the small and lower

large Intestine walls. The dose to these organs if the intruder's 110 mg of niobium contained 678 ppm Nb-94 would be 3.4 rem. If S rem per year were the limit to the intrlder, then the appropriate Nb-94 limit would be about

985 pm or 0.24 ,uCi/cm .

B-434
9

REFERENCES

1. 0. E. Reichle, Dynamic Properties of Forest Ecosystems, Cambridge Press

University, International Biological Program- Vol. 23, 1981.

2. V. Stubm and J. J. Morgan, Aquatic Chemistry, Wiley Interscience, 1981.

3. Personal communication S. D. Clinton, Chemical Technology Division,

Oak Rige National Laboratory, with E. J. Barber, Enrichment Operations,

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, on December 11, 1981.

4. A. G. Croff, et. al., Revised Uranium utonUm Cycle PWR and SWR

Models for the ORIGEN Computer Code, ORNL/TM 6051, 1978.

5. Personal comnunication S. 0. Clinton, ORNL, with C. W. Alexander,

Chem-Technology Division, ORNI. on December 2. 1981.

6. W. S.. Snyder, et. al., Report of the Task Group on Reference Man

Pergamon Press, New York, 1975.

7. Personal communication S. 0. Clinton with M. R. Ford, Health and Safety

Research Division, ORNL, on December 8, 1981, concerning data proposed for publication in ICRP 30.

8. C. 0. Smith, Notes on Reactor Materials Engineering for CRSORT Students

Part 3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1958, p. 733.

9. NUREG/CR-013D, 'Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station' by R. 1. Smith.

G. J. Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr.; June 1978.

10. ICRP Publication 23, 'Task Group Report on Reference Man,' Pergamon

Press, Oxford, 1975,

11. ICRP Publication 30D 'Limits for Intakes of Radlonuclides by Workers',

Supplement to Part 1, 1979.

12. N. Irving Sax, 'Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials', Fourth

Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1975.

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Ft- 93

I77. -. :

Mr. G. V. Roles [ . - (*t

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comxmission e . > -lER

Mall Stop SS-697 ]T4 - tR

Washington, 0. C. ZOSSS 1.I

Mr. Roles:

Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter from Catherine Qufgg con- taining her comments on the proposed rule 10 CFR 61, in which Ms. Quigg quotes

her understanding of statements made by me to her in a telephone discussion

she stated was held on August 4, 1980. Some of the quotations attributed

to me differ significantly with viewsI held then (and hold now). I therefore

called Ms. Quigg on February 25. 1982, but we were unsuccessful in determining why her account of our discussion differs from mine.

In any case, I would wish to ititatmy personal views oa nuclear waste

management directly to the NRC rather than to have them interpreted by a third

party. Therefore, please note the following corrections in the quotations

Ms. QUi q attributes to me in her letter containing comments to the NRC on

C - . . II:

Page 2. Last sentence

Contrary to the alleged quotation, I do not necessarily believe that

TRU 'waste should be treated.the sane as high-level waste', Wastes. can contain TRU concentrations above the present 10 nCi/g limit and

yet not present any significant health hazard. Such waste, of course,

need not be treated the same as high-level waste.

2. Page 4, Piragrach 2

D-31-2D6 Contrary to the alleged quotation, 'There Is no way to4 reduce-resin

volume", I am well aware of incineration and other methods being - Investigated to reduce the volume of spent resins.

-(3. Page4, Paragraph 3

C6ntrary to the alleged quotation, 'I strongly; fa&orthe.consideration

J of spent resins and cladding hulls as intermedlate-wastes',- I do not

N3 favor consideration of an 'intermedlate waste':.classification for

these or any other-nuclear wastes. I believe that any such need is

provided for by the waste classification system proposed in 10 CFR 61,

along with DOE's Greater Confinement Disposal fTtu Ws-Under thele

Low-Level Waste Technology Program.

8203250129 62022h

PDR PR D

2 46FR28081 POR

Tk W f dO& of AttsYApAssocwkr'i

6677

3 J

.39091)

. .. . . . .

3-435
Mr. G. W. Roles -2- February 26, 1982

I would appreciate your assistance in bringing the above corrections to.

the attention of any other NRC staff to whom 4s. Quigg1s letter may have been distributed.

Very truly yours,

J . Howard Kittel

Manager

Office ot Waste Kanagement Programs

JHK:pf

cc: C. Quigg R. 0. 50 th..'

ARGONNE NATIONLtABORATORY

arch 4.198

SZ{ 774(o

Mr. G. W. Roles

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission S

mail Stop SS-197 Washington, 0. C. 20s65s. 0

Dear Mr. Roles:

Sub4ect: Coments by Argonne National Laboratory on Environmental Monitoring

Costs in Draft EIS on 10 CFR Part 61

Reference: Ltr. J. H. Kittel to R. Dale Smith, *Coments by Argonne National -

..D-S3 - n Laboratory on NRC Proposed Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (lO CFR 61), and supporting Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG 0782)' December 14, 1981.

In response to your recent telephone Inquiry, attached are the

environmental monitoring cost estimates developed by Argonne National Laboratory for a reference LLW disposal site. These estimates formed the basis for our coMMents in the reference letter that the direct operation cost fo "mtn al monitoring shown In Table 3.6 of NUREG 0782 Is believed to be inadequat.X

Please let mc know if further informtion Is needed.

Very truly yours,

J. Howard Kittel, Manager Office of Waste Management Programs

JHl:pf

cc: S. A. Kann. DOE-CH

8203290ao 201 o 2DR P^R 20304 2 46,FR38CSI PDR

Tk U60sq Oifkxo AXqzw UftES ASsocN

B-436
DRAFT E1S 0ON 10 CFR PART 61

COtMENTS ON .ENVIRON0NL MtlSTORI2G COSTS

The environmental monitoring eosts given for the Reference Site in Table 3.6

(page 3-39) are 5543,000 over 20 years, or $26,700 per year. The environmental monitoring program for the Reference facility is discussed In Appendix

E, Section 5.2.6 (pages E-55 and E-58). A preliminary estimate of the costs can be obtained from the sampling and analysis schedule in Table E-10 (page

E-57) and is given in the following table. For this cost estimate, we have

assumed that 1) the particulate air sample to be analyzed daily for gross betsga activity Is counted on-site as part of routine operations, 2) the other

samples are sent to an outside comercial firm for analysis, and 3) the cost

per analysis are average charges by firma performing this work, expressed in

1981 dollars.

Arnul Environmental Monitoring Costs

No. of Frequency No. of Cost per Total

Sample Locations of Analysis Analysis Analysis Cost

External. 50 Quarterly 200 325 S 5,000

Atmosphere- 1 Weekly 52 80 (r-spec) 4,160

Particulate

Atmosphere - 1 Weekly 52 20 (1{31) 1.040

Charcoal

Soil and 10 Quarterly 40 20 (t-S) 800

Vegetation - 20 tM) 800

-40 (tritium) - 1,600

Off-Site 5 Semi-annualij 10 80 (t-5spee) 800

wells 20 (a) 200

40 (tritium) 400

Sitn Boundary 10 Semi-annually 20 80 (2-spec) 1,600

Wells 20 (a) 400

40 (tritiun) 800

Disposal Area 15 Quarterly 60 80 (r-spec) 4,800

Wells 20 (a) 1,200

- 40 (tritiun) 2,400

Trench Sumps 58. Yonthly 70 80 (7-epec) 5,600.

20 (a) 1S400

40 (tritium) 2.800

$35,800

Paragrapa 5.2.6.4 (page E-58) states 12 locations are to be analyzed

monthly, for a total of 296 analyses. The number in this table was

taken from Table E-10

Assuming water was prestnt 102 of the tine.

2

tn addition to the purely analytical costs, expenses of sample collection,.

sample preparation, quality control, raintenance of sampling equipment,

record keeping, supplies. and other expenses may increase the analytical costs

by a factor of up to two. If the analyses were performed in-house by personnel

who also perform other work, such as the sample collection and preparation, some cost saving would result. We believe a more realistic estimate is $60,000

per year for the total program.

3-437
an.t. ..

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

Q MARI 8 Se '82 I.R 19 FP2:16

,tiPR lawud rite

Mr. Samuel Chilk

Secretary of the Commission

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 130C M1Dl , X

Washington, D.C. 20555 PR0?M ) au. L R-a

Dear Mr. Chilk: P6+ a M/776)

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has

reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed

Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste (46 FR 38081) and the accompanying Environmental

Impact Statement (NUREG-0782).

EPA believes it is appropriate for NRC to use both performance

C - I bjectives and prescriptive requirements in its proposed

regulations. These proposed regulations and the supporting

analyses are an important step in solving the nation's lowlevel radioactive waste (LLW) problems. The information

(Z_ presented by NRC will be of considerable assistance to EPA

in its low-level radioactive waste standards program.

(EPA is concerned that the handling of low-lovel waste licensing

aO .- t in Agreement States may become inconsistent,.so EPA recommends

/ that NRC help the Agreement States adopt consistent state

regulations and procedures.

rC solicited comments on possible duplicative requirements

fSor effluent releases and broker activities under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of

1980 (CERCLA). -This "Superfund" law exempts from notification

/:any release of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material

in compliance with a legally enforceable license,-permit,

regulation. or order issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954"(CERCLA Section 10110)(R)). Radioactive

releases from nuclear waste disposal facilities which are

not in compliance with an NRC license, permit, regulation,

or order fall within the reporting requirements of.CERCLA.

Furthermore, as part of the notification regulations under

CERCLA, EPA is planning to develop a notification scheme for

releases of radioactive materials not licensed under the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Uranium Mill Tailings

(Radiation Control Act of 1978. EPA wishes to minimize

)duplicative reporting requirements for releases reported to

E - | other agencies. EPA intends to work with NRC to minimize

Lduplicative reporting requirements to the extent possible.

EPA has regulatory responsibility for the disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as

|mended (RCRA). RCRA, Section 1004(27), specifically exempts

'source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined

in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended." Additionally,

Section 1006(a) of RCRA states that 'Nothing in this Act

shall be construed to apply to ... any activity or substance

I hich / is subject to the ... Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

U.S.C. 2011 and following) except to the extent that such

application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the

requirements of such Acts." RCRA does not address the issue

of hazardous chemicals mixed with radioactive materials.

Wo believe the most positive way for NRC and EPA to establish

jurisdication over these wastes is in a memorandum of

understanding. Such a memorandum would enable both agencies

to avoid excessive costs and duplicative licensing of wastes.

Furthermore, close coordination of EPA's RCRA and NRC's

nuclear waste requirements is necessary in areas such as

manifest tracking systems, groundwater protection, technical

requirements, and financial assurances, since some NRC

licensed wastes may be disposed of in EPA permitted facilities.

A memorandum of understanding could serve as a vehicle for

ccomplishing this.

Hazardous and toxic chemicals are frequently present in

these nuclear wastes. EPA is particularly concerned that

_these hazardous and toxic non-radioactive chemicals and

their health impact are not considered in this proposed rule

and EIS. We consider the rule and EIS deficient in this

(environmental reservations and additional information

requested).

EPA has divided its enclosed comments into major and minor

comments on both the proposed regulations (10 CFR 61) and

the supporting draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

-Should you have any questions on our comments, please call

Dr. W. Alexander Williams (755-0790) of my staff.

rely yours,

Paul C. Cahill

Director

Office of Federal Activities

B-438
Detailed Coumments

of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

on the

:-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

proposed licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal

of

Radioactive Waste (10 CFR 61)

and draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(NUREG-0782)- I

Major Comments on 10 CFR 61

1. The 500 illirem per year performance objective for an inadvertant

intruder lielt is not appropriate as a 'regulatory limit." It is not a

regulatory limit which vill be monitored against for compliance. Nor

_ is a it a triggering level for an action such'as an accident-related

Protective Action Guide. The 500 millirem per year as applied in Part

61, is the design basis for the waste classification system. 1Na

believe that if 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) principles

were applied, the exposure to the inadvertant intruder would be lover

than 500 millirem per year. This Is evident fromr NRC's own analyses in

the regional case studies, which use realistic assumptions and the

reposed prescriptive requirements.

1. Setting an individual exposure limit atthe site boundary is

appropriate. The 25 millirem per year is In the correct range of

values if, as the NRC indicates, that range includes I to 25 millirem

per year.. We are assured by the NRC analyses and their own statements

in tha DEIS that they should be able to establish a regulatory limit

compatible with any, future EPA standard established using ALARA-.

principles.

3. It is not appropriate to adopt the contaminant level of & millirem C-3 per year from the National. Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations

as a performance objective for contamination of public drinking water

supplies from LLW disposal. The National Interim Primary Drinking

Water Regulations were established in the context of levels of

contamination, which if exceeded, would require mitigating action by

the water supply authority. It is also not appropriate to allow one

group of radioactive caterials.users to contaminate a water supply to a

limit which would preclude other releases from nuclear power plants,

hospitals, and other users. It does not appear from the NRC analysis

that the LLW dispossl requirerents are so sensitive to this limit that

a lower value would be difficult to meet. It should also be noted that

the 10 pfeocurie per liter value for uranium and thorium Is not part of

the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA would not object to the use of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for protection of groundwater. In forthcoming RCRA land

disposalregulatione we expect to use the drinking water regulations as

ne aspeet of groundwater protection.

(&. The NRC's intentions In applying 10 CFR 20 to the operational phase

/ of LLY disposal is unclear. This arises out of the lack of specificity

in Section 61.43 in view of the requirement of Section 61.41. This

ambiguity Is enhanced In the DEIS: see Vol. 1, Section 5.1.3 (page 35):

Section 5.2 (bottom of page 38); Vol. 2, Section 6.3 and Section 6.6 page 6-13): and Section 6.6 (page 6-18).

I . ..

B-439
2

it is our understanding, after talking to NRC staff, that the

ottsite exposures durLng operation of the disposal site approximately

C-S 20 years) should be held to the same limits as the long-term offsite

exposures. To make this clear, it should be stated that Section 61.43

(use of 10 CFR 20 limits) applies to occupational exposures only.

Section 61.41 should be broadened to include direct radiation exposure.

. Section 61.59.b makes it clear that active institutional controls

may not be relied on for more than 100 years following transfer of

control of the disposal site to the owner.. This is appropriate for

crik assessment and as a basis for design criteria. However, the

regulations should contain a positive requirement that active

institutional controls should be established for this period, since

this ia the design basis of the facility. It is also clear from the

DEls (Vol. tt, page 4-69) that institutional maintenance of records of

the nature of the hazard is desizable over a longer period of time.

7 This should also be made a positive requirement of the license transfer

to the site owner, although it is realized that it cannot be depended

Zupon.

. Class A segregated wastes will be put in separate trenches from the

stable Class E wastes and will have potentially permeable trench

covers. The active maintenance of such trenches can be expected to be

extensive for many years. NRC should indicate how they plan to develop

long-tesm stablility of the Class A trenches. Although Class A wastes

may not present a serious radiological public health hazard. they may,

in tne eastern United States, under certain hydrogeological conditions, cause site instability problems, pose a *public nuisance-, and, more

important, the non-radioactive chesical portion of Class A wastes may

cause significant ground and surface water pollution just as sanitary

landfills may.

(7. We urge the NRC to give * high priority to fulfilling its pledge to

) conduct performance, safety, and cost/benefit analyses for other

readily available disposal methods such as hydrofracture, deep well

t- 8 I injection and disposal in a mined cavity. These alternatives could

show lower intrudoe impacts. Promulgation of 10 CtR 61 should not be

tdelayed to permit consideration of these alternatives, however.

8. Because it is based solely on the intruder scenario, Table 1

presents some practical incongruities. For example, tritium and some D I of the short halflife isotopes would have heat tates that clearly would

be impractical ( i.e., self boiling of tritiated water and,

decompostion of the solidifying medium). Also, it does not appear that

some of these high specific activities exist in any actual waste stream.

3

(5 Part 61 shows no consideration of hazards from other chemicals and

toXic substances that may be associated with the waste. This is a

particularly significant omission because some of these materials may

nave essentially infinite lives compared to many of the radioactive

constituents. As a minimum, Part 61 regulations should indicate that

these materials must be handled in a manner compatible with RCRA

requitements,

0. The NRC proposes to develop a manifest tracking system which is

'somewhat similar' to the EPA's hazardous waste manifest system. NRC

a and EPA should seriously consider coordination and possible integration

o2 the two systems. At the least, the two systems should be compatible

because ot the possible future need to transfer wastes from NRC

regulatory authority to EPA authority, or vice versa (i.e., slightly

raoiodctlve LLW whose primary hazard is from non-radioactive

suostances) ano for future interaction between NRC and EPA on the ocean

cAsposal of L.M.

minor comments on 10 CPR 61

(.Sect. 61.52.a.6)i It states that, 'Waste must be placed and

covered in a manner that limits the gamma radiation at the surface of

4. the cover to levels thaw be a few percent ebove the bictground levels

of the virte.o lhis would be diaficult to entorce in its present fovs

'OP cue to the ambiguity of 'a few percent' and the variability of

ckground levels.

-- (G. (Sect. 61.55, Table 1D: The table should have a title and 5 L appropriate labels for the columns.

3. hetnane, carbon dioxide, and other waste decomposition gases

generated within a shallow disposal trench can build up sufficient

pressures to directly affect the stablility of any engineered trench

covers, particularly if the trench covers are impervious and not

properly. vented. Gases cam also be generated from the decomposition of

wastes in arid disposal sites, even in the absence of significant

precipitation.

Gases from sanitary landfills have travelled underground for

hundreds of feet. Gases from Class A trenches, therefore, have the

possibiLity of affecting the stability of the Class 0 trenches if

proper precautions are not taken. Gas generation is a long continuing

process wnicn commonly extends for 50 years or more, requiring active

repair ano maintenance work on the trenches. Part 61 does not indicate

any consieratior of this phenomena.

B-440
@OX te '- -.

4

w4. Ue recommend that the following additional or similar requirement

be added to Subpart D, 'a disposal tedium with a permeablility

sufficiently low to cause the accumulation of water in the trench

should not be used, especially for Class 3 wastes. unless compensating

measures are taken to prevent or reduce the leaching of radioactive

materials from the waste such as (1) Installing an Impermeable trench

cover to keep water out of the trench or (2) preparing wastes in a

lowleachable form.'

Part- b or Its explanatory preamble should contain a clear

statement that, 'The Intent of site selection is to insure that

off-site 2igration or releases of radioactivity from waste disposed in

ED- a facility shall not exceed specified health and safety limits.

Although it is reasonable to expect success of a properly sited

facility In providing the necessary confinement, this cannot absolutely

a guaranteed in advance of actual use.

M.ajor Comments on DEIS for 10 CFR 61

1. The need for cooperation between EPA and hRC In the development of

a final 10 CFR 61 is Indicated by the intention of NRC to Include

,Specific concentration limits for the disposal of Important naturally

occurirg and accelerator produced nuclide' in-a planned regulatory

guide on the classification of waste. (See page 42 of DEIS Vol. 1 and

page 1-22 of Vol. 2). Natural radionuclides, particularly radium, are

expected to Se Included in EPA regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act. Positive steps should be taken to

ensure compatibility under these two jurisdictions

2. In the preamble of the regulation (p. 38091, column 2) and in the

OEiS. it Is indicated that engineered barriers auch as concrete covers

are assumed to have an effective life of 500 years. Outside of comments received at public hearings, there Is no indication of any

basis for such an assumed lifetime. NRC should discuss data which

confirm the lifetime of engineered barriers and criteria for approving

barrier designs.

3. Monitoring at LEU disposal facilities will be an important activity

and will require a regulatory guide from NRC. This should be added to

NRC's commitment to prepare regulatory guides in the future. (Vol. 2.

Section 2.2 p. 2-4). This guide should establish 'action levels" for

elevated levels of radioactive materials In-the environment to indicate

when Increased monitoring and corrective actions should begin.

4. The NRC calls for Class B wastes to.be stable for 150 years. We

believe that criteria should'be given that will reasonably assure a 150

year waste stability.

S

5. Actual experience at existing sites has shown that under certain

hydrogeological conditions, such as outlined in Base Case 3. the direct

overflow of contaminated water to land surface has been a very

Important, If not the dominant, pathway. The 'direct to land surface

overflow' pathway also has a very short travel path and does not give

the benefits of delay for decay afforded by the longer travel paths and

slower travel times of the ground-water pathway. The short- and

long-term Impacts of the "overflow to land surface" pathway should be

evaluated and compared with the ground-water pathway for Base Case 3

and for all sioilar test cases.

6.- (Vol Append. v, M, Sect. 3): The DEIS should make estimates of

maximum individual and population health risks, projected over time,

for each of the pathways evaluated. As a part of this evaluation, the

Integrated activity moving through each pathway and its resultant

population dose should be presented.

7 (Vol.2, Sect. 3.8, p. 3-4.8, and Append. C, p. C-98) ): The doses

for transportation are based on a 1972 USAEC repart an the

transportation of LLu from nuclear power plants. We believe that the

quantities of wastes and level of radioactivity In them are

considerably higher in actual experience per shipment than was

predicted in the 1972 estimates. Therefore, estimated dose levels

should be adjusted accordingly. Also. Table 5.5 and the discussion on

p. 5-15 should be adjusted accordingly.

8. The DEtIS considers the time value of money In the estimation of the

postoperstional (closure and institutional control) costs but does not

consider the ties value for the design and operational costs. The

operational costs which occur In the years 1 through 20 should also be

discounted. Otherwise, combinihg the operational and postoperational

costs to represent the total disposal costs for each alternative may

result In an incorrect cost ranking of alternatives.

9. The cost estinates for institut1onal control need to be

reexamined. After the several manipulations involving conctant

dollars, inflation and a nominal interest rate are made. It is unclear

on what basis the final Institutional control costs are stated.,

10. The DEIS is deficient throughout in its failure to account for and

assess the potential environmental Impact and health risk fron the

non-radioactive chemical. hazardous, and toxic materials In the LLW.

The contamination of ground and surface waters and risk to Inadvertant

intruders could be significant from non-radioactive materials.

Minor Comments on DEIS for 10 CFR 61

1. The short-term Impacts of LLU disposal have been underestinated.

In the Suamary, In Chapters 3 and 4 of Volume 2, and in Appendices D

and C, the radionuclides considered are only those with long half-lives

. ;., 

. -A 

B-441
or those occurring in significant' quantities In LLU. For short-term

Impacts, such as radiation doses delivered during the operational phase

of a waste disposal facility (including occupational, population and

accident doses), the source term should include the presence of

shorter-lived, gamea-emitting radionuclides;

2. The ground-water pathway Is not significant for many arid zone

sites. In arid regions, attention should be given to the upward

translocation of radionuclides by plants and animals and by the upward

wicking effects of the strong evaporation potential on capillary

water in the soil. Transport; snd possibly erosion, by wind should

also be considered.

3. The EIS does not give any specific distances for separating the

Class A and Classa trenches. This distance could be significant in

assuring overall site stability.

4. It is difficult to follow the projections of waste volumes as given

In Tables 0.25-D.26, which are based on Tables D.9 and D.11-14. For

example D.9 gives untreated waste volumes by region' while Tables

D025-26 list wastes by spectrum'.

5. Carbon-14 from Light Water Raactors (LUR) would more appropriately

be scaled to Co-60. In the LWZ, C-14 is produced both in the fuel and

coolant. Except In cases of gross fuel failure, C-14 in the fuel stays

there. Consequently, C-14 that ends up in LLW originates from

activation in the reactor coolant. Therefore, it would seem more

approporiate to scale C-14 to an activation product such as Co-60.

6. (Vol. 2, p. 6-7, last sentence); An explanation or reference

should be given for the assumed release fraction 0.1 of the

radioactivity within the waste packages Involved in a fire.

7 (Vol 2, Chap 6, Sect. 6.2): Accident probability numbers would

be helpful in placing the accidents and potential consequences in

perspective. Data is available to at least make reasonable probability

estimates.

9. (Apend. , Sect 2.2): Consideration No. 1 should be expanded to

include eod other dtiscontInuitIes in the geologic madia which Increase

the permeability significantly.' For example, sand lenses or layers

and desiccation cracks, as well as other unexpected features may be

encountered, in addition to those listed.

9, (Append. E. Sect. 3.2.2): Texture and mineral composition are

critical parameters for radionuclide retention by a geologic medium.

it would be helpful to plot the composition of the Schwuin Formation on

a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Textural

Classification Chart in addition to the descriptive terminology of

sandy loam and loamy sand. The advantage of using the USDA chart is

7

that Itc shows the percent clay, silt and sand fractions of the medium

which are textural parameters correlative with permeability end the

sorption potential of a disposal medium.

10. (Appendix J): Insufficient data are presented to make reasonable

predictions about the sorption capabilities of the geologic media. For

example, only the percentage of the stit-size fraction was given when

the clay-size fraction of the medium is sore important in assessing Its

capabilities td retain radionuclides. The Eh and pH are not presented

either.

11. (A , SeCt. 1.1.1): In Iendix the first sentence, change

under a ieto -overla n.

12. (Append J Sect. 1.1.3): The factors that contribute to increased p; .. ability shou d be briefly described in this section.

For example, in glacial tills, this includes sand lenses and

desiccation cracks.

13. (Append. J., Sect. 1.1.9, 1.2.9 and 1.3.9)t In a detailed site

evaluation, the following additional information is needed: texture of

the medium described in percentage of sand, silt, and clay-size

fractions; mineral composition and organics described quantatively for

each size fraction asd a weighted average for total sample; cation

exchange capacity correlated to clay mineral and organics content; Eh

and pH of medium; chemistry of the groundwater; and naturally

occurring radionuclides in the medium.

14. Exsuuclve Order 12291 requires government agencies to use a

10 percent real discount rate In developing thair regulatory impact

analyses. The DEIS uses an 'implied' real discount rate of

approximately 1 percent in the cost analyses. We believe the use of 1

percent in the DEIS should be reconciled with the requirements of the

executive order. In doing so, the DEIS should present a sensitivity

analysis of alternative discount rates. possibly using 1, 5 and 10

percent.

15. (Appendix Q): The methodology for calculation of capit-l,

operatioaal, closure and institutional costs appears reasonable. What

appears to be lacking is a consistent treatment of the date attached to

each cost. For example, captial costs are presented in 1980 dollars,

operational costs are provided as sums of money appropriate to the 20

year operating life of the site but no particular date is attached to

this amount, and closure costs are presented as 1980 costs inflated to

the end of site closure. In order to evaluate disposal costs -

appropriately, a consistent time treatment of money is needed.

16. The last term in the long equation for postoperational costs on

p. Q-44 should be corrected.

8-442
*:: A:.

8

17. In the discussion of financial arrangements, the license applicant

is to prepare an estimate of the amount of money required.for closure

and long-term care. We urge the use of a very careful review process

on these cost estimates because past experience has shown that the

licensee, with one exception where the regulator took an active part,

has traditionally underestimated closure and long-term costs.

18. (Appendi . pp. C-12/13): The dilution factor Q was taken to be

equal to Its pumping rate In the intruder well pathway. This dilution

factor should be taken as the total groundwater flow within the plume

of contamination rather than the well pumping rate.

19. The methodology used to develop trench infiltration should be

presented somewhere in the text or appendices. The reference cited In

Appendix G on p. 68, paragraph 2. Is Insufficient. There is no

Indication that the 'externally produced' value Is ever allowed to vary

within the analysis.

20. A clearer explanation of the basis for the Indices used In

calculating the Interaction factors In Appendix C ti needed.

21. (Append C. p. G-68): The rate of infiltration was calculated by

multiplying by the number of days for which the precipitation exceeds

0.01 in/day. This method Is very simple but' In our opinion;'does not

meet the state of the art for estimating infiltration rates. Our

technical staff is available to discuss other possible methods for

calculating Infiltration.' - '

22. (Vol. 2. P. 5-22): The dose rates through the population well and

surface water pathways for Case IA (Table 5-6) is calculated to be

approximately 10 times lower than for Case 1 (Table 5-3) simply due to

replacing the backfill material on moderately permeable soil used in"

Case 1 with more permeable soil. This fact does not agree with current

knowledge of the leaching process. This phenomena was explained by the

waste-water contact time being longer In Case 1 than in Case 1A and a '-

resultant higher rate of leaching. In reality, the pellicular water in

the waste, which contains dissolved radionuclides,' will be maintained

In between the Interstices of the waste all of the time. Therefore,

any added percolation of gravity water will be mixed with the

pellicular water during the course of percolation and will be

independent of the true velocity'of the water movement. Therefore, the

rate of radionculide release should change very little because of

cbanges in the permeablility of the backfill material.

23. (Vol. l,-p 19, Table 5.5): The values listed under Body & Bone

need to be explained in a footnote as 'the number of years at which

this impact level exists."

9

24. At several points in the DEIS (e.g. Vol. 1, p. 23), the comment Is

made that 'the potential hazard quickly drops to about 1000 nillirem

per year to bone at about 500 years following facility closure." The

term 'quickly" does not seem compatible with a 500 year time period.

25. (Vol. 1, p. 20): The statement, "Haximum annual thyroid doses are

In the range of 850 mrem at the Intruder and population wells, 270 nren

at the population well, and 12 mrem at the surface water body" is

ambiguous. This leaves in doubt what the dose Is at the population

well.

26. (Vol. 1 p. 26, Table S.7 & Vol. 2, p. '-1. Table 6.19): Several

of these costs (thoe with double risk) re not comparable with the

others because they are based only on the lOZ volume of waste employing

that technique.. To make the costs comparable, costs for the other 901

of the wastes should be figured and a weighted average presented.

27. (Appendix N) EPA's authority under the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for ocean disposal of radioactive

waste should be listed.

28. (Appendix N): EPA's proposed guidance for Occupational Exposures

should be discussed. (Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 15, Friday.

January 23, 1981, page 7836).

29. (Appendix . p. N-Sj ' EPA's schedule for Its Low-Level Waste

Standard is current y under review and may be revised. We will notify

NRC of any such revision.

30. (Appendix N. p. N-19): National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations is incorrect, It should be Interim National Prinary

Drinking Water Regulations.

31. (Appendix i)3 Tables d-3 through G-10 are poorly titled and

measurenent units are not well identified.

B-443
G ENERAL 7n55 OLO SPALSE RW

R ESEARCH I .COuROA1aON('k I2 tI~ IA=

W=1JW I rch 19, 1982 L

Secretary of the Comscon

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CosmissioO -

Washingtol, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir or Madams

The following are Coments on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Comission's proposed liceaning requirements for land disposal of

radioactive waste contained in 10 Ccn Part 61 and on the Draft

anviromsntal Impact Statemnt NMEG-0782 prepared as a decision

docusent for the performance objectives and technical and financial

criteria set out-la Pact 61. We understand that the co nt period

officially closed on January 14, 1982, but that the Comeission inteods

to accept coments submitted after that date and to consider theu to the

exent possible. 4lcause our review of the docket indicates that very

few coments were submitted on closure and post-closure care and because

we consider these topics to be extremely critical Aspects of the

regulatory program. ws are submitting the following coments. We have

addressed tha most major concerns expressed in the docket, and sought in

addition to raise issues not addressed to date in the docket.

The International Research and Technology Operation of the General

Research Corporation (formerly the International Research sAd Technology

Corporation) has been involved since 1977 in supporting the U.S.

Rnviromsotal Protection Agency in developing standards for closure and

post-closurs carc; costestimation, and financial responsibility of tho

owners sad operators of hazardous waste trestment, storage end disposal

facilities. Many of the Issues concsrning the scope and content of Part

61 and SGU-0782 are similar to issues addressed in the analysis of bow

to protect human health sad the environment from hazardous veste. In

particular, the long-term nature of the threat to human health *ad the

environment posed by both haszardous And radioactive waste makes it

extremely important that. effective regulatory structures be developed.

The comeents vhich follow discuss the techmical sad proesdural

requiremento established by 10 CIL Part 61. Major problems associated

with most of the phaees ln the life cycle of a typical land diaposal

facility for radioactive waste are identified by phase. No attempt has

been made, however, to analyze Issues particularly associated with the

preoperational phase, such as disposal site design or the effects of

different wAate characteristics and classifications. Major emphaeis has

been placed oan Issues associated with the closure plan and cost

estimates and the performance of the actions they require.

_si by wj~a &~

A Subsiiary of Flow Gemral Inc

AA EqWI ODooo0nultr EmpOroy WUF

-2-

Technical and Procedural Issues

a. Preoperational and Operational Phases

Although the closure of the disposal facility Is extremely

important to the overall assurance of protection of public health and

safety, Part 61 may not establish sufficieonly specific requirements for

the closure plan, nor may ic establish adequate procedures for revising

the closure plan duringthe operational phase of the facility.

t j': 

I

She initlal closure plan must be prepared as a part of the sapcial

technical information contained in the license application. Section

61.12(b) requires that this information include a description of design

features related to disposal site closure and stabilizatico, and Section

61.12(g) sets a broad performance requirement that closure should

eliminate the need for ongoing active siwntenance (emphasis added),

vhich is defined in turn In Section 61.2 to mean such -signiticant

remedial activity as pumping or treatment of water from a disposal

unit. Closure is, in general, expected to achieve a 'reasonable

assurance that exposures to hunans are within the limits established in

specific performance objectives set In Sections 61.41 to 61.44. Two

potential problems arise from these provisions as drafted, however.

First, It may not be possible or desirable to eliminate the need for

active maintenance, if that maintance includes such activities as

leachate monitoring and pumping. In some cases, an environmentally

sound plan for closure may still require periodic leachAte pumping to

ensure adequate protection.. Since the commission anticipates that froe

fiv- to fifteen years may be an appropriate post-closure observation and

naintance period, a requirement that closure activities minimize to the

extent possible the need for future active maintenance may be a more

appropriate performance objective.

A second potential problem is due to the lack of procedural

specificity In the closure plan regulations. Given that the

Commission's intent is to allow a licensee to tailor his plan to meet

the specific conditions of his site, it is important to indicate

explicitly the procedures which must be followed and sufficient details

about the contents of the plan to ensure that the requirement can be

enforced. Issues that require classification include the following:

To what extent does the closure plan account for activities

to be carried out during the post-closure observation and

maintenance period?

B-444
-3- _4_

* Is the plan based on the assunption that closure vill occur

when intended under ideal site conditions or should It

account for aetivities that may be necessary under a worstcase scenario (or something in between)?

* Vhat kinds of activities are expected to be accounted for in

the closure plan? For example, what level of Inventory if

any, should be assumed?

* Vhst kind of documantation is expected?

* Closure plans must be approved prior to closure. How long

prior to closure must they be submitted? What are the

_ 67 ~ provisions of this review process? Involvement of the

public? What happens If the plan is not approved?

Detailed guidance say be sufficient to clarify certain kinds of

questions, e.g., the level of documentation expected In the plan. Other

Issues must be clarified In the regulation, however, if the Commission

is to be assured that a licensee's tlosure plan reflects the needs of

the site and can be used as a basis for financial responsibility

requirements.

| The purpose of the closure plan is to ensure that adequate

preparations have been made for site closure and to serve as the basis

|for the level of financial responsibility required to ensure that

adequate funds are available for closure. Unless the closure plan

adequately reflects actual site conditions these goals will not be

met. Provisions in the regulations for revising the plan during the

operational phase may not overcome these problems. Part 61 seems to

require that closure plans be revised, if necessary, as part of the

closure application procedures. Although the provisions of Sectioo

61.25 implicitly include revisions In the closure plan, the requirement

Is-not clear.. In addition, the requirement does not specifically state

the circumstances under which the plan must be revised.

In addition to problems 0ith the content of the closure plan, the

preclse relationship between the' cloure plan and the closure cost

e stimate Is left uncertain. First, the activities that are Intended to

be included in' the estimate end the assumptions to be used in estimating

aosts are left unclear (e.g., It is not clear if estimates are to be

based on a vorst-case scenario). The EPA, for example, in Its cost

estimating regulations requires that cost estimates be based on the

costs of closure of the maximum extent of site operation. Second, If

cthe ost estimate and financial responsibility are to Include the postclosure observation' period,' it is' essential to determine the length of

that observation period. If the cost estimate Is not prepared assuming

the longest likely post-closure period, then insufficient funds say be

available If needed. For financial planning purposes It Is also

ncessary to know the length of the post-closure period and the extent

of funds that will be required.

b. Closure Phase and Post-Closure Phase

The Part 61 regulations do not completely resolve the question of

when the closure phase Is terminated. Section 61.30 states thit the

Commisnion will determine that closure has been made 'in conformance

with the licensee's disposal site closure plan, as amended and approved

as part of the license'. However, Section 61.29 provides that even

following 'completion of closure' the licensee will be required to

perform observation, monitoring, maintenance and repairs until the site

closure is complete and the licensei s transferred. The Commission

estimates that post-closure observational maintenance will last from

five to fifteen years. Despite the separation of the closure phase from

the post-closure observation and maintenance phase, therefore, it

appears that in practie* the two phases must be treated together. The

closure plan will have to ineludexplans for post-closure observation and

maintenance, or those activities will not be properly reflected In the

cost estimates and financial assurances. Such estimatee will be

difficult to achieve because the duration of the post-closure phase is

not precisely defined.

Determination by the Commission that the required closure or poet-

-I.

If regulations do not explicitly state when the plan must be

revised, two problems could arise. First, an emergency situation could

occur which did not allow for an extended period of planning before

closure operations had to begin. In such a situation, the existing

closure plan could be found to be seriously Inadequate. Second, becevse

the cost estimates are tied to the closure plan, infrequent revisions In

the closure plan could lead to Inaccurate cost estimates and Inadequate

financial assurance. Although the financial assurance mechanism will be

revised annually, such a review can only ensure that the mechanism is

adequate to pay for the activities called for by the closure plan. An

inadequate plan will lead directly to inadequate assurance.

closure activities have been completed satisfactorily and that the

license may be transferred may also be difficult, in the absence of any

certification procedures. Similar regulations In other related areas

such as hazardous waste frequently require that the licensee obtain a

certification from an engineer that activities required by the closure

plan have been carried out.

A third problem associated with the closure and post-closure phases

will arise If certain forms of active maintenance cannot be

terminated. For example, If leaehate pumping cannot be discontinued, or

If such pumping can only be avoided by massive expenditures not provided

B-445
Wermer & Pfleiderer Corporation

-3-

- tofar in the ftinaacel assurance obtainod by the licensee, the Commission

may either be forced to undertaha legal action, Including bankruptcy

proccedin4gs, to obtain additional funds from the liceasae, or be

c compelled to- transter the- site. Such- situations could lbad to conflicts

\betveen the Commission, the states, and the licensee over transfers of

espoasibility.

c. Institutional Control Phase

The key issues to be resolved regsxdlng requirements during this

phase iavolve the scope of required activities and the allocation of

responsibil1itis betwest the C4%missioa'and the Agent responsible during

the institutional control period. The intent of closuis is to ensure

that no active maintenance Sa needed during the institutional control

j \~ period. Section 61.63, however, stipulatee that financial assurance

must be available during the institutional control period to cover '&ay

equired maintenafco... . It is unclear who has the responsibility of

orformdag major maintenance activities, if necessary, and hov disputes

ver that responsibility V1il be tesolvtt.

Second, the tontents of the *grseenets are unclear ad the criteria

to be used in evaluating these agreemeats are not indicated. It is also

unclear if these leasing agteamsnts will be revieved dariag the

operational phase and who vill take responsibility for the institutional

rtrol period if the leasing agreement is deemed no longer adequate.

Sincerely,

Robtin odeasky Severn

Economic and Regulatory

Analysis Departoent

lbk-M YI0ALOM RESEARCH AND

TECHNOLOGY OPERTIONS

RRS/sb

'T2 I 31 P?7

Mr. Tim Johnson

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Silver Spring, H3

SUBJECT: IOCFRM61tWste Form Stability

March 24, 1982

D

Dear Tim:

We wish to thank Paul Lohaus. Dale Smith and yourself for the

mtie spent with us to discuss IOCFR61 and our cosnents concerning

waste form stability. We can appreciate the difficulty you face in

developing a simple yet comprehensive statement defining structural

stability of buried~waste forms. Per our discussion, we have given

the matter some thought and have the following suggestions regarding

alternative wording:

'A structurally stable waste form shall remain a monolithic

solid without volume change under the expected disposal

conditions. -

Or. if there is a need-to distinguish thermoplastics from other

ste forms;

'Waste forms which can undergo plastic deformation under a

compressive stress equivalent to the burial environment shall

be required to behave as a monolithic, volumetrically incompressible component of the surrounding soil; I.e. experience

no appreciable volume changes or crumbling to form a discon-

.tiuousollid.

We trust that you will find the foregoing suggestions helpful as

you attempt to incorporate solicited cosnents Into the final regulation.

If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact

Very truly yours,

William J. Klein

Manager, Product Development

Hazardous Waste Treatment Systems

WJK/9s

B-446
-::W * *:SCARLJ.VMLO5I

IM.RTKALUSMi~

IL C ITITO5ELAND

ALAN I. WU

TS4OMAS).VESM5

L1SMIM&Dc"It

MAILICO. SCKYART?

WMf~ lfl 4 PA LAX

RICKARD CAMS

LAKS&KYHYIO

STIVDD.ScHEKZP

%MWUR M&VAL~A

DAVIOLLNOH

VALOR. MCALLISTER. WESTMORELAD GOULD, VZSPER &SCHWARTZ- A NMIs5 AL COTICN

4xt4:oevtssc~vs 'IM) PAC=l AMINU1

MAa.MmRmSm ALTaZ 131 nth* ROAD VDD.MMl

DRAM At Mil

., -.-,. l ?f

April 5, 1982 - d t X cs 

of the Commission ear Regulatory Commission

D. C, An, 20555 rah Q9l 3 l) Attention: nocketing & Service Branch

UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 61, et seq.

.r, 7 , . Supplemental Comments of the

Township of Lower Alloways Creek

to Proposed Pule for Licensing

tRequirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste

Secretary

U.S. Nucl

Washingto

n;;=sW^vs^. vvv^uv^*; ._w_ w ._- .............. -hi.... -

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find supplemental comments by the Township of

Lower Alloways Creek to proposed rule for licensing requirements

for land disposal of radioactive waste.

Very truly yourl,

RI. J. VC.ORE -

CJV/sgp

TO: Secretary of the Commission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C., 20555

Attention: Docketing & Service Branch

The Township of Lower Alloways Creek hereby supplements

the comments it filed on January 12, 1982 as follows:

The classification established in the DErS, Vol. 2, part

2.4.3.1, is based principally on radiotoxicity. The Township

of Lower Alloways Creek is of the opinion that the suggestion

to classify on the basis of total hazard-chemical, biological

and physical as well as radiological, can be implemented.

Tehnical meetings between the Environmental Protection Agency

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be productive

of a classification system for non-radiological hazards at

low-level waste disposal sites. The failure of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission to address the chemical, biological

and physical hazards of material to be placed at low-level

waste disposal sites constitutes a regulatory gap and a

minimization bf-the risks involved.

CARL J. VALORE, Special

Nuclear Counsel for the

Township of Lower Alloways Creek

April 5, 1982

/'fr2

82O4i6O495 92OA05

pDR PR PUR

8-447
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER fAssignedby ODC)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0945, Vol. 2

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volume No., if appropriate) 2. {Leave blank)

Final Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61:

"Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive 3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.

Waste" Vol. 2: Appendices A-B

7. AUTHORIS) 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

NRC Staff MONTH May YEAR 1982

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code) DATE REPORT ISSUED

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Manage- MONTH jYEAR

ment, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nov. 1982

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 6. [Leave blank)

B. (Leave blank)

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code) 10. PROJECTITASK/WORK UNIT NO.

Same as item 9. 11. CONTRACTNO.

13. TYPE OF REPORT PERIOD COVERED [Inclusive dates)

Final Environmental Impact Statement I

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. fLeave oiank)

16. ABSTRACT (200 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.

17. KEY WORDS ANt) 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

I7h. IDENTIFIERS:OPEN-ENDED TERMS

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS Irns r'port) 21 NO OF PAGES

Unclassified 613

Unlimited 20. SECURITY C3ASS IThuspayel 22 PEiCE

Unclassified S