NUREG-1853 

 

History and Framework

of Commercial Low-Level

Radioactive Waste

Management in the

United States 

ACNW White Paper

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

 Reproduction and Distribution

 Services Section

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was

accessed, the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library 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—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series

are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of

Directors’ decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s

regulations (NUREG–0750).
 

 

 NUREG-1853 

 

History and Framework

of Commercial Low-Level

Radioactive Waste

Management in the

United States

ACNW White Paper

Manuscript Completed: August 2006

Date Published: January 2007 

Prepared by

M.T. Ryan, M.P. Lee, and H.J. Larson

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
ii

NUREG-1853 has been reproduced

from the best available copy.
iii

ABSTRACT

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW or the Committee) examined issues

associated with management and the disposal of

commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW).

As a first step in that examination, the Committee

developed this background document, or White

Paper, that includes a review of the literature.

This LLW White Paper is organized into three

parts. Part I provides a historic perspective of

past programs for the management and disposal

of commercial LLW. Part II describes the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’ s commercial

LLW regulatory framework found at Title 10,

Part 61, “ Licensing Requirements for Land

Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” of the Code of

Federal Regulations. Part III summarizes past

ACNW advice in this area, as well as advice

provided previously by the Advisory Committee

on Reactor Safety before the establishment of the

ACNW in 1988. This LLW White Paper also

includes six appendices which, among other

things, describe the Department of Energy’ s

approach to the management of Governmentowned LLW and the regulatory evolution of

the “ LLW” definition. The White Paper also

identifies several emerging staff initiatives, as

well as other ongoing initiatives by outside

organizations and agencies that could have a

bearing on the management of commercial LLW.
iv
v

FOREWORD

In conjunction with the issuance of this White

Paper, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (the ACNW or the Committee) held a

Working Group Meeting during its 170th meeting

in May 2006. The purposes of the 2006

Working Group Meeting were to obtain current

information on commercial low-level radioactive

waste (LLW) management practices and identify

emerging low-level radioactive waste

management issues and concerns. The

Committee also solicited industry and stakeholder

views regarding the future U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) role in the area

of commercial LLW management to ensure a

stable, reliable, and adaptable regulatory

framework for effective management of those

wastes. The NRC staff recently noted that it is

updating its strategic planning in the LLW area

following Commission-directed reduction in the

program about a decade ago. Consequently, as

part of the Working Group Meeting, the

Committee solicited stakeholder views on what

changes to the regulatory framework for

managing LLW should be recommended for

Commission consideration as well as to identify

specific impacts, both positive and negative, of

potential future staff activities.

The May 2006 meeting followed from the

ACNW’ s March 2005 briefing of the

Commission. The Working Group Meeting was

divided into four-sessions covering the following

themes:

• Current LLW program status;

• Existing regulatory framework for

managing commercial LLW and

operational issues;

• Industry panel discussion on current and

future challenges in the management of

LLW; and

• Stakeholder perspectives on the

forthcoming NRC strategic assessment

effort.

The ACNW two-day Working Group Meeting

drew an attendance of approximately 100

individuals. Formal participation in the meeting

included representatives of the American Ecology

Corporation, the Army Corps of Engineers,

EnergySolutions (formerly Envirocare), the

California Radiation (CalRad) Forum,

Duratek–Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC,

EnergySolutions, the Entergy utilities group, the

environmental community, Harvard University,

the LLW Forum, the Nuclear Energy Institute,

the South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control, the Southwestern LLW

Compact, the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality, and Waste Control

Specialists, LLC. Staff from NRC’ s Division of

Waste Management and Environmental

Protection, and independent stakeholders, also

participated in the discussions.

Participants and stakeholders from the Working

Group Meeting offered several observations for

the ACNW to consider. Stakeholders were also

invited to comment on the December 2005

version of the ACNW White Paper before it was

finalized; none were received. The Committee

subsequently developed a letter report to

Commission addressing stated purposes of the

Working Group Meeting. See Ryan (2006). The

Committee also intends to comment on the results

of the NRC strategic planning effort in the area

of commercial LLW management. See NRC

(2006c).
vi
vii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... iii

FOREWORD. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . xv

ABBREVIATIONS. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . xvii

PART I. LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAM HISTORY. .... .... .... .... 1

1. INTRODUCTION. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 1

1.1 Commercial LLW. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 1

1.2 Chemically Mixed LLW. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 4

1.3 Government-Owned LLW. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 5

2 EARLY APPROACHES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. . . 7

2.1 Ocean Disposal. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 7

2.2 Land Disposal. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 8

2.3 Early Performance Issues. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 11

3. CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 13

3.1 Background. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 13

3.2 The NRC and 10 CFR Part 61.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 15

3.3 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.4 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. 5 De Minimis Regulatory Levels and the Below Regulatory Concern Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4. EFFORTS TO SITE NEW LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5. CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 29

5.1 Recent Disposal Facility Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.2 Assured Storage. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 32

5.3 Low-Activity Radioactive Waste. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 34

5.4 Stakeholder Views. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 35

PART II. THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION’ S LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. .... .... .... .... ... 39

6. INTRODUCTION. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 39

7. APPROACH TO DEVELOPING 10 CFR PART 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

7.1 Elements of the LLW Regulation. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 42

7. 2 Who Should Be Protected and What Should the Level of Protection Be?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

7.3 10 CFR Part 61 Scoping Activities. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 46

7.3.1 NUREG-0456: A Proposed LLW Dose Assessment Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

7.3.2 NUREG/CR-1005: A Proposed Radioactive Waste Classification System. . . . . . . . 47

7.3.3 NUREG-0782: The Draft LLW EIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

7.3.3.1 The Waste Streams Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7.3.3.2 The Exposure Pathways Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
viii

7.4 Assumed Definition of Safety. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 57

7.4.1 EPA Efforts to Promulgate LLW Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7.4.2 The NRC Selection of an LLW Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7.4.3 The NRC Proposed LLW Classification System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.4.4 Summary of the Final 10 CFR Part 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

8. THE MANAGEMENT OF GTCC LLW. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 67

8.1 NRC Activities. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 67

8.2 DOE Activities. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 68

9. OTHER NRC LLW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

9.1 LLW Regulatory Guidance and Policy. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 71

9.2 LLW Research. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 73

9.3 Strategic Planning. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 74

PART III. PAST U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE REVIEWS. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 77

10. THE ACRS AND THE ACNW. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 77

10.1 Background. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 77

10.2 Summary of Past ACRS and ACNW Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

10.2.1 General LLW Management Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

10.2.2 The NRC’ s LLW Regulatory Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

10.2.3 Ground-Water Monitoring. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 92

10.2. 4 Chemically Mixed Radioactive Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

10.2.5 Performance Assessment ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 94

10.2.6 Waste Package and Waste Form. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 97

11. REFERENCES. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 101

APPENDICES

A. Management of Government-Generated Low-Level Radioactive Waste by the 

U.S. Department of Energy . .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . A-1

B. Regulatory Evolution of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Structure of 10 CFR Part 61. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . C-1

D. A Summary of NUREG-1573: A Performance Assessment Methodology for 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Selected Low-Level Radioactive Waste Technical Reports Sponsored by NRC’ s 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... E-1

F. Final Commission Policy Statement on the Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment 

Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
ix

FIGURES

1. Lifecycle of a Hypothetical Commercial LLW Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

TABLES

1. Commercial LLW Profile. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 3

2. Overview of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW Classes and Waste Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Summary of LLW Ocean Disposal Operations in U.S. Territorial Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. Past and Current Commercial LLW Disposal Facilities in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Administrative Process for Establishing LLW Compacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6. Milestones, Deadlines, and Penalties Defined in the LLWPAA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7. Federal Responsibilities for the Management and Disposal of Commercial LLW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

8. LLW Compacts and LLWPA Milestone Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

9. Comparison of a 10 CFR Part 61 Type of Disposal Facility with an Assured Isolation Type 

of Storage Facility. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 33

10. Stakeholder Position Papers Concerning Commercial LLW Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

11. Exposure Scenarios Considered in NUREG-0456. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

12. Waste Disposal Classification Categories Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

13. DCGs for Waste Classes Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

14. Waste Streams Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

15. Radionuclides Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

16. Waste Spectra Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

17. Activity-Limited Exposure Event Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

18. Dose Guideline Options Considered by the NRC in Developing 10 CFR Part 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

19. Additional NRC Technical Guidance and Policy Direction in the Area of LLW.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

20. Potential Candidate Areas in 10 CFR Part 61 Identified for Amendment by the NRC 

Staff in 1993. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 75

21. Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning LLW Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

22. Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning De Minimis Issues and 

Below Regulatory Concern Policies. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 90
x
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At a 2005 briefing of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or the

Commission), the Advisory Committee on

Nuclear Waste (ACNW or the Committee)

agreed to examine some of the issues related to

the management of commercial low-level

radioactive waste (LLW). As a first step, the

Committee developed a background paper or

White Paper that briefly examines the history and

current status of commercial LLW disposal in the

United States, as well as the reasoning and

approach used by the NRC staff to develop its

LLW regulations in Title 10, Part 61, “ Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste,” of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR Part 61).

The ACNW transmitted a preliminary version of

this White Paper to the Commission on

December 27, 2005, following the ACNW’ s

166 meeting. See Ryan (2005). The paper th

subsequently underwent an editorial review, as

well as a limited external peer review. Although

some minor modifications and revisions to the

White Paper have been made as a result of those

reviews, the final report contained herein remains

substantially unchanged from that first

transmitted to the Commission in December

2005. However, there are three key

enhancements. First, the revised report includes

an expanded discussion concerning low-activity

radioactive wastes. This discussion reviews the

NRC’ s earlier de minimis regulatory position

and the subsequent Below Regulatory Concern

Policy Statements. Second, ACNW staff

identified additional letters prepared by the

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS),

the ACNW’ s predecessor, which have now been

included in the discussion of past Advisory

Committee reviews of the NRC LLW program

found in Part III of this report. Lastly, for the

purposes of comparison, Appendix A includes a

summary describing how the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) manages LLW generated from

former Government programs.

It should be noted that preparation of this White

Paper is also intended to satisfy an NRC goal of

knowledge management.

Structure of the ACNW LLW White Paper

The ACNW White Paper provides an abridged

examination of the NRC’ s LLW regulatory

program based on a review of key literature

sources. It also includes a summary of past 1

ACNW advice in the LLW area, including the

advice of the ACRS. Other areas of information

potentially bearing on this review were not

examined because of time constraints or other

ongoing reviews. These areas include an

examination of international approaches to the

management of commercial LLW (i.e., OECD

Nuclear Energy Agency, 2005) and domestic

approaches to the management of chemically

hazardous waste mixed with radioactive

constituents.

The White Paper is organized into three parts.

Part I. Part I is a history of the national LLW

program. This history reviews early approaches

to the management of commercial LLW by the

then Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and

summarizes Congressional actions following the

poor performance of the first AEC LLW disposal

sites. These actions include the NRC’ s efforts

 Many organizations and entities have written on

1

assorted issues related to the management of LLW in the

United States and, as a result, a rich body of literature

exists. Thus, the authors faced the challenge of

identifying those key references that would best describe

this history. It should be recognized therefore that other

researchers may reach different conclusions as to which

references are most appropriate to cite in a review of this

type.
xii

in the late 1970s to early 1980s to develop LLW

disposal regulations currently found in 10 CFR

Part 61. Following Congressional passage of the

Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLWPA)

and the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments

Act of 1985 (LLWPAA), the White Paper tracks

state efforts to site new LLW disposal facilities

following the establishment of the LLW Interstate

Compact system. Part I concludes with a current

status of the national program, which includes

recent efforts by the states to site new disposal

facilities.

Several stakeholder organizations have prepared

position papers expressing their views on various

matters related to the management of commercial

LLW. Some of these position papers also call for

regulatory changes to the NRC’ s LLW

regulatory framework. The White Paper

identifies those organizations with published

positions on the issues, but does not attempt to

summarize their respective positions.

Part II. Part II is dedicated primarily to the

NRC’ s LLW regulatory framework found at 10

CFR Part 61. The purpose of this section is to

provide some general background on the staff’ s

approach to developing the regulation and, in

doing so, highlight the key issues it considered in

the development of the LLW rule. The literature

indicates that the Commission’ s intent in

promulgating 10 CFR Part 61 was to develop a

comprehensive regulation that addressed all

phases of the LLW disposal cycle. This meant

that the regulation had to be sufficient to cover

disposal operations and closure, as well as the

long-term period of waste isolation. The

Commission was also concerned about the

potential for inadvertent human intrusion once

institutional control of the site had ended and

societal knowledge of the hazard ceased. In

relying on near-surface disposal, the possibility

exists for exposures to ionizing radiation

resulting from man’ s efforts to reclaim a

disposal site for productive use, such as farming,

housing, or natural resource development. It was

therefore recognized early in the 10 CFR Part 61

scoping process that because these types of

behavior could not be predicted, it was

impossible to guarantee that inadvertent human

intrusion at the site would not occur in the future.

Consequently, the Commission determined that

future generations, in effect, should be afforded

the same level of protection as the general

population today. 

NUREG-0782, “ Draft Environmental Impact

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Wastes,” issued September 1981, and NUREG0945, “ Final Environmental Impact Statement

on 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,” issued

November 1982, provide a detailed account of

the LLW regulation development process and the

disposition of key issues. These two documents

indicate that, in developing 10 CFR Part 61, the

staff gave considerable attention to determining

who should be protected and what the level of

protection should be. The literature also

indicates that radiation protection standards for

commercial LLW did not exist at the time. Part

II reviews the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’ s (EPA) efforts to promulgate LLW

standards and the NRC approach to the selection

of a default LLW dose criteria to support

development of its regulation in the absence of

those standards. Part II also reviews the 10 CFR

Part 61 waste classification system that evolved

from these scoping efforts and forms the basis for

the LLW rule today, as well as DOE efforts to

manage commercial greater-than-Class C LLW.

The section concludes with an overview of the

NRC staff’ s past and current LLW program

activities that are not associated with the

development of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulation.

Part III. The ACNW did not exist at the time

the NRC’ s LLW regulatory framework in 10

CFR Part 61 was created. The ACRS, however,

had established a subcommittee that monitored

developments in the waste management area.
xiii

Together, both Committees have issued more

than 40 letter reports commenting on various

aspects of this framework. Part III of the White

Paper summarizes this past advice. The principal

observations presented in past NRC Advisory

Committee letters can be generally classified into

the following six areas, with the corresponding

number of letters:2

• general LLW management issues – 12

letters

• NRC LLW regulatory framework – 19

letters

• ground-water monitoring – 3 letters

• chemically mixed radioactive waste – 3

letters

• performance assessment – 7 letters

• waste package and waste form – 3 letters

Appendices. This LLW White Paper also

includes the following appendices containing

useful background information to refer to when

reading the main body of the White Paper: 

• a review of the DOE approach to the

management of Government-owned

LLW

• a review of the evolution of the

regulatory definition of commercial

LLW

• a summary of the structure of the

NRC’ s LLW disposal regulation in

10 CFR Part 61

• a summary of the NRC staff’ s

recommendations for the conduct of a

LLW performance assessment found in

NUREG-1573, “ A Performance

Assessment Methodology for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –

Re commenda tions of NRC ’ s

Performance Assessment Working

Group,” issued October 2000, which are

consistent with the performance

objectives identified in Subpart C of 10

CFR Part 61

• a selected bibliography of LLW technical

reports sponsored by the NRC Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research since the

publication of NUREG-1573

• the Commission’ s 1995 policy statement

on the use of probabilistic risk

assessment methods in nuclear regulatory

activities

Emerging LLW Issues

Based on discussions with the NRC staff at its

165 meeting in November 2005, the Committee th

became aware of a number of emerging staff

LLW initiatives, as well as other ongoing

initiatives by outside organizations and agencies

that could have a bearing on the management of

commercial LLW. The White Paper references

these additional efforts and reviews. For

example, the staff is updating its strategic

planning in the LLW area following a

Commission-directed reduction in the program

about 10 years ago. In addition, the staff is

taking the following actions:

• reviewing past guidance on LLW storage

• responding to a 2005 Commission order

regarding the disposal of large quantities

of depleted uranium

• addressing 10 CFR Part 20.2002,

”Method for Obtaining Approval of

Proposed Disposal Procedures, ”

exemption issues

Besides the staff’ s internal efforts, a number of

external efforts and initiatives are underway that

may have a bearing on the future of commercial

LLW management, including the following:

 Some letters address multiple topics. 2
xiv

• the recently-completed National

Academy of Sciences low-activity

radioactive waste study (National

Research Council, 2006)

• a new U.S. Government Accountability

Office (2005) review of best LLW

management practices

• the ongoing EPA (2003) advance notice

of proposed rulemaking on low-activity

radioactive waste
xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the following

individuals who provided useful information,

comments, and reviews that served to enhance

the substance of this report:

A. Campbell/Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

A. Dias/ACNW staff

S. Flanders/NMSS

J. Kennedy/NMSS

M. Knapp/NMSS (retired)

P. Lohaus/NMSS (retired)

T. Nicholson/Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research (RES)

E. O’ Donnell/RES

J. Shaffner/NMSS

S. Salomon/Office of State and Tribal

Programs

M. Thaggard/NMSS

D. Widmayer/ACNW staff

R. Weiner/ACNW

The authors are especially grateful for the

thoughtful reviews provided by D. Kocher/

SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., and M. Letourneau/

U.S. Department of Energy. In addition, several

individuals were helpful in locating some of the

references cited in this report. They include:

R. Cady/RES, C. Gorday/Office of Information

Services – Library Services Branch (OIS – LSB),

M. Gow/Nuclear Energy Institute Library,

M. Kelton/ACRS-ACNW Operations Support

Branch, B. Lee/OGC — Program Support

Branch, E. O’ Donnell/RES, M. Neel/OIS –

LSB, T. Nicholson/ RES, and B. Rhodes/OIS –

LSB. Contributions to an early version of this

report by S. Steele and R. Summers, both

formerly of the ACRS-ACNW staff, are also

recognized.

These individuals do not necessarily approve,

disapprove, or endorse the views expressed in

this report.
xvi
xvii

ABBREVIATIONS

ACNW Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AGV above-ground vault

AIF assured isolation facility

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

ANPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking

BEIR biological effects of ionizing radiation

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BRC below regulatory concern

BWR boiling-water reactor

CAA Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie

CORAR Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors

d day

DCG disposal concentration guide

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DSI direction-setting issue

EMCB earth-mounded concrete bunker

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration 

FEIS final environmental impact statement

FFCA Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992

FR Federal Register

FRC Federal Radiation Council

ft cubic feet 3

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office (before July 2004); U.S. Government Accountability Office (after

July 2004)

GEIS generic environmental impact statement 

GTCC greater-than-Class C (radioactive waste)
xviii

HIC high-integrity container

HLW high-level radioactive waste

HDPE high-density polyethylene

hr hour

ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation

LAW low-activity radioactive waste

LFRG LLW Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (of DOE) 

LLW low-level radioactive waste

LLW Forum Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum

LLWPA Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980

LLWPAA Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

LSV liquid scintillation vial

LWR light-water reactor

:Ci/cm microcurie per cubic centimeter

3

:g/L microgram per liter

m cubic meter

3

MAC maximum average concentration

MCL maximum concentration limit 

MIMS Manifest Information Management System (of DOE)

MLLW mixed low-level radioactive waste

MOU memorandum of understanding

MOX mixed-oxide (fuel)

mrem/yr millirem per year

MRS monitored retrievable storage

nCi/g nanocurie per gram

NACOA National Advisory Committee on Oceans and the Atmosphere 

NARM naturally occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive material

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NBS National Bureau of Standards

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFS Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 

NMSS Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

NOI notice of inquiry

NORM naturally occurring radioactive material

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NUMARC Nuclear Management and Resources Council

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OTA Office of Technology Assessment

pCi/g picocurie per gram

pCi/L picocurie per liter

PAM performance assessment methodology (for LLW)

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
xix

PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

PRESTO Protection of Radiation Effects from Shallow Trench Operations (EPA computer code)

psi pounds per square inch

PWR pressurized-water reactor 

QA quality assurance

R&D research and development 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

s second

SA specific activity

SLB shallow land burial

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SNL Sandia National Laboratory

SRM staff requirements memorandum

SS source and special nuclear material

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

TENR technologically enhanced natural radiation

TENORM technologically-enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials

TRU transuranic (radioactive waste)

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WCS Waste Control Specialists, LLC (of Texas)

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

yr year
xx
1

PART I. LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAM HISTORY

1 INTRODUCTION

Most establishments working with radioactive

materials produce radioactive wastes, since

radioactive material contaminates anything with

which it comes into contact. In the United

States, thousands of establishments, both

government and private, are licensed to use

radioactive materials. The volume and level of 1

activity in the wastes produced varies in direct

proportion to the amount of radioactive material

used. Historically, the greatest proportion of

radioactive waste produced domestically is lowlevel radioactive waste (LLW), although LLW

only accounts for about 0.1 percent of the total

radioactivity being disposed (Moeller, 1992,

p. 118).

The term “ low-level radioactive waste” or

“ LLW” has carried a changing meaning over the

years. At the time the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission)

promulgated the LLW disposal regulations found

at Title 10, Part 61, “ Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 61),

the term LLW was exclusionary. It generally

meant that portion of the radioactive waste

stream that did not fit the prevailing definition of

high-level radioactive waste (HLW) or

intermediate-level radioactive waste, with

concentrations of transuranic (TRU) elements less

than 100 nanocuries per gram (nCi/g). Some

LLW has radioactive material concentrations

comparable to that of spent nuclear fuel (SNF),

and the NRC considers this waste to be greaterthan-Class C GTCC) LLW.The U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing

such wastes.

LLW is currently defined at 10 CFR Part 61 in

the same way that it is defined in the Low-Level

Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLWPA – Public Law

96-573) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

1982, as amended – specifically, radioactive

waste that is not classified as HLW, TRU waste,

SNF, or byproduct material as defined in Section

11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA

– i.e., uranium or thorium tailings and waste).

1.1 Commercial LLW

LLW typically consists of contaminated

protective shoe covers and clothing, wiping rags,

mops, filters, reactor water treatment residues,

equipments and tools, luminous dials, swabs,

injection needles, syringes, and laboratory animal

carcasses and tissues (see Table 1). The

radioactive material concentration can range from

just above background levels found in nature to,

in certain cases, very high concentrations of

radioactive material, such as parts from the inside

of a nuclear power plant reactor vessel. About

97 percent of LLW decays to safe levels within

100 years, although a small percentage of longer

lived radionuclides persist at potentially

hazardous concentrations for thousands of years

or more. Licensees typically store LLW on site,

either until it has decayed and can be disposed as

ordinary (municipal) trash or until amounts are

large enough for shipment to an approved LLW

disposal site. The NRC has historically

discouraged the use of onsite storage of LLW as

a substitute for permanent disposal (NRC, 1996a,

p. 6-44). 

2

 The Nuclear Energy Agency (1998) provides an

1

overview of the beneficial use of radioactive materials.

 In Generic Letter 81-38 (NRC, 1981e), the NRC 2

staff first noted that no nuclear facility should be built to

store waste for longer than 5 years under a licensee's 10

CFR 50.59, “ Changes, Tests and Experiments,”

evaluation. The licensee should obtain specific NRC

approval. This limitation was based in part on safety

considerations, but was aimed at encouraging the
2

The NRC classifies commercial LLW as Class A,

B, or C (see Table 2). Key decision parameters

in this classification system are the physical

stability of the waste form and packaging and its

radioisotopic concentration. In any year, the

amount of commercial LLW generated can vary.

Generally, it is on the order of 10 cubic feet (ft )

6 3

or about 28,000 cubic meters (m3 ). In 2004,

about 3.8× 10 ft of LLW was generated, 6 3

representing about 3.4× 10 curies (Ci) of 5

radioactivity. The majority of the volume (more

than 99 percent) was Class A LLW. Although

Class A LLW is the greatest in terms of volume

of material generated, Class C wastes contain

most of the activity – averaging between 69 and

97 percent of all of the curies disposed of over

the last ten years. 

3

Technological advances, as well as major

reductions in the extent of contaminated areas

within power plants, have contributed to the

decrease in waste quantities generated over the

past several decades. However, the volume of

material being disposed has recently increased as

a result of the decommissioning of the first

generation of commercial nuclear power plants

(Buckley, 2005). Utilities have undertaken

volume reduction and waste minimization efforts

in response to increased disposal costs for LLW.

These efforts include segr egation,

decontamination, minimizing exposure of

materials and tools to the contaminated

environment, sorting potential contaminated

materials, and dewatering and evaporation. See

Strauss (1987), Coley (1987), and Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI – 1988a, 1988b). Some

of the most effective volume reduction strategies

are compacting, consolidating, and monitoring

waste streams to reduce the volume of LLW

requiring storage and to reduce the exposure of

routine equipment to the reactor environment.

See, for example, Strauss (1987), Taylor (1987),

EPRI (1988a, 1988b, 1988c), and Shaw (1988).

Based on their economic model, Voth and Witzig

(1986) note that waste generators have achieved

most of the waste volume reductions in the past

in unsited LLW disposal site regions.

In anticipation of receiving license applications

for the renewal of operating licenses for nuclear

power plants, the Commission published a

generic EIS (GEIS) in 1996. In conjunction with

the GEIS, the Commission examined the volume

of LLW that would be generated as a result of

power plant refurbishments necessary to support

a 20-year license extension. Although additional

(non-routine) volumes of LLW would be

generated as part of any refurbishment process,

the Commission concluded that the radiological

and nonradiological impacts would be small. In

the matter of the management of those wastes, it

was noted in the GEIS that interim storage may

have to take place at the reactor sites if

(commercial) off-site disposal facilities were

unavailable. See NRC (1996b). Should LLW

storage extend beyond the 5-year guideline

established by the staff (in excess activity or

volume limits projected in a power plant license

application), EPRI (1992) has suggested that

licensees may need to secure additional license

authorities under 10 CFR Part 30 (“ Rules of

General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of

Byproduct Material”) and/or Part 50 (“ Domestic

Licensing of Production and Utilization

Facilities”). Also see Section 5.2 of this report.

development of permanent LLW disposal facilities.

However, recognizing that the 5-year limit has not

influenced the development of new waste disposal

facilities and that the states continue to make slow

progress, the NRC has eliminated any language in its

guidance to suggest that the 5-year term is a limit beyond

which storage would not be allowed.

 These data are taken from the Manifest Information 3

Management System (MIMS). DOE uses this

computerized system to compile information on

commercial LLW generation and disposal. The MIMS

Web site can be found at http://mims.apps.em.doe.gov/.
3

Table 1 Commercial LLW Profile. Adopted from Office of Technology Assessment – OTA (1989, p. 83), citing

various sources.

Generator Waste Forms Principal Radionuclides

Isotope Half-life (t1⁄2) Radiation Type

Nuclear Power Plants Dry solids, used equipment, sludges,

organic solvents and other liquids, water

purification filter media and resins,

irradiated hardware, gaseous wastes

Co-58 71.3 d â, ã

Co-60 5 yr â, ã

Cr-51 27.7 yr â, ã

Mn-54 312 d â, ã

Cs-134 2 yr â, ã

Cs-137 30 yr â, ã

Ni-59 80,000 yr â, ã

H-3 12.3 yr â

Zn-65 243 d â, ã

I-131 157,000,000 yr â

Industry Pharmaceutical C-14 5730 yr â

H-3 12.3 yr â

P-32 14.3 d â

S-35 87 d â

Tc-99 6 hr ã

Nuclear Fuel Fabricators U-235 700,000,000 yr á, ã

U-238 4,470,000,000 yr á, ã

Sealed Sources several variable â, ã

*

Medical and Academia Dry solids, used equipment, glassware, 

plastics, scintillation fluids and other

organic solvents, animal carcasses,

medical treatment and research materials,

gaseous wastes

H-3 12.3 yr â

C-14 5730 yr â

I-125 60.2 d â, ã

S-35 87 d â

Rb-87 4,900,000,000 yr â

Ca-45 163 d â

Cr-51 27.7 d ã

Tc-99m 6 hr ã

* Most of the isotopes of interest have half-lives on the order of a few seconds (Kr-81m – 13 seconds ) to hours (Y-87 – 80 hours). Thus, they typically

decay or can be stored on site until such time that they become innocuous and can be disposed of as part of the municipal waste stream or along with LLW

as byproduct material. Co-57, however, is an exception at 271 days. Other exceptions include some longer lived gamma-ray emitters, produced through

particle accelerators (Na–22 – 2.6 years) as well as particle accelerator targets and components.
4

Table 2 Overview of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW Classes and Waste Characteristics. Adopted from NRC (1989, p. 9a)

and OTA (1989, pp. 83–84). Section 7.4.3 of this report describes the overall 10 CFR Part 61 waste

classification process in more detail. 

Radionuclide

Concentration

Waste Form Examples Intruder Protection* Waste Segregation

Class A low concentrations minimum waste form 

requirements

no stabilization

requirements

contaminated

protective clothing,

paper, trash

no measures to

protect intruder

waste decays to

acceptable levels to

intruder after 100 yr

unstable Class A

waste must be

segregated from

Class B and C

wastes

Class B higher concentrations

activity generally 10 –

40 times greater than

Class A

minimum waste

form requirements

300-yr stabilization

requirement

resins and filters from

nuclear power plants,

wastes encapsulated

or stabilized in

concrete

requires stabilization

of waste form to

protect intruder

waste decays to

acceptable levels to

intruder after 100 yr,

provided that waste

form is recognizable

need not be

segregated from

Class C wastes

Class C highest

concentrations

activity generally 10 –

100 times greater

than Class B

minimum waste form

requirements

300-yr stabilization

requirement

nuclear power plant

reactor components,

sealed sources, highactivity industrial

waste

requires stabilization

of waste form and

deeper disposal (or

barriers) to protect

intruder

waste decays to

acceptable levels to

intruder after 500 yr

need not be

segregated from

Class B wastes

* The 10 CFR Part 61 regulation assumes a 100-yr caretaker period. 

1.2 Chemically Mixed LLW

Some commercial LLW contains chemically

hazardous constituents and is referred to

as“ mixed waste.” Mixed LLW typically

includes organic liquids, metallic lead, cadmium,

chromates, and waste oils (Bowerman et al.,

1985). This type of waste is produced by the full

range of LLW generators and waste processors.

Various estimates (OTA, 1989, p. 85; Klein et

al., 1992, p. xiii; NRC, 1999) suggest that 3 to

10 percent of commercial LLW is chemically

mixed waste.

Mixed LLW is also subject to regulation under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

1976 (RCRA). The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) administers RCRA,

along with states with regulations comparable to

RCRA.

Section 1004(5) of RCRA defines a hazardous

waste as any substance that is flammable,

corrosive, reactive, or toxic. On May 19, 1980,

EPA published its final rule defining the general

framework for identifying chemically hazardous

wastes beginning at page 33084 of Volume 45

of the Federal Register (45 FR 33084). The

applicable regulations can be found at 40 CFR

Part 261, “ Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste.” Until 1985, chemically

mixed LLW could be disposed of in a facility
5

meeting only the NRC’ s 10 CFR Part 61

regulations (OTA, 1989, p. 86). Thereafter, the

management and disposal of RCRA-classified

waste had to comply with EPA regulations as

well. As a result of legislative ambiguity (Parler,

1989), both the NRC and EPA regulate the

management of chemically mixed radioactive

waste. EPA published a final rule in 2001 (66

FR 27218) that conditionally exempted mixed

low-activity radioactive waste (LAW) from

RCRA regulations during storage, treatment, and

disposal. See Section 5.3 of this report. In 2003,

EPA published an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR) requesting comment on the

suitability of using RCRA Subtitle-C disposal

technology (and regulations) for disposing of

certain “ unimportant quantities” of mixed

LAW. See 68 FR 65120. 4

The review of mixed LLW issues is beyond the

scope of this report. However, other researchers

have studied the issue. See, for example,

General Research Corporation (1980), Bowerman

et al. (1986), Kempf et al. (1986), and OTA

(1989).

1.3 Government-Owned LLW

Some LLW is generated in facilities that are not

regulated by the Commission’ s authority under

the AEA, but are regulated by NRC Agreement

States. DOE, operating under different rules 5

from the commercial sector, also manages and

disposes of Government-owned LLW.

Government-owned LLW includes waste created

from past nuclear weapons production and

research, environmental restoration of Federal

facilities, and routine operations of the U.S.

Navy’ s nuclear propulsion program. 

Although a detailed review of the DOE LLW

management program is also beyond the scope of

this report, Appendix A offers a brief description

of this program and provides an alternative

perspective on the management of these wastes.

However, unlike commercial LLW, it should be

noted that a greater proportion of Governmentowned LLW is chemically mixed – estimated to

be between 50 and 80 percent – which affects the

Department’ s management strategy for these

wastes (National Research Council, 1999, p. 25).

 “ Unimportant quantities” is a legal term that applies 4

to source material defined in 10 CFR Part 40 (“ Domestic

Licensing of Source Material”). It refers to uraniumand/or thorium-bearing materials in concentrations less

than 0.05 percent by weight that are deferred from

regulation.

 Under Section 274 of the AEA, the NRC can

5

relinquish portions of its regulatory authority to license

and regulate byproduct materials (radioisotopes), source

materials (uranium and thorium), and certain quantities of

special nuclear materials to the states. The mechanism for

the transfer of the NRC’ s authority is an agreement

signed by the Governor of the state and the Chairman of

the Commission, in accordance with Section 274b of the

act. Agreement States therefore are those states whose

Governors have entered into such limited agreements with

the Commission.
6

(Page intentionally left blank.)
7

2 EARLY APPROACHES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF 

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

In the early years of the domestic nuclear energy

industry, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

used three methods to dispose of radioactive

waste —dilution and dispersion, shallow land

burial (SLB), and disposal at sea. 

6

2.1 Ocean Disposal

Initially, only the AEC disposed of both

commercial and Government-owned LLW.

Commercial wastes were typically disposed in the

ocean, based on the recommendations of the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at the time.

See National Research Council (1959, 1962). 7

Because most radionuclides have short half-lives,

many believed that dilution in ocean water plus

decay would result in innocuous levels of

radiation and pose minimal hazards to man.

Furthermore, the sea was readily available and

economic to use (Raubvogel, 1982, pp. 21–23).

The U.S. Navy conducted disposal at sea until

about 1959. Thereafter, the AEC licensed seven

companies to dispose of the wastes. 

Ocean disposal of LLW occurred in waters

greater than 1000 fathoms (about 6000 feet)

following the 1954 recommendations of the

National Bureau of Standards’ (NBS) National

Committee on Radiation Protection (NBS, 1954,

p. 2). The disposal container most often used

was a 55-gallon steel drum. The LLW was

mixed with cement or concrete to assure sinking

and to withstand the deep-sea pressures.

Sometimes, prefabricated steel-mesh-concrete

boxes of varying sizes were used instead of

drums. As was the case with the steel drums,

cement or concrete was mixed with the LLW to

achieve the negative buoyancy necessary to

assure sinking. This general design configuration

was not intended to be permanent (U.S. General

Accounting Office – GAO, 1981, pp. 2–9). It

8

provided an estimated 10 years of radionuclide

containment in the marine environment9

(National Research Council, 1959, p. 1). 

More than 60 LLW disposal sites were

distributed between 5 major disposal locations in

the Pacific Ocean, 1 in the Gulf of Mexico, and

11 in the Atlantic Ocean. The waste was not

evenly distributed among the sites; three sites

received about 90 percent of the LLW, by

volume. Table 3 summarizes the number of

LLW containers and the associated activity

disposed. Overall, it is estimated that about

95 percent of the containers disposed in the

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of

Mexico were 55-gallon drums (National Research

Council, 1971, p. 36).

In 1970, the AEC ended its practice of disposing

of LLW at sea. Sea disposal was discontinued in

conformity with U.S. environmental laws and

regulations as well as international agreements

intended to prevent marine pollution, such as the

 The AEA initially assigned the AEC the functions of 6

both encouraging the use of nuclear power and regulating

its safety. The AEC regulatory programs sought to ensure

public health and safety from the hazards of nuclear power

without imposing excessive requirements that would

inhibit the growth of the industry. 

 The NAS generally recommended that no 300-mile 7

section of the coast line should contain more than three

disposal areas and that adjacent disposal areas be separated

by at least 75 miles. The NAS also had specific

recommendations on the total quantity of activity disposed

at any one location monthly, as well as annually.

 In July 2004, the GAO was renamed the Government 8

Accountability Office.

 With the exception of the radionuclides strontium-90, 9

cesium-137, and possibly cobalt-60.
8

Table 3 Summary of LLW Ocean Disposal Operations in U.S. Territorial Waters. Compiled using National

Research Council reports published in 1959 (p. 5) and 1971 (p. 37) and Appendix C to a report published in

April 1984 on this topic by the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. However, the

reader should note that questions have been raised in the past about the accuracy of past recordkeeping and

the accuracy of these statistics (Raubvogel, 1982, p. 23).

Water Body Years of

Disposal 

Activity

Number of

Individual

Disposal Sites

Number of

Containers

Estimated Activity

at Time of

 Packaging (Ci)

Atlantic Ocean 1951–1967 +24 34,203* 79,482.9

Pacific Ocean 1946–1970 +34 56,261 14,980.5

Gulf of Mexico < 1959 2 79 < 25

* Includes unpackaged and liquid wastes.

1972 London Convention. The early 1980s saw 10

a renewed interest in sea disposal.

In a report dated April 1984, the National

Advisory Committee on Oceans and the

Atmosphere (NACOA) recommended that the

present policy of excluding the use of the ocean

for LLW disposal be reversed (NACOA, 1984,

pp. 6–7). These recommendations were never

adopted and the practice of ocean dumping was

never reinstated in the United States. Consistent

with the applicable regulations, any request for 11

ocean disposal of LLW requires a permit that

must be approved by both houses of Congress.

2.2 Land Disposal

In the 1960s, commercial interest in ocean

disposal began to decline and had ended

completely by 1970. One of the principal

reasons for the decline was the adverse public

reaction to polluting the ocean. The other

motivation was economic. Ocean disposal was

reported to cost as much as $48.75 per 55-gallon

drum compared to $5.15 per drum for burial on

land (Mazuzan and Walker, 1997, p. 367). For

these reasons, the AEC endorsed a new disposal

policy permitting land burial using commercial

disposal sites. Under this policy, it was

envisioned that the private sector would identify

sites with favorable geologic and meteorologic

conditions and provide the same disposal service

to commercial generators, but at lower cost. The

intent was to locate disposal sites in those regions

of the country generating the wastes. At the

time, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

(ORNL) and the National Reactor Testing Station

(now the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory)

were the principal handlers of LLW generated by

then-AEC licensees. LLW generated there and

at other Federal facilities was being disposed at

about 16 major and lesser Federally owned sites

rather than in the ocean (National Research

Council, 1976, pp. 18–19). 

 Known more formally as the “ Convention on the 10

Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes

and Other Matter, 1972," the London Convention has

been in force since 1975. Currently 80 Member states

(including the United States) are parties to this convention.

In 1996, a protocol was developed to amend the London

Convention to ban ocean disposal of radioactive wastes

and incineration at sea. See DOE (2005b, pp. 17–18).

 The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 11

Act of 1972 (Public Law 95-532) authorizes EPA to issue

permits and promulgate regulations for disposing of

materials into United States territorial waters. Those

regulations (EPA, 1977a) can be found in 40 CFR Part

220 (“ Ocean Dumping”). 
9

Because of concerns about the long-term

effectiveness of institutional controls at potential

disposal sites, in January 1960, the AEC

proposed that commercial disposal facilities be

located on Government-owned land and regulated

and licensed by the Federal Government

(Mazuzan and Walker, 1997, p. 366). As a

temporary measure, until a commercial disposal

capability became available, the AEC decided to

accept nongovernment LLW for disposal as part

of an “ Interim Radioactive Waste Burial

Program” (Op cit., p. 367). In September 1962,

the AEC authorized private firms to dispose of

commercial LLW on land. The first privately

operated LLW land-burial service was near

Beatty, Nevada, on state-owned land. Nuclear

Engineering, Inc., which the AEC had already

licensed to commercially dispose of LLW at sea,

operated the site. At the time, licensing criteria

specific to the disposal of LLW did not exist.

The only applicable licensing criteria were the

general AEC regulations at 10 CFR 20.302(a),

10 CFR 20.302(b), and 10 CFR 20.304. 12

In May 1963, the AEC announced its intent to

withdraw its interim disposal services for

radioactive wastes shipped on or after August 12,

1963, because of the establishment of a

commercial disposal alternatives at Beatty and at

Maxey Flats (AEC, 1963). Interim disposal

services were terminated in November 1963.

The AEC also announced its intention to use

commercial disposal sites for its wastes, to the

extent that it could obtain “ fair and reasonable”

prices for the service (Lennemann, 1976,

p. 268). Although additional disposal sites were

later established (see next paragraph),

Lennemann (1976, p. 269) notes that at no time

did the AEC believe that more than two regional

LLW disposal sites were necessary.

By 1971, a total of six shallow-burial LLW

disposal facilities were licensed and operated to

dispose of the Nation’ s commercial LLW (see

Table 4). Most of these facilities were located

within the boundaries of or adjacent to a much

larger Federal reservation operated by the AEC.

Four of the disposal sites — Beatty, Barnwell,

Maxey Flats, and West Valley — were licensed

by their respective host states through the

Agreement State program with the AEC under

Section 274 of the AEA. The AEC licensed the

two remaining sites (Richland and Sheffield)

because Washington and Illinois had not become

Agreement States at the time of licensing.

The commercially operated sites adopted the

practice of near-surface, SLB disposal technology

adhered to at existing AEC facilities at the time.

This disposal method relies on relatively simple

engineering designs to isolate wastes from

infiltrating groundwater. The natural (geologic)

characteristics of the site are the principal

attenuators of any radioactive material that might

be released to the accessible environment. There

were no systematic site selection criteria or

design requirements that could be used to

establish the best mix of features necessary to

contain and isolate the wastes (Robertson, 1984,

p. 105). Disposal generally involved clearing

and grading the land and excavating shallow

unlined trenches – generally less than 50-feet

(15-m) deep – that would be used to receive the

waste. 

At the time, no specific packaging requirements

existed for LLW disposal. LLW was packaged 13

in a variety of container types that were

randomly dumped or stacked into the trenches.

The waste was generally placed into the trenches

on a first-come, first-served basis. Trenches

were then backfilled using materials removed

 Title 10, Section 20.2002, “ Method for Obtaining

12

Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures,” of the Code

of Federal Regulations supercedes these requirements.

 The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 13

promulgated its regulations for the transportation of

radioactives wastes in 1979 (44 FR 1851).
10

Table 4 Past and Current Commercial LLW Disposal Facilities in the United States. Taken from EG & G Idaho, Inc. (1994), unless otherwise noted.

Site Operational

Period

Original

Licensing

Authority

(year)

Status Area

(acres)a

Disposal

Volume

(10 ft3) 6

Waste Form Characteristics Comments

By-product 

material

(10 Ci) 6

Source

Material

(10 lbs) 6

Special

Nuclear

Material

(lbs)

Beatty, Nevada 1962–1992 AEC (1962) Closed 80

(60)

4.7 0.64 4.0 605 A site adjacent to the now-closed LLW disposal facility

is currently operated as a RCRA- and PCB-approved

disposal facility. b

Maxey Flats, Kentucky 1963–1977 State (1962) Closed 280 4.7 2.4 0.533 950 Designated as an EPA Superfund site in 1986. 

Remediation completed in 1991.

West Valley, New York 1963–1975 State (1963) Closed 3345

(22) c

2.5 1.3 1 125 LLW operations ceased in 1975 when burial caps

leaked contaminated water.

Richland, Washington 1965–present AEC (1965) Open 100 13.6 36.1 de e13.5 f351 f Collocated within the Hanford nuclear reservation. 

Disposal site leased from the Government. Disposal

fees lower than Barnwell, but higher than Envirocare.

Barnwell, South

Carolina

1969–present State (1971) Open 300 24.8 12.8 e e 33.6 6739

f Originally licensed for above-ground LLW storage. In f

1971, LLW burial was approved. Highest disposal fees

in the country.

Sheffield, Illinois 1968–1978 AEC (1967) Closed 170

(20)

+3 3 0.06 126 Attempts to expand disposal capacity in 1975 were

unsuccessful because contaminated leachate was

detected, effectively ending site operations. In 1988,

the Sheffield operator agreed to a 10-year monitoring

plan with the state. 

Clive, Utah 1991–present State (1991) Open 540 25.0 11.3 g NA NA Initially approved as a DOE uranium mill tailings g

disposal site. Subsequent license amendments were

received for the disposal of naturally occurring

radioactive material (NORM – 1987), LAW (1991),

mixed LLW (1993), AEA Section 11e.(2) materials h

(1994), and Part 61 Class A LLW (2000).

a. Actual disposal area, in parentheses, smaller than area comprising disposal site. Reported disposal volumes can be converted to units of cubic meters by multiplying values by 0.028317.

b. In June 1988, the site operator, U.S. Ecology received a joint State-Federal RCRA permit to dispose of hazardous chemical wastes at a location adjacent to the LLW disposal site (Howekamp, 1996, p. 3). PreRCRA classified waste types had been disposed at this site since 1970. In 1978, the company also received EPA approval to operate a PCB storage and disposal facility at the Beatty site.

c. Site owned by New York State includes multiple radioactive waste management areas.

d. Hanford nuclear reservation encompasses an area of 1000 acres.

e. Data for the period 1995–98 taken from Fuchs (1996, p. 6; 1997, p. 6; 1998, p. 6; 1999, p. 7). Data for the period 1999 though June 2005 taken from MIMS.

f. Data only through 1994. 

g. Data for period June 1992 through May 2005 taken from MIMS. 
11

during trench excavation, compacted, and graded

to create an earthen mound cap necessary to

prevent rain water ponding and to promote

runoff. The earthen cap was then seeded to

grow a short-rooted protective grass cover. To

preclude inadvertent human intrusion, a security

fence surrounded the disposal sites. The nearsurface disposal method assumed that the nature

and rates of natural processes acting on the

earthen trench system would be sufficient to slow

the movement of radionuclides from the disposal

trenches to the accessible environment until they

had decayed to acceptable background levels

found in nature (EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1994, p. 4).

In 1973, the AEC asked the NAS to

independently review the shallow-land disposal

practices at its facilities. The AEC was

particularly interested in identifying “ undesirable

existing conditions and disposal practices...” as

well as identifying corrective actions, such as

“ changes in current burial practices, changes in

conditioning of [LLW] materials for burial, and

special treatment of the ground prior to

disposal....” See Pittman (1973). The AEC

requested the review because routine monitoring

at some of the AEC sites had begun to reveal that

the disposal trenches were not containing the

wastes and that radionuclides were being released

(NRC, 1977b, p. 17). At the time, the AEC was

particularly concerned about the long-term

management of the TRU constituents of its

wastes (National Research Council, 1976). In

1976, the NAS published its findings and

recommendations following the review of solid

LLW management practices at AEC facilities.

Although the NAS found no serious deficiencies

in past Federal disposal practices, it did make

numerous administrative, as well as technical

recommendations for the AEC to consider. 14

2.3 Early Performance Issues

After several years of operation, the West

Valley, Maxey Flats, and Sheffield sites began 15

to encounter surface and/or ground-water

management problems (Fisher, 1986). These

problems, coupled with other early LLW disposal

practices, resulted in the unexpected release and

transport of radionuclides from the disposal sites.

Key failure modes included waste container

exhumation due to surface erosion, ground

failures (subsidence) caused by inadequate waste

container compaction, and the migration of

contaminated leachate from unlined disposal

trenches. Because the disposal units were in

effect “ leaking,” decisions were made to

suspend operations and close the sites in the

1970s. Carter et al. (1979) describes forensic

case studies of past performance for several of

the early disposal sites.

The remaining LLW sites had problems of a

different type. The Governors of Nevada and

Washington temporarily closed the Beatty and

Richland sites, respectively, in 1979 as a result of

waste packaging violations and transportation

safety issues. When the volume of waste shipped

to the South Carolina site began to increase

because of closures and interruptions at the other

sites, coupled with a large increase in the

generation of LLW following the Three Mile

Island incident (NRC Special Inquiry Group,

1980), the State was concerned that the facility

would bear sole responsibility for the disposal of

the Nation’ s commercial LLW. As a result, in

1979, the Governor of South Carolina ordered

that waste acceptance operations be scaled back

by 50 percent over a 2-year period (EG&G

Idaho, Inc., 1994).

 Later, as part of the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking

14

process, the NRC conducted its own independent review

of early LLW disposal site performance. Clancy et al.

(1981) documented this independent review.

 Actually, contaminant transport was not discovered 15

at the Sheffield site until after operators of the closed site

attempted to reopen with expanded disposal capacity

(EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1994, pp. 37–38).
12

To address some of the past performance

concerns and to develop geohydrologic

guidelines that could be used to establish 16

technical criteria for selecting, evaluating,

licensing, and operating new LLW disposal sites,

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received

direct LLW appropriations for the first time in

1975 leading to the preparation of various reports

(Schneider et al., 1982, p. 57). These reports

include Schneider et al. (1982), Dinwiddie and

Trask (1987), Trask and Stevens (1991), Stevens

and Nicholson (1996); and Morganwalp and

Buxton (1999). To reduce the potential for the

environmental transport of radionuclides at

disposal sites, the NAS independently

recommended that arid sites in the West be

considered based on the view that the

geohydrologic settings there would be less

complex and hence performance could be more

reliably predicted (National Research Council,

1976, pp. 67–68). Incidentally, the USGS

reached this same opinion as early as 1974 when

it recommended 17 types of earth-science

information needed to predict the rate and

direction of radionuclide transport. See

Papadopulos and Winograd (1974). Other

recommendations were made that some form of

engineered barrier, working in concert with the

natural system (geosphere), be integrated into

future LLW facility designs (Battelle Memorial

Institute, 1976, pp. 24, 48).

Technical issues notwithstanding, LLW

generators were still faced with the practical

matter of a reduction in existing disposal access

because of site closures and operational

interruptions. In addition, the geographic

location of the remaining disposal facilities

(mostly in the West) was mismatched with the

geographic location of most of the waste

generation (in the East). The three remaining

states with operating sites made it clear that they

would not continue to accept all of the Nation’ s

LLW (GAO, 1983, p. 7).

 Later published as Bedinger (1989). 16
13

3 CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS

Congress abolished the AEC in 1974. The newly

created NRC subsumed the AEC regulatory

functions and the Energy Research and

Development Administration (ERDA – which

was later absorbed into DOE) took over the

atomic energy promotional functions.

3.1 Background

In a review prepared for OTA, Metlay (1981a,

p. 203) notes that during the formative years of

domestic radioactive waste management policy

(1941–75), the waste management issue did not

receive very high priority. National policy

focused on promoting the civilian use of nuclear

energy (e.g., “ Atoms for Peace”). The

Government assumed that SNF would be

reprocessed and its residual uranium and

plutonium would be recycled as fuel (Op cit.,

p. 205). When the management of radioactive

waste finally did receive attention, it focused on

the management of the more toxic, longer lived

radionuclides (Metlay, 1981b, pp. 233–239).

In response to the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1970 (NEPA) (Public Law 91-190), as 17

well as critical reviews by GAO (1968, 1971,

1974), the AEC undertook several initiatives

intended to place greater Federal emphasis on the

management of radioactive wastes. In June

1969, the AEC proposed for the first time the

development of repositories for the geologic

disposal of solidified HLW on Federal land

(AEC, 1970). Next, the AEC issued a plan 18

describing how it intended to manage radioactive

legacy waste from the defense program (AEC,

1972). In 1974, the AEC issued a rule on the

environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle

as a result of the increased licensing and

operation of commercial nuclear power plants

(AEC, 1974a). This rule was later supported by

a draft EIS (DEIS – AEC, 1974c). The AEC 19

also proposed to prohibit the burial of TRUcontaminated commercial radioactive waste

whose concentration exceeded 10 nCi/g (AEC,

1974b). Waste material exceeding this

concentration limit would have been consigned to

a Federal retrieval storage facility pending the

development of a disposal facility for TRU waste

(Op cit.). In 1976, the newly created NRC

issued a final EIS (FEIS) to aid in the assessment

of the proposed wide-scale use of mixed-oxide

(MOX) fuel in light water nuclear power

reactors. The environmental impacts of potential

radioactive waste management activities due to

the recycling of MOX plutonium were discussed

in Volume 3 (Section H). In that FEIS, it was

noted that LLW volumes were not significantly

affected by the recycle option (NRC, 1976,

 NEPA initially requires Federal agencies to 17

integrate environmental values into their decisionmaking

processes by considering the environmental impacts of

their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those

actions. NEPA also requires that all Federal agencies

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) “ for

major actions significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment....” To meet this basic requirement,

Federal and State Governments, at all levels, now

routinely prepare detailed EIS. See Leopold et al. (1971).

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) develops

regulations that implement NEPA. CEQ defines the

“ scoping” of an EIS at 40 CFR 1501.7 as “ an early and

open process for determining the scope of issues to be

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related

to the proposed action....” 

 Designated Appendix F, “ Siting of Fuel 18

Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste Management

Facilities” (34 FR 8712). The policy was later finalized in

1970 (35 FR 17530).

 Following the reorganization of the AEC, ERDA 19

issued a revised generic DEIS which, in part, addressed

the earlier public comments received on the version first

issued by the AEC. Later, DOE (1979) updated the DEIS

for a second time, acknowledging (pp. 2.1–2.2) LLW as

part of the nuclear fuel cycle, but not addressing the

environmental impacts of this waste form as it was the

subject of an ongoing NRC rulemaking (i.e., 10 CFR Part

61). DOE published the final generic EIS in October

1980.
14

“ Executive Summary,” p. ES-10).

Congress abolished the AEC when it passed the

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law

93-438). The act placed the AEC regulatory

functions into the NRC and placed the atomic

energy promotional functions within ERDA,

which was later absorbed into DOE following the

Department’ s creation in 1977. The NRC was

given the authority to regulate certain Federal

HLW storage and disposal activities. However,

a number of other Federal radioactive waste

activities were exempted from this independent

regulatory authority. In its 1976 report, the NAS

recommended greater Federal leadership in the

management of radioactive wastes (National

Research Council, p. 77). In a later review,

GAO (1977) noted several continuing problems,

including gaps in the NRC’ s regulatory

authorities; the lack of demonstrated technologies

for managing certain defense, commercial, and

TRU wastes; and technical concerns within the

scientific community regarding the feasibility of

long-term geologic disposal. Based on

recommendations for improved coordination of

waste management policies and programs (U.S.

Radiation Policy Council, 1980a), the Federal

Government subsequently intensified its efforts to

coordinate its radioactive through the U.S. Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). See EPA

(1988, pp. 1-3–1-4).

At the direction of Congress (through Public Law

95-601), the NRC received appropriations in

1978 to undertake a study to assess the possible

expansion of the Commission’ s licensing and

regulatory authority to include categories of

existing and future Federal radioactive waste

storage and disposal activities not presently

subject to such authority. In its subsequent

report (NRC, 1979b), the Commission

recommended that its regulatory authorities be

expanded over certain DOE waste management

activities. Specifically, the Commission

recommended (Op cit., p. 3) the following:

• The NRC licensing authorities should be

extended to cover all new DOE facilities

for the disposal of TRU waste and

nondefense (commercial) LLW –

designated as Option A.

20

• A pilot program should be established to

test the feasibility of extending NRC

regulatory authority on a consultive basis

to DOE waste management activities not

currently covered by the NRC’ s existing

authorities – designated as Option B.

Congress never adopted the NRC’ s 1979

recommendations. Instead, they authorized DOE

to build a geologic repository for the disposal of

defense-generated TRU wastes near Carlsbad,

New Mexico. This facility, referred to as the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), has been in

operation since May 1998 and is exempt from

NRC regulation. (See Appendix B of this report

for a brief discussion of the WIPP program.)

As noted in the next section of this report, the

NRC was already developing a LLW regulatory

framework when Congress passed the LLWPA,

which established Federal policy concerning the

management of commercial LLW. DOE was to

continue to manage Government-owned LLW.

(Also see Appendix A of this report.)

Lastly, from time to time, the issue of whether

the NRC should seek authority to regulate “ low

activity materials” (and wastes) has been raised.

This debate applies to naturally occurring

radioactive materials (NORM) as well as to

naturally occurring or accelerator-produced

materials (NARM). Austin (1988, p. 24), for

example, notes that the Commission sought

authority to manage such materials in the past,

 Before the NRC issued its recommendations,

20

Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 96-604) that further

extended the NRC’ s licensing authority to include

uranium mill tailings and mill tailings sites. See also

Landa (1980).
15

which Congress previously declined to provide.

However, in recent years, the debate has

reemerged (National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements – NCRP, 2005)

and Congress recently directed the Commission

to take action for the first time to regulate some

of these materials. Refer to Section 3.5 of this

report for a discussion of the management of

LAW.

3.2 The NRC and 10 CFR Part 61

The NRC began operations on January 19, 1975.

The NRC (like the AEC before it) focused its

attention on several broad issues essential to

protecting public health and safety. Initially, the

NRC (and the AEC) regulated LLW using a

collection of generic regulations specified in

10 CFR Part 20, “ Standards for Protection

Against Radiation,” 10 CFR Part 30, “ Rules of

General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of

Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Part 40,

“ Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” and

10 CFR Part 70, “ Domestic Licensing of

Special Nuclear Material.” However, in

response to the needs and requests expressed by

the public, the states, Congress, industry, and

others, one of the earliest rulemaking efforts the

Commission was a set of comprehensive

requirements for licensing the land disposal of

commercial LLW. 

In 1976, the GAO published a report that

reviewed existing private and Federal LLW

disposal practices in light of the reported

operational and performance irregularities

identified at some disposal sites. Among other

things, that review identified the need for studies

and criteria to judge the suitability of potential

LLW disposal sites, as well as the need for

standards to determine when releases from

disposal sites reached unacceptable levels and

required corrective action (GAO, 1976,

pp. 19–21). In parallel to the GAO review, the

NRC had formed a task force to examine Federal

and Agreement State programs that regulated

commercial LLW disposal (NRC, 1977a).

Among other things, the task force (NRC,

1977b, p. ii) recommended that the NRC

“ accelerate” the development of its LLW

regulatory program. Shortly thereafter, the NRC

(1977d) published a program plan that described

the elements and schedules for implementing an

integrated LLW program. This program plan

included the development of an EIS and a yet-tobe-defined LLW regulation.

The NRC began to develop its LLW regulation in

1978 by relying on an extensive NEPA scoping

process. Early in that process, the Commission 21

determined that comprehensive standards,

technical criteria, and licensing procedures were

needed to ensure public safety and long-term

environmental protection in the licensing of new

sites, as well as the operation and closure of

existing ones. The staff determined that the most

viable regulatory approach would be to develop

a regulation generally applicable to land disposal

of most types of commercial LLW. One

challenge was that the regulation had to apply to

a broad range of geologic/geomorphic conditions

within the United States as well as to disparate

waste streams. Another challenge was that early

in the scoping process, the NRC staff determined

that inadvertent human reentry into a LLW

disposal area could not be precluded (NRC,

1980, 45 FR 13105). Consequently, the staff

explored ways of classifying LLW for use in

standardized exposure scenarios as a way of

predicting potential doses to receptors. See

Rogers (1979) and Rogers et al. (1979). The

staff also considered both generic and specific

 In deciding to develop a LLW regulation, the NRC 21

determined that the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61

qualified as a major Federal action, as defined by NEPA. 

CEQ is responsible for developing regulations that

implement NEPA. CEQ defines the scoping of an EIS at

40 CFR 1501.7 as “ an early and open process for

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for

identifying the significant issues related to the proposed

action....” 
16

disposal methods in the context of an EIS that

examined the costs, benefits, and impacts of a

base-case and alternative disposal concepts.

From those analyses and studies, the staff

proposed performance objectives and technical

criteria in a draft regulation designated as

10 CFR Part 61 (NRC, 1981b). 

Following several years of development, the

Commission issued a final 10 CFR Part 61 rule

in December 1982 (NRC, 1982b). The

“ umbrella” regulation covered all phases of

shallow, near-surface LLW disposal from site

selection through facility design, licensing,

operations, closure, and postclosure stabilization

to the period when active institutional controls

end. The regulation requires the use of

engineered features in concert with the natural

characteristics of the disposal site to contain and

isolate the wastes. The regulation also

established the procedures, criteria, and terms

and conditions on which the Commission would

issue and renew licenses for the SLB of

commercially generated LLW. (See Section 6 of

this report.) Among other things, 10 CFR 61.55,

“ Waste Classification,” introduced a three-tier

waste classification system for LLW based on the

concentrations of the longer lived radionuclides.

These classes are designated Class A, Class B,

and Class C in ascending order of potential

radiological hazard, and the regulation includes

specific design standards applicable to each waste

class.

3.3 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Act of 1980

At the same time the NRC established a LLW

regulatory framework, Congress passed the

LLWPA. This act set forth a Federal policy that

LLW disposal was best handled on a regional

basis. The act made states responsible for

disposing of commercial LLW generated within

their borders and encouraged the states to form 22

interstate compacts to establish regional disposal

sites, rather than establishing 50 separate disposal

sites. The act was passed in response to policy

recommendations that addressed past and present

LLW management issues from several states23

and state-supported organizations, including the

National Governors’ Association and the

National Conference of State Legislatures. The

other key provision of LLWPA allowed compacts

to exclude commercial LLW generated outside

their borders.

Following passage of the act, the states began to

enter into negotiations to form the required

compacts. The states were generally committed

to the compact arrangement. Shortly after the

act’ s passage, 40 states had entered into

agreements or were negotiating to form seven

required compacts (GAO, 1983, p. 16).

However, in its review of the compact-forming

agreement process, GAO observed that the

administrative agreement process (Table 5) was

“ slow and drawn-out.” They also observed that

only three of the tentative compact regions had

operating disposal sites, and those sites had been

in existence before the passage of the act. GAO

(1983, pp. 20–21) estimated that once a compact

agreement had been entered into, it would take

an additional 5 years before the disposal site was

ready to receive LLW. Nevertheless, despite the

progress being made, GAO (1983, p. 15)

concluded that no new disposal sites would be

operating until sometime after 1988, 2 years after

the Congressionally-mandated date of January 1,

1986.

 By January 1, 1986, except for LLW generated by 22

the Federal Government.

 Washington State, in conjunction with Nevada and 23

South Carolina, sought passage of the LLWPA because of

the imbalance between the volumes of LLW those states

were generating and the wastes they were receiving for

disposal from outside their borders. See Washington State

Department of Health (2004, p. 43).
17

Table 5 Administrative Process for Establishing LLW Compacts. Taken from GAO (1983, p. 10). Compacts formed

through this process are described later in Table 6 of this report.

Step Description of Activity

1 States negotiate among themselves to form regional Interstate Compacts of two or more states. a

2 Once formed, proposed Interstate Compacts draft Interstate Compact Agreements.

3 Drafted Interstate Compact Agreements are approved by the state legislatures and signed by the Governors in each state

participating in the Interstate Compact.

4 Ratified (approved) Interstate Compact Agreements are to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Congress.

5 Following Congressional approval, each Interstate Compact is to form a commission to administer the compact agreement. b, c

a. Alternatively, if a state chooses not to participate in the Interstate Compact process, it must indicate its intent not to do so. States deciding to act alone

to meet their own LLW disposal needs still need to undertake the process steps outlined in Item b, below. 

b. Once formed, the Interstate Compact Commission is responsible for ensuring that its member states (i) screen the region defined by the Interstate

Compact to identify candidate disposal sites, (ii) select a preferred site and perform the required environmental assessment, (iii) prepare a LLW license

application, and (iv) construct and operate the disposal facility, once the license application is approved.

c. Compacts can choose to refer the site selection/license application development process to a private entity.

One of the problems with the existing law was

that it did not specify penalties, such as denial of

access to existing disposal facilities, if

Congressional deadlines for developing new

disposal facilities were not met. When it became

apparent that the deadline for operating new

disposal sites would not be met, decisionmakers

recognized that adjustments to the 1980 act were

needed. Moreover, the three states with

operating disposal sites made it clear that they

would not continue to accept all of the Nation’ s

commercial LLW. But before Congress could

amend the 1980 act, an “ understanding” was

necessary between Nevada, South Carolina, and

Washington — the states with operating disposal

facilities —and the 47 unsited states. Following

negotiations, these three states agreed to continue

to receive out-of-state wastes for an additional

7 years, subject to certain conditions later

reflected in the 1985 amendments to the act

(NRC, 1989c, p. 13).

3.4 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Amendments Act of 1985

On January 15, 1986, Congress passed the Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1985 (LLWPAA) (Public Law 99-240). The

LLWPAA extended the original January 1, 1986,

deadline to develop new disposal facilities by

7 years to January 1, 1993. Because new

disposal facilities were expected to be operational

by the 1993 date, the existing states with

operating LLW disposal facilities had the right,

at that time, to decline commercial LLW from

outside of their respective compacts. In

exchange, the unsited states and regions were

required to meet newly established milestones

and deadlines. See Table 6. If states failed to 24

comply with the specific LLWPAA milestones,

the three states operating disposal facilities were

authorized to deny disposal access to those states

in violation of the milestones. The LLWPAA

also included the following provisions:

• establishing financial penalties on waste

disposed of at existing disposal facilities

if certain milestones were not met

 In a 1992 decision [New York vs. United States et 24

al. (505 U.S. 144)], the U.S. Supreme Court struck down

the “ take title” provision requiring that states must take

title to their LLW if a disposal facility were not available

by 1996.
18

Table 6 Milestones, Deadlines, and Penalties Defined in the LLWPAA

Milestone Date LLWPA Requirement Penalty(ies)

By July 1, 1986 Each state shall join a regional compact by ratifying compact legislation or, by the

enactment of legislation or the certification of the Governor, indicate its intent to

develop its own LLW disposal facility.

2× the surcharge ($20/ft ) for

3

the period July 1, 1986,

through December 31, 1986.

Access to existing disposal

sites may be denied after

January 1, 1987.

By January 1,

1988

Each compact region or the host state in which its LLW disposal facility is to be

located shall develop a siting plan for such a facility providing detailed procedures

and a schedule for establishing a facility location and preparing a facility license

application and shall identify a developer to implement such plan. 

2× the surcharge ($40/ft ) for

3

the period January 1, 1988,

through June 30, 1988.

4× the surcharge ($80/ft ) for

3

the period July 1, 1988,

through December 31, 1988.

Access to existing disposal

sites may be denied after

January 1, 1989.

Each nonsited compact region shall identify the state in which its LLW disposal

facility is to be located, or shall have selected the developer for such facility and the

site to be developed, and shall identify a developer to implement such plan. 

By January 1,

1990

Each state (or the designated disposal facility developer) shall have submitted a

complete application (as determined by the NRC or the appropriate agency of an

Agreement State) for a license to operate an LLW disposal facility or, in lieu of the

license application, the Governor’s written certification to the NRC that such state

will be capable of providing for, and will provide for, the storage, disposal, or

management of any LLW generated within such state and requiring disposal after

December 31, 1992, and include a description of the actions that will be taken to

ensure that such capacity exists.

Access to existing disposal

sites may be denied after

January 1, 1990.

By January 1,

l992

A complete application (as determined by the NRC or the appropriate agency of an

Agreement State) shall be filed for a license to operate an LLW disposal facility

within each nonsited compact region or within each nonmember state.

3× the surcharge ($120/ft3

maximum) for the period

January 1, 1992, until

complete application is filed

or until December 31, 1992.

By January 1,

1993

Each state (or its compact region, where applicable) is expected to have provided a

disposal facility for all the LLW it generates, and disposal rights at the three existing

disposal facilities (Barnwell, Beatty, and Richland) will end.

1/36 of the rebates collected

for the period from January 1,

1990, through December 31,

1992, returned to generators

monthly, with interest.

Rebates to generators to

continue until January 1,

1996, or until state provides

for disposal.

If a state (or, where applicable, a compact region) is unable to provide a disposal

facility for its LLW, those states in the compact region shall, upon the request of the

LLW generator or owner, be obligated to take title to and possession of the waste,

or assume financial liability for costs associated with its storage and maintenance.

If a state (or, where applicable, a compact region) is unable to provide a disposal

facility for its LLW, the state (or states) will have to forfeit rights to rebates of

previous surcharge payments made by LLW generators (or owners) because of the

state’s failure to meet earlier LLWPAA milestones. 

By January 1,

1996

If a state (or, where applicable, a compact region) is unable to provide a disposal

facility for its LLW, those states in the compact region shall, upon the request of the

LLW generator or owner, be obligated to take title to and possession of the waste.

In 1996, the US Supreme

Court found that this provision

of the LLWPAA was

unconstitutional.
19

• assigning responsibility to the Federal

Governmentfor disposing of commercial

LLW exceeding 10 CFR Part 61 Class C

concentration limits

• specifying which categories of LLW

were exempt from commercial disposal

facilities 

The act also gave Federal agencies expanded

responsibilities in the area of commercial LLW

(see Table 7) and assigned specific new

responsibilities to DOE and the NRC. Under the

LLWPAA, DOE is required to do the following:

• dispose of GTCC-designated wastes

• manage the collection of and disbursal of

LLWPAA-levied surcharges25 

• provide financial and technical assistance

to the states and compacts

• prepare certain status reports on the

management of national LLW inventories

For its part, the NRC was required to do the

following:

• review all LLW disposal facility license

applications

• develop standards and procedures for

exempting certain LLW from disposal in

licensed facilities 

• provide regulatory and technical

assistance to Agreement States

• determine procedures for granting

emergency access to LLW facilities for

wastes generated in other regions26

3.5 De Minimis Regulatory Levels and the

Below Regulatory Concern Policy

Section 10 of the LLWPAA also requires that the

NRC establish standards for determining when

radionuclides are present in waste streams in

sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to

be “ below regulatory concern” (BRC), thereby

potentially exempting them from NRC LLW

regulation. Before the passage of the LLWPA in

1980, the staff had already indicated its intent to

formally establish a de minimis level for 27

commonly used, short-lived radioisotopes when

it announced the availability of a preliminary

draft version of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulation

(NRC, 1980). The staff provided additional

clarification of its de minimis position in the draft

10 CFR Part 61 DEIS. As discussed in that

position, radionuclides with very short half-lives

could, on a case-by-case basis, be exempt from

disposal under 10 CFR Part 61. Alternatively, if

authorized, the exemption would generally

require storage of the waste for a duration of 10

half-lives of decay (for the dominant

radionuclide). Afterwards, the licensee could

dispose of the wastes in a manner consistent with

its nonradiological properties (NRC, 1981c,

Volume 2, p. 2-8). Following public review of

the DEIS, over one-fourth of the commenters

endorsed the de minimis concept (NRC, 1982b,

47 FR 57452). However, the fundamental

concern was not whether a generic or a case-bycase approach should be taken, but rather the

 “ Surcharges” were financial penalties imposed by 25

DOE on waste generators if certain LLWPAA milestones

were not met. These penalties were in addition to the

basic disposal charges imposed by the disposal facility

operator. See Table 6.

 Promulgated as 10 CFR Part 62, “ Criteria and 26

Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and

Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities” (NRC,

1989a).

 The staff defined a de minimis level as one in which 27

the radioactivity in the waste is sufficiently low that it can

be disposed as ordinary, nonradioactive trash (45 FR

13106). 
20

Table 7 Federal Responsibilities for the Management and Disposal of Commercial LLW (as defined by various

Federal statutes)

Agency Responsibility

U.S. Department of Energy Overall lead agency for national planning of commercial LLW management and disposal. 

Assist in the formation of Interstate Compacts and establishing site selection procedures. 

Also undertake (or sponsor) research and development (R&D) in the area of LLW disposal

technology, and transfer that technology to the private sector. 

U.S. Department of Transportation Regulate waste containers, transportation vehicles, and other interstate aspects of LLW

transport. a

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Establish overall Federal radiation protection guidance and environmental standards. b

U.S. Geological Survey No basic responsibility for the management of LLW. Conduct basic research in the geological

sciences and develop basic data for application in the development of disposal criteria. Also

provide technical advice in the assessment of specific disposal sites. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulate and license the commercial and nondefense governmental use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material, including the licensing of commercial LLW disposal

facilities.

a. Through a memorandum of understanding, the NRC and DOT have delineated their respective responsibilities for the transportation of radioactive

wastes. The NRC regulates packaging for wastes containing high amounts of radioactive materials to assure safety and safeguards during transportation. 

DOT regulates all other aspects of radioactive waste transportation.

b. See Section 7.4.1 of this report for more information.

need for Commission action to develop de

minimis standards as soon as possible (47 FR

57453). 

In its draft rule, the Commission expressed its

preferred position to review de minimis waste

streams on a case-by-case basis, consistent with

the recommendations of the U.S. Radiation

Policy Council (1980b). In doing so, the

Commission provided guidance in the Federal

Register notice on whatshould be included in any

exemption petition. See 47 FR 57453. The 28

Commission also noted that it intended to work

over the next several years to define generic

limits for de minimis waste streams (Op cit.). In

support this statement, the staff subsequently

published an impacts analysis methodology

(Oztunali and Roles, 1984) that prospective

petitioners could use to determine radiological

doses for de minimis waste streams. The

calculational approach employed in that

methodology (Oztunali et al., 1981) was similar

to that used in the development of the 10 CFR

Part 61 DEIS. Later, a compendium computer

code (Forstom and Goode, 1986) that

implemented the methodology was issued for

public comment.

In August 1986, the Commission issued a policy

statement outlining its plans to establish certain

new rules and procedures to exempt specific

radioactive waste streams from regulation due to

 In a different regulatory context, the Commission

28

had already established the precedent for granting

regulatory exemptions to disposal of certain radioactive

waste streams (NRC, 1981a). At 10 CFR 20.306, for

example, the Commission set regulatory exemption levels

for specified concentrations of tritium and carbon-14

without regard to their radioactivity (46 FR 16231). The

Commission was already aware of the academic view that

certain radioactive waste streams could be considered of

no regulatory concern from a public health and safety

standpoint and, as such, they could be exempt from

regulation on a case-by-case basis depending on the

recommendations of the Radiation Policy Council.
21

the presence of radionuclides in sufficiently low

concentrations or quantities as to be BRC. The

subsequent BRC Policy Statement (NRC, 1986b)

contained criteria that, if adequately addressed,

would allow the Commission to act expeditiously

in providing the needed regulatory relief. The

NRC published these criteria as Appendix B ,

29

“ Procedure for Imposing Requirements by

Order, or for Modification, Suspension, or

Revocation of a License, or for Imposing Civil

Penalties,” to 10 CFR Part 2, “ Rules of Practice

for Domestic Licensing Procedures and Issuance

of Orders.” To establish a consistent regulatory

framework for decisionmaking, the Commission

later issued a second BRC Policy Statement in

July 1990 (NRC, 1990). In that policy statement,

the Commission proposed that if radioactive

materials did not expose individuals to a dose of

more than 1 millirem per year (mrem/yr), or a

population group to more than 1000 person-rem

per year (collective dose), the waste stream in

question could be eligible for an exemption from

full-scale regulatory control (55 FR 27526–

27527). However, this exemption would not be

granted automatically; the NRC would consider

requests from licensees that met the dose criteria

through its rulemaking (licensing) process under

10 CFR Part 2. 

The Commission intended that its BRC policy

would apply to consumer products containing

small amounts of nuclear materials and other

sources of very-low levels of radiation, such that

those types of wastes could safely be disposed in

sanitary landfills. The policy also provided a

framework for making future exemption

decisions and reviewing previous exemptions by

which small quantities of LLW materials could be

largely exempted from existing regulatory

controls (NRC, 1986c, p. 1). Johnson (1988)

noted that unlike the de minimis position, which

allowed the disposal of trivial amounts of LLW,

the Commission’ s BRC policy implied the use a

cost-benefit analysis, taking into account current

technology, when deciding on regulatory control

exemptions. 

Both Congress and the public received the

NRC’ s proposed BRC policy unfavorably. See

Walker (2000, p. 120) and National Research

Council (2002, pp. 52–53). Later, Congress

enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992

(H.R. 776) to revoke the Commission’ s earlier

policy statements. As a result, the Commission

officially withdrew the policy in June 1993

(NRC, 1993b). 30

Both the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety

(ACRS) and the Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW) commented on the staff’ s de

 Entitled “ General Statement of Policy and 29

Procedures Concerning Petitions Pursuant to §2.802 for

Disposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below Regulatory

Concern.”

 It is also worth noting that the Federal Radiation 30

Council (FRC or the Council) had previously focused on

the matter of how to regulate very-low levels of radiation.

The FRC was established by Congress in 1959 (Public

Law 86-373) to provide recommendations to the President

on Federal policy on radiation matters affecting health.

Their charter also included developing guidance for all

Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards

and in the establishment of cooperative programs with the

states.

Between 1960 and 1970, the FRC issued nine reports on a

number of radiation protection issues. In all of those

reports, the FRC expressed the philosophy that “ guidance

for radiation protection involves achieving a balance

between the risk of radiation-induced injury and the

benefits derived from the practice causing the exposure to

radiation. An implicit part of such a balance is a necessity

for considering the relation between the difficulties

involved in reducing the radiation exposure by a given

amount and the risk that might be associated with that

amount of exposure....” However, in at least three of

their reports – Report No. 5 (FRC, 1964, p. 13), Report

No. 7 (FRC, 1965, p. 6), and Report No. 8 (FRC, 1967,

p. 43) – the Council essentially acknowledged that there is

some (yet-to-be-defined) radiation exposure level at or

below which individuals may be exposed without

experiencing a significant increase in some risk of injury.

The FRC was abolished in December 1970 and its

functions were transferred to the EPA Administrator. 
22

minimis position and the BRC Policy Statements.

Nearly one-fourth of their past letters (10 letters)

were dedicated, wholly or in part, to these issues.

See summary in Section 10.3.2 of this report.
23

4 EFFORTS TO SITE NEW LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES

The objectives of the LLWPA and LLWPAA are

to provide for more LLW disposal capacity on a

regional basis and distribute the responsibility for

the management of LLW equitably among the

states. By 1998, in response to these two acts,

44 states entered into 10 interstate compact

agreements. Compact membership varied from

two to eight states per compact. As part of the

compact agreement process, host states for the

future disposal facilities were agreed-to and sitescreening commenced. For those that had not

done so, designated host states entered into

Agreement State programs with the NRC and

subsequently developed the regulatory and

technical capabilities necessary to administer

their respective programs. By definition, this

31

included developing a regulatory framework

compatible with the requirements of 10 CFR Part

61 and other NRC guidance (Section 6 of this

report). In most cases, host states assigned the

responsibility for implementing their respective

programs to existing state agencies or created

new or quasi-state authorities. Two regional

compacts (Nebraska and California) delegated the

disposal facility development responsibilities to

private sector firms, but retained the regulatory

functions.

As a result of these efforts, 7 out of 10 of the

regional compacts met the first three milestones

of the LLWPAA leading to the submission of

license applications. Regulatory authorities in

four states (California, Illinois, Nebraska, and

Texas) received license applications requesting

authorization to construct new disposal facilities.

However, the host state for the Southwestern

Interstate LLW Compact, California, was the

only state able to proceed sufficiently in the

licensing process to authorize the issuance of a

construction authorization. See Table 8. Citing

industry sources, GAO (2004, p. 9) reported that

national expenditures on various disposal facility

development efforts since the passage of the

LLWPAA may have reached approximately $1

billion. 

Despite these overall efforts, none of the states or

compacts have successfully developed new LLW

disposal facilities under the LLWPAA

framework. In its 1989 review, OTA found that

some states enacted bans to legally restrict SLB

disposal even though Federal regulations found

this disposal method technically sound. OTA

cited other issues, including the rising costs of

LLW disposal (at the time of the study, it had

tripled in 20 years) and the management of mixed

wastes. For example, the State of California

granted a contingent construction authorization

for a new facility at Ward Valley in 1993, but the

necessary land transfer from the Federal to the

state Government was never completed,

effectively ending the facility’ s startup.

Administrative Law Judges in Texas denied a

license application to construct a LLW disposal

facility at the proposed Sierra Blanca site

(Hudspeth County) in 1998 citing both geologic

and socio-political factors (State of Texas, 1998).

As a consequence, commercial LLW generators

continue to rely on the existing disposal sites.

Only one new disposal facility has actually been

licensed – the Envirocare LLW disposal facility

in Clive, Utah – and this was accomplished

outside of the LLWPAA framework. 32

 Title 10, Part 150, “ Exemptions and Continued 31

Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore

Waters Under Section 274,” of the Code of Federal

Regulations contains the current Commission regulations

regarding the NRC’ s relationship with the Agreement

States.

 S.K. Hart Engineering (later to become Envirocare

32

of Utah) was licensed by the Utah Department of

Environmental Quality in 1987 to accept NORM waste, in

the form of uranium mill tailings, for disposal. In 1991,

the state amended the Envirocare license to permit the

disposal of Class A LLW, including mixed wastes, from

all states except those in the Northwest Interstate

Compact. See Table 4.
24

Table 8 LLW Compacts and LLWPA Milestone Status. Host state for the disposal facility is designated in bold type. “C” means completed disposal facility

development milestones. Compiled using GAO (1992, 1999, and 2004) and other cited sources.

Interstate Compact 

Region 

Member 

States

Compact 

Formed

Select 

Site

Submit License 

Application

License 

Application

Approved

Operate 

Facility

Comments

APPALACHIAN Delaware

Maryland

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

1985C see Comments ---- ---- ---- Voluntary siting process suspended in 1991

because no municipality volunteered to host the

disposal site. 

CENTRAL Arkansas

Kansas

Louisiana

Nebraska

Oklahoma

1982C 1989C 1990C see Comments ---- A 1998 Nebraska denial of an application to

construct was overturned in April 1999 by a U.S.

district court. In May 1999, Nebraska legislature

voted to withdraw from Central Interstate

Compact.

In 2004, a Federal appellate court ruling affirmed

an earlier Federal district court decision that

Nebraska, as a designated host state, is liable for

$151 million in damages for reneging on its

obligations to the Central Interstate Compact to

build a disposal facility by denying a license

application for reasons not related to the merits of

the initial application. See Central Interstate

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission

(2004, pp. 8–9).

CENTRAL MIDWEST Illinois

Kentucky

1984C 1991C 1991C

see Comments

---- ---- In October 1992, the Illinois legislature rejected

the conclusions of an earlier siting decision,

effectively ending the license application review

process for the Martinsville site (New Jersey

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

Siting Board, 1999, p. 27). Since then, a new

siting review process has been established, as

well as a cost-benefit analysis to determine

whether a disposal facility should be built based

on current LLW volumes. 
Interstate Compact 

Region 

Member 

States

Compact 

Formed

Select 

Site

Submit License 

Application

License 

Application

Approved

Operate 

Facility

Comments

25

MIDWEST Indiana

Iowa

Michigan a

Minnesota

Missouri

Ohio

Wisconsin

1982C see Comments ---- ---- ---- In 1997, the Midwest Interstate Compact

Commission decided to suspend the siting

process noting that certain waste management

actions had taken place to reduce the volumes of

LLW being generated within the compact.

NORTHEAST

(later renamed ATLANTIC)

Connecticut 1985/2001C b see Comments ---- ---- ---- State legislature terminated siting efforts in 1992

citing the availability of out-of-state disposal

capacity.

New Jersey b see Comments ---- ---- ---- State siting board terminated siting efforts in

1992 also citing the availability of out-of-state

disposal capacity.

South Carolina C C C 1969 C In 2001, South Carolina legislation restricted the

use of the Barnwell disposal facility to generators

in the three-member Atlantic Interstate compact

after mid-2008.

NORTHWEST Alaska

Hawaii

Idaho

Oregon

Montana

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

1985C C C C 1965 C The compact’s regional disposal facility is the

existing Richland (Washington) facility.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN Colorado

Nevada

New Mexico

1985C C C C 1965 C Since the closure of the Beatty site, the compact c

has contracted with the Northwest Interstate

Compact to dispose of LLW at the existing

Richland facility.

SOUTHEAST Alabama d

Florida

Georgia

Mississippi

North Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

1985C see Comments ---- ---- ---- South Carolina withdrew from compact in 1995. 

State siting board terminated operations in 1997

because of insufficient funding. In 1999, North

Carolina withdrew from the compact (GAO, 1999,

p. 72). In 2000, North Carolina joined the

renamed Atlantic Compact (GAO, 2004, p. 28).
Interstate Compact 

Region 

Member 

States

Compact 

Formed

Select 

Site

Submit License 

Application

License 

Application

Approved

Operate 

Facility

Comments

26

SOUTHWESTERN Arizona

California

North Dakota

South Dakota

1985C 1988C 1989C 1993C see

Comments

From 1993–96, the Secretary of the Interior

deferred making a land-transfer decision

necessary to construct and operate the stateapproved Ward Valley site while the Government

and NAS undertook a number of technical

reviews and administrative activities (see

GAO,(1977). A 1999 court decision, brought on

by California, found that the Federal

Government was not required by Federal law to

transfer (sell) the land. Since that decision, there

have been no additional siting activities by the

state.

TEXAS Maine

Texas

Vermont

1998C 1987-91C 1992C see Comments ---- Fort Hancock site selected by State in 1987. 

State court issued a permanent injunction against

the selection of site for a LLW disposal facility in

1991 (Goodell and Caskey, 1991). Following its

1991 selection, 1992 license application for the

Sierra Blanca site was rejected by State Court in

July 1998 (LeMone et al., 2002). 

In 2003, the Texas legislature designated a

second geographic area in Andrews County as

acceptable for a new disposal facility, and the

host state’s regulator developed a license

application process for this new facility.

UNAFFILIATED District of Columbia

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Puerto Rico

These states do not intend to build LLW disposal facilities. They will seek storage and disposal arrangements with other states.

Massachusetts n/a see Comments ---- ---- ---- In 1995, the state hired a contractor to conduct a

statewide screening process. In 1996, the

process was terminated because of renewed

access to the Barnwell disposal facility (GAO,

1999, 

p. 76).
Interstate Compact 

Region 

Member 

States

Compact 

Formed

Select 

Site

Submit License 

Application

License 

Application

Approved

Operate 

Facility

Comments

27

UNAFFILIATED

(continued)

New York n/a see Comments ---- ---- ---- In 1988, the state’s independent siting

commission conducted a multistep screening

process to identify candidate sites for evaluation

as LLW disposal sites. In its independent review

of the site selection process, GAO (1992) found

that the state did not adhere to its administrative

procedures for selecting candidate sites. The

Governor later suspended the siting process. In

1995, the state legislature declined to fund the

siting commission (GAO, 1999, p. 76).

a. Michigan expelled from compact in 1991 for not acting in good faith to locate an acceptable disposal site. Ohio is the alternate host state.

b. Originally intended as dual host states in 1985 as part of the Northeast Interstate Compact region. In 2001, the two states, along with South Carolina, formed the Atlantic Interstate compact region.

c. The Beatty facility provided disposal service to the Rocky Mountain Interstate Compact until 1992.

d. The Barnwell site in South Carolina provided the Southeast Interstate Compact region with disposal service until 1995, at which time it withdrew from the compact.
28

In its 1999 review of the national LLW

program, GAO (p. 5) identified some common

reasons for the lack of success in providing new

disposal facilities, including the following:

• the controversial nature of nuclear

waste disposal and public opposition to

the siting of new LLW disposal facilities

• the declining volumes of commercial

LLW being generated as a result of

waste minimization and processing into

safer forms

• the high costs associated with siting,

licensing, constructing, and operating a

new disposal facility

• the continued availability of existing

disposal capacity

• the consideration of alternatives to

disposal (e.g., assured storage)
29

5 CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS

In the mid-1990s, the NRC significantly scaled

back its LLW program for budgetary reasons.

The actions were justified at the time because the

NRC had a regulatory framework in place

sufficient to review a 10 CFR Part 61 license

application and the Commission had 33

relinquished its licensing authorities to those host

states with a lead role in developing new

commercial LLW disposal facilities. In addition,

there was a lack of national progress in siting

new disposal facilities.

To keep abreast of national LLW developments

under the current reduced program, the staff has

done several things. For example, the staff

regularly monitors developments within the

national program by attending regular meetings

of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (or

the LLW Forum). The staff has also performed 34

several specific tasks, as directed by the

Commission. They include efforts to improve

the transparency of NRC decisionmaking as it

relates to 10 CFR 20.2002 requests and to 35

determine whether depleted uranium needs to be

added to the 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification

system. In addition, NRC’ s Office of State 36

and Tribal Programs monitored state progress in

implementing LLWPAA milestones. See Combs

(1992).

Consistent with earlier Congressional direction,

DOE established a National Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Management Program to

develop and make available useful information

concerning LLW management. Under contract

to DOE, the operating contractor for the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory prepared technical reports covering

many LLW areas [e.g., SLB corrective measures

(EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1984), LLW laws and

administration (EG&G Idaho, Inc., 1985), and

environmental monitoring (EG&G Idaho, Inc.,

1989)]. From 1979 to 2000, the Department

37

sponsored publication of annual state-by-state

assessment reports that provided information on

the types and quantities of commercial LLW

being generated (e.g., Fuchs, 1999). In 1986,

DOE developed MIMS to monitor the

management of commercial LLW. This

computerized data base later subsumed the annual

state-by-state assessment reports series. In 2000,

Congress stopped appropriating money for

DOE’ s national LLW program with the

exception of the funds necessary to maintain

MIMS. In its 2004 evaluation of the national

 Sections 7.4.4 and 8.1 of this report discuss the 33

framework in more detail.

 Until 1985, representatives of the Governors

34

worked to achieve the goals of the LLWPA through a

committee of the National Governors’ Association. After

passage of the LLWPAA, representatives of compacts and

states established the LLW Forum to promote the

objectives of the new Federal law and the compacts. In

2001, the LLW Forum became an independent nonprofit

organization.

 From time to time, the Commission receives 35

requests to permit the disposal of small quantities of lowactivity radioactive materials, on site, at existing NRClicensed facilities. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR

20.2002 allow disposal exemptions to 10 CFR Part 61.

Staff guidance regarding the onsite disposal of small

qualitites of radioactive waste can be found in Goode et al.

(1986), Neuder (1986), and Neuder and Kennedy (1987).

The Commission can grant other types of disposal

exemptions under 10 CFR 20.2003, “ Disposal by Release

into Sanitary Sewerage,” 10 CFR 20.2004, “ Treatment or

Disposal by Incineration,” and 10 CFR 20.2005,

“ Disposal of Specific Waste.” 

 In a decision dated October 19, 2005, the 36

Commission directed the staff to determine whether

depleted uranium produced by uranium enrichment

facilities warrants consideration under 10 CFR 61.55(a) of

the NRC waste classification tables. See Diaz et al.

(2005).

 Time limitations in the development of this report 37

did not permit a review of the DOE-sponsored technical

literature.
30

program, GAO (pp. 14–16) found shortfalls in

the quality of the MIMS data and recommended

that the NRC take responsibility for generating

the required reports. The GAO was particularly

concerned that the unreliability of the data would

make it difficult to forecast future disposal needs

for all classes of LLW.

In its 1994 and 2000 reports described earlier,

the GAO assessed the following three

management options to respond to concerns about

limited or no disposal access for commercial

LLW generators:

(1) retain the existing compact approach and

allow it to adapt to the changing LLW

situation

(2) repeal the existing LLW legislation and

allow market forces to respond to the

changing LLW situation

(3) use existing DOE facilities for the

disposal of commercial LLW

Most recently, in November 2005, Congress

directed GAO to report on approaches to

improve the management of commercial LLW

within the United States. This examination is

expected to include a review of international best

practices (GAO, 2005b).

5.1 Recent Disposal Facility Developments

An order of the state’ s Governor permanently

closed the Beatty LLW disposal site in 1992.

The site is currently operated as a RCRA and

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste disposal

facility. The nation’ s only remaining disposal

facilities are at Barnwell, Richland, and

Envirocare. Only the Envirocare facility

receives mixed LLW. The Barnwell facility

presently receives Class A, B, and C LLW. In

2000, the South Carolina Legislature restricted

disposal access to the facility to members of the

Atlantic Interstate Compact after mid-2008. In

2001, the State of Utah regulatory authority

approved a license amendment to allow the

Envirocare facility to dispose of Class B and C

LLW. However, state law requires the approval

of the legislature and Governor before Class B

and C waste can be received (GAO, 1994,

p. 33). In late 2005, the Governor voiced his

opposition and placed a moratorium on the

acceptance of these wastes. With the imminent

closure of the Barnwell site, there is growing

concern about access to disposal facilities

especially for Class B and C LLW (GAO, 2004).

To address the pending shortfall in commercial

disposal capacity, the GAO (2004, p. 42)

proposed using existing DOE facilities for LLW

disposal, as is currently the case for HLW, TRU

waste, and GTCC waste.

 

Other disposal development activities are

underway but these are taking place outside of

the LLWPAA framework and focus mostly on

non-Part 61 types of waste. Some notable

examples include the following: 

• In February 2001, U.S. Ecology

acquired an existing RCRA Subtitle-C

disposal facility in Owhyhee County,

Idaho, near Grand View, from

Envirosafe Services of Idaho. (The

facility received interim RCRA

authorization first in 1980, followed by

formal authorization in 1988.) Shortly

thereafter, U.S. Ecology sought approval

from the Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality to modify the

existing Grand View RCRA permit to

receive commercial NARM, NORM,

and certain NRC-exempt items and

devices. The approved site permit now

38

 NRC’ s regulations at 10 CFR Part 30 and 10 CFR 38

Part 40 allow for both general and specific disposal

exemptions, upon application to the Commission, for

certain products, devices, or items containing small

amounts of low-activity radioactivity. 
31

allows radiologically-contaminated waste

from NRC or NRC Agreement State

licensees to be disposed of if the material

has been specifically exempted from

regulation according to a clearly

described set of waste acceptance criteria

established by U.S. Ecology and

approved by the state. This permit 39

change has also expanded commercial

disposal options available to the Army

Corps of Engineers (or the Corps) for

some of its FUSRAP waste , and the site 40

is now a major recipient of these wastes.

Since 2001, the Grand View facility has

received about 16,200 ft (459 m ) of

3 3

FUSRAP waste and about 9700 ft

3

(275 m3) of non-FUSRAP NORM

(National Research Council, 2006,

p. 70). About 160 acres of the 1250-

acre Grand View site are used for

disposal operations.

• In 2003, Texas law-makers passed

legislation that allows private interests to

apply for an NRC Part 61 LLW disposal

site license (Lauer, 2003, p. 13). In

response to the new law, on August 4,

2004, Waste Control Specialists (WCS),

LLC, submitted a license application to

the Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality (TCEQ) for authorization to

construct a near-surface LLW disposal

facility in Andrews County, Texas. The

WCS site is located on a 14,400 acre

tract with more than 1340 acres currently

permitted to treat and dispose of RCRA

waste and Toxic Substances Control Act

materials. The Andrews WCS site is

also permitted for GTCC LLW storage,

PCB-contaminated waste treatment,

storage and land disposal, AEA Section

11e.(2) waste storage, and NRC 41

exempt and exempt-mixed waste land

disposal, including selected NORM

waste. TCEQ has reviewed the Andrews

WSC license application and found it to

be complete. Public hearings are the

next step in the license application

review process. If approved by the state,

the new Andrews County disposal

facility would receive commercial LLW

from generators within the Texas LLW

Compact system as well as the

Government-owned LLW from DOE.

The Andrews WSC site is the only

commercial LLW disposal facility under

consideration in the United States at this

time. 

• In April 2006, the Colorado Department

of Public Health and Environment

(CDPHE) issued a radioactive materials

license amendment to the Clean Harbors

Deer Trail Facility, an industrial

hazardous waste landfill. Colorado

regulatory authorities have in the past

allowed some radioactive materials to go

to industrial solid waste landfills on a

case-by-case basis, after reviewing a sitespecific risk assessment and the facility

design and operating procedures. The

license amendment authorizes the

receipt, possession, processing and

 The conditions concern both the concentration and 39

total quantity of specific radionuclides to be disposed of.

See http://www.americanecology.com/pdf/grandview/

USEI_WAC.pdf, dated May 4, 2005.

 FUSRAP refers to the“ Formerly Utilized Sites 40

Remedial Action Program.” FUSRAP sites are privately

held sites that have contaminated soils and structures from

the refining of radium and Cold War uranium and from

bomb development in the 1950s and 1960s. Although

FUSRAP waste contains very low concentrations of

radioactive materials, there are large volumes of such

waste. The Corps is responsible for managing the

FUSRAP program. No FUSRAP waste is generated from

the operation of commercial power plants.

 Defined in Section 40.4 of 10 CFR Part 40 as

41

“ tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or

concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore

processed primarily for its source material content....”
32

disposal of NORM and TENORM. The

license also authorizes disposal of wastes

containing or contaminated with

naturally occurring radionuclides with a

maximum concentration of 2000

picocuries per gram (pCi/g). The

specific r adium-226 maximum

concentration is limited to 400 pCi/g.

The license prohibits the acceptance of

source material, waste that is greater

than 0.05 percent by weight uranium

and/or thorium (Tarlton, 2006). The

Deer Trail facility is the only permitted

hazardous waste disposal site in the

state. 42

5.2 Assured Storage

At the time the LLWPA was passed in 1980, it

was expected that the states and Compacts would

establish additional LLW disposal capacity and

there would be little need for the continued

storage of wastes on-site by licensees. To ensure

that de facto storage would not take place at

generator’ s sites (and thereby undermine the

intent of LLWPAA) as well as the need to

address certain safety considerations (NRC,

1981b ), the NRC staff issued guidance in the 43

form of Generic Letter 81-38 (Dircks, 1981) that

stated at the time that no facility should be built

to store waste for longer than 5 years under a

licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation. This policy

was later extended to commercial storage

operations (Dircks, 1985), and fuel cycle and

materials licensees (Cunningham, 1990). Later,

the staff noted that no law or regulation prohibits

the storage of commercial LLW for periods of

time in excess of 5 years (NRC, 1994b, p. 5)

although doing so could be construed as

“ inconsistent with current national policy” (Op

cit.). When it became apparent that the LWPAA

milestone dates for the development of new

disposal facilities would not be met, the staff

proceeded to develop a proposed LLW on-site

storage rulemaking because the Barnwell facility

closed to many LLW generators in the United

States only later to withdraw it. See NRC

(1993c). Alternatively, the Commission directed

the staff to make certain proposed changes to the

existing NRC storage guidance framework; but

these changes were never approved as the

Barnwell facility reopened at the time to all

domestic LLW generators and the immediate

need for updated guidance was thereby

eliminated.

As an alternative to permanent (geologic)

disposal, the concept of assured storage has been

proposed by Newberry and others (1995).

Unlike the prevailing Part 61 disposal concept,

assured storage is considered by the authors to be

an acceptable LLW management alternative as it

calls for the indefinite storage of LLW in an

assured isolation facility (or AIF) until such time

that the waste no longer poses a significant

radiological hazard. The AIF is envisioned to

function as an engineered, above-ground

monitored storage system, with an indefinite

(unspecified) service life. The key difference

between a 10 CFR Part 61 disposal facility and

the AIF is the provision for caretaker oversight.

The AIF is designed to permit the LLW in

storage to decay. Waste containment structures,

systems, and components are designed to permit

regular inspections and maintenance. If needed,

any containment feature of the AIF can be

replaced if it fails (i.e. leaks). With greater

emphasis on engineering and caretaker oversight,

the site (geosphere) is no longer a major

consideration in the performance of this type

 The Clean Harbors Deer Trail, LLC, facility

42

(commonly referred to as the Deer Trail facility) provides

treatment, storage, transfer, and disposal services for both

hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The facility was first

permitted for hazardous wastes in April 1987 by CDPHE

under the authority of the Colorado Hazardous Waste Act,

and it began accepting waste in July 1991. The Deer Trail

facility is approximately 70 miles east of Denver, in

Adams County. Clean Harbors owns approximately 5760

acres, of which approximately 325 acres comprise the

operating disposal facility.

 Also see Siskind et al. (1985). 43
33

Table 9. Comparison of a 10 CFR Part 61 Type of Disposal Facility with an Assured Isolation Type of Storage

Facility. Adopted from Newberry et al. (1996, pp. 21–22).

10 CFR Part 61 Facility AIF Storage Facility

Physical Setting Below grade, near surface Above grade

Disposal Mode Trench disposal, no physical access Concrete vaults, with physical access

Waste Packaging Variable, no overpacks Overpack modules

Retrievablility Nonretrievable Retrievable

Institutional Controls 100-year caretaker period following site

closure

Indefinite, no prescribed limit

Monitoring and Remediation Not to exceed the 100-year caretaker period

following site closure

Indefinite

Reversibility Disposal essentially permanent Options open

LLW management system. See Table 9. Hence,

the need for detailed site characterization,

complex performance assessment analyses, and

the development of a long-lived waste package

needed to achieve disposal is obviated, with a net

cost savings to waste generators.

In a September 2002 Staff Requirements

Memorandum (SRM), the Commission directed

the NRC staff to explore interest in the assured

isolation concept and develop a rulemaking plan

that could be used to provide a foundation for a

Commission decision on whether to develop such

a rule (NRC, 2002). The need for a rulemaking

plan was prompted by the development of a draft

AIF regulation by the State of Ohio, and the

state’ s subsequent request for NRC to review

and comment on that draft regulation. At the

time, at least 5 other states were contemplating

similar regulations. The Ohio rule (Ohio

Department of Health, 2003) is now the only AIF

regulation currently in effect; however, the

regulation has never been implemented by the

state. In a 2005 study, the Midwest Interstate

LLW Compact questioned the need for an AIF.

See Illinois Emergency Management Agency

(2005). In a 2005 review of DOE’ s LLW

management programs, the GAO (2005a)

recommended the use of life-cycle cost analyses

to evaluate competing LLW management

alternatives. 

For its part, the NRC has no regulations or

criteria for the design and operation of an AIF.

To ensure consistency with any future state

regulations, the staff has previously

recommended the development of an AIF rule.

However, before proceeding to develop such a

rule, the staff surveyed the states, Interstate

Compacts, and industry representatives to

determine how widespread the support was for an

NRC regulation in this area; responses to that

survey suggested only limited interest. See NRC

(2003). Should NRC promulgate an AIF

regulation, Ohio and any other states with similar

regulations would be required to modify those

regulations to be consistent with NRC’ s, based

on the Commission’ s AEC authorities. In a

January 2004 SRM, the Commission has directed

the staff to defer action on the development of an

AIF rule and annually review the need for further

action in this area (NRC, 2004). 

For its part, EPRI has published

recommendations on the management and interim

storage of commercial LLW. See EPRI (1994,

2002). 
34

The staff intends to revisit this issue as part of its

2006 strategic planning initiative. See NRC

(2006c).

5.3 Low-Activity Radioactive Waste

Some radioactive waste streams, by legal

definition, are not SNF, HLW, TRU, or LLW.

Low-activity radioactive waste can occur in

concentrations greater than background levels,

but less than Class A materials, which have no

specified lower limit.

In 1975, Gesell and Prichard noted that certain

human activities can result in the unintentional

yet anomalous concentration of naturally

occurring radioactivity to levels greater than

those found in the environment. They cited

radiation emissions from coal-fired power plants,

radon in harvested natural gas, radium in

manufactured fertilizer, radium in processed

drinking water, and enhanced cosmic ray

exposure in high-altitude aircraft as examples of

these anomalous concentrations. Because of the

potential for significant occupational or

population exposures above background levels,

Gesell and Prichard recommended that a new

category of radiation exposure be recognized –

technologically enhanced natural radiation

(TENR) – to permit evaluation of the incremental

health risk of LAW (although not defined as such

at the time). Accelerator-produced radioisotopes 44

were later added to the unofficial definition, now

renamed technologically enhanced naturallyoccurring radioactive materials (TENORM).

Other slightly contaminated (short-lived)

radioactive materials, generated from the

decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities,

including nuclear power reactors (National

Research Council, 2002), are now generally

considered part of the LAW spectrum.

According to past EPA (1988, p. 3-21) estimates,

as many as 70 potential sources of LAW could

exist. Although existing commercial LLW

disposal sites can accept LAW for disposal, the

management of these waste streams has gained

increased attention in recent years because of the

substantial volume of material they represent,

estimated to be on the order of 10 ft3 (10 m3 )

9 7

annually (EPA, 2000a, p. 2) compared with 10

5

ft3 (103 m3 ) of LLW generated annually (NRC,

2001a, p. 3). However, a comprehensive

regulatory framework to guide the management

of these non-AEA materials does not exist. A

complex patchwork of regulations, some Federal,

but mostly state, applies to these wastes. In

general, this framework is based more on the

generation (source) of LAW rather than on its

radiologic hazard or health risk. The question

has thus been raised from time to time as to

whether greater Federal responsibility is needed

for the management of LAW to ensure a

consistent integrated approach to controlling

human exposures to such materials commensurate

with the health risks. 

As early as 1974, NRC Agreement States

recommended that the AEC (or its successor)

undertake the overall responsibility for regulating

LAW (Lacker, 1974). In response, NRC staff

periodically reviews the matter. See Nussbaumer

et al. (1977), Bolling et al. (1984), and Austin

(1988). Following these reviews, SECY papers

issued April 1978 (NRC, 1978a), December

1978 (NRC, 1978c), March 1988 (NRC, 1988a),

and September 1992 (NRC, 1992d) made staff

recommendations to the Commission on whether

it should seek to extend the NRC’ s statutory

authority in this area. In September 1996, as

part of its Strategic Planning Framework (NRC,

1996d), the staff identified options for the

Commission to consider for whether to continue

to regulate or to revise its oversight of the

medical uses of nuclear byproduct materials

 LAW is unofficially defined to include low activity 44

materials defined as NORM, NARM, and TENORM.

See Appendix B to this report for an expanded discussion

of LAW.
35

including NARM. On each occasion, though, 45

the Commission has decided not to seek an

expanded statutory authority to include LAW.

See NRC (2006a).

Citing inadequate regulatory coverage, the

Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors (CRCPD) began to develop

“ suggested” state regulations for LAW

(specifically TENORM) in the 1980s. Although

the recommendations have no legal authority, the

proposed regulations, issued in December 1999,

are intended to serve as a model for future state

regulations. The suggested regulations (CRCPD,

1999a) were supported by a rationale (technical

basis) document (CRCPD, 1999b) and

implementing guidance (CRCPD, 2004). In its

proposal, the CRCPD recommended that

companies which possess, use, manufacture, or

make products or wastes in which the radium-226

content is greater that 5 pCi/g would require

licensing.

In 2002, the NAS initiated a review of the

regulatory and guidance framework for managing

LAW at the request of 10 Federal, state, and

foreign organizations. The NAS issued an 46

interim report in late 2003 (National Research

Council, 2003) and a final report in 2006. In its

final report (National Research Council, 2006),

the NAS investigating committee found that

certain categories of LAW had not received

consistent regulatory oversight and management,

and, for those categories that were regulated, the

regulations were not commensurate with the

hazard posed by the waste. Consequently, the

NAS recommended that a more “ risk-based

approach” (e.g., Kaplan and Garrick, 1981) for

the management of LAW to be undertaken

through an integrated, incremental process.

With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of

2005 (Public Law 109-58), Congress decided to

extend NRC control over some types of LAW,

specifically, concentrated yet short-lived NORM

and NARM waste residues. The act amended

Section 11e. of the AEA to include certain types

of NARM. However, this extended authority did

not address the diffuse, more abundantsources of

LAW. In response to the new Congressional

direction, the Commission is currently reviewing

the proposed rule package and will be voting on

it at a later date. See NRC (2006b).

For its part, EPA attempted to develop radiation

standards for the management of LAW in the

1980s in parallel with the development of LLW

radiation standards. The EPA proposed LLW

and NARM regulations (EPA, 1983a) never

cleared the Federal interagency review process.

(See Appendix B of this report.) However, more

recently, EPA has undertaken several regulatory

initiatives to address the management of mixed

LAW. See EPA (2003).

5.4 Stakeholder Views

In addition to the national program reviews by

the GAO and OTA, some LLW stakeholder

organizations and entities have prepared position

papers expressing their views on various matters

related to the management of commercial LLW.

Some of these position papers also call for

changes to the NRC’ s LLW regulatory

framework. An Internet search summarized in

Table 10 indicates that there are several

published position papers. These position papers

provide different perspectives and sometimes

conflicting stakeholder positions on the issues.

 Direction-Setting Issue 7 discussed five options,

45

including an expanded regulatory responsibility for x-ray,

accelerators, and NARM. 

 Sponsoring organizations included the Corps of 46

Engineers, the California Environmental Protection

Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, DOE, EPA, the

Japanese Institute of Applied Energy, the French Institute

de Radioprotection et de Surété Nucléaire, the Midwest

Interstate LLW Compact, the NRC, and the Southeast

LLW Compact Commission.
36

Table 10 Stakeholder Position Papers Concerning LLW Management

Organization/Entity Internet Homepage LLW Policy Statement

Title Date

American Nuclear Society http://www.ans.org/ “Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Position Statement No. 11” November 2004

Association of Media Accuracy http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/

Wastes.htm

“Nuclear Energy – Storage, Disposal and Transportation of Radioactive

Wastes” (includes a discussion of LLW)

No date

California Radioactive Materials

Management Forum (Cal Rad Forum)

http://www.calradforum.org/ “A National Solution for a National Problem” 2003

Council on Radionuclides and

Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR)

http://www.corar.org/ “Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals Position Paper

on Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal”

April 6, 2001

Health Physics Society http://www.hps.org/ “Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Needs a Complete and

Coordinated Overhaul”

September 2005

(revision)

League of Women Voters http://www.lwv.org//AM/Template.cfm?Sec

tion=Home

“Environmental Protection and Pollution Control”

(general subject of LLW management)]

July 5, 2005

LLW Forum http://www.llwforum.org/ “Management of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste” September 22, 2005

National Governor’s Association http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga NR-19 Policy Position, “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Policy” February 26, 2004

National Mining Association http://www.nma.org/ “The National Mining Association’s and the Fuel Cycle Facilities

Forum’s White Paper on Direct Disposal of Non-11e.(2) Byproduct

Materials in Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments” (includes a

discussion of LLW)

No date

Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm “Low-Level Radioactive Waste” March 1992

Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/lo

w.asp#A%20Responsible%20Response

“Low-Level" Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Management” No date

Southeast Interstate LLW Compact http://www.secompact.org/ “Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste” November 30, 2005
37

No attempt has been made to summarize the

opinions expressed. The reader is referred to

the individual papers to better understand the

respective views of the organizations that have

prepared these papers.
38

(Page intentionally left blank.)
39

PART II. THE NRC’ S LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

6 INTRODUCTION

Without exception, all past case studies of LLW

disposal pointed to the need to improve its

management to ensure that the wastes, once

disposed of, would not create a public health

hazard. This meant not only protecting workers

and the public during the operational phase of

waste disposal, but also assuring that once a

facility was closed, the disposal “ system” would

contain the waste for a period of time sufficient

to ensure that it no longer posed a hazard.

In response to the needs and requests of the

public, the states, industry, and others, the

Commission promulgated specific requirements

for licensing the near-surface land disposal of

commercial LLW at 10 CFR Part 61. These

requirements were developed during a 5-year

period from 1978 to 1982, following the 1977

recommendations of an internal NRC task force

(NRC, 1977d). The Commission published its

final commercial LLW disposal regulation in the

Federal Register on December 27, 1982 (47 FR

57446). The rule applies to any near-surface

LLW land disposal technology. This includes

SLB, engineered land disposal methods such as

below-ground vaults (BGVs), earth-mounded

concrete bunkers (EMCBs), and augered holes.

The regulation emphasizes an integrated systems

approach to commercial LLW disposal, including

consideration of site selection, disposal facility

design and operation, minimum waste form

requirements, and disposal facility closure. To

lessen the burden on society over the long

periods of time contemplated for the control of

radioactive material, 10 CFR Part 61 emphasizes

passive rather than active systems to minimize

and retard releases to the environment. Various

subparts of the rule cover general provisions and

procedural licensing aspects, while other subparts

cover the performance objectives; financial

assurances; state and tribal participation; and

records, reports, tests, and inspections. The

NRC did not require existing LLW disposal sites

to conform to the 10 CFR Part 61 requirements,

although many of the features of the regulation

were incorporated as license conditions for

existing facilities. 

Since 1983, the NRC staff has developed several

documents intended to aid in the implementation

of 10 CFR Part 61. Foremost among these are

NUREG-1300, “ Environmental Standard Review

Plan for the Review of a License Application for

a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

(Environmental Report)” (Pangburn et al., 1987);

NUREG-1199, “ Standard Format and Content

of a License Application for a Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility” (NRC,

1991a); and NUREG-1200, “ Standard Review

Plan for the Review of a License Application for

a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facility” (NRC, 1994a). NUREG-1199 details

the components and information required by

10 CFR Part 61 for a license application for an

LLW disposal facility. NUREG-1200 provides

guidance on the process that the staff would use

to review a 10 CFR Part 61 license application.

Consistent with the requirement in the LLWPA

to review a 10 CFR Part 61 license application

within 15 months of its receipt, the staff

prepared NUREG-1274, “ Review Process for

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal License

Application under Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Amendments Act” (Pittiglio, 1987), which

describes the NRC’ s approach to reviewing

license applications. To enhance the staff's

capability to review and evaluate license

applications within the required 15-month

timeframe, the staff also developed a LLW

performance assessment program plan. See NRC

(1992a). 
40

In issuing a 10 CFR Part 61 LLW disposal

facility license, the NRC would be required to

prepare an EIS. NRC Regulatory Guide 4.18,

“ Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Report for Near-Surface Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste” (NRC, 1983d), and

NUREG-1300 (Pangburn et al., 1987) guide the

staff as to what to include in the EIS. Because of

the key role quality assurance (QA) has played in

the nuclear program, the NRC staff has also

developed specific QA guidance for the LLW

regulatory arena. NUREG-1293, “ Quality

Assurance Guidance for a Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Facility” (Pittiglio and Hedges,

1991), providesspecific guidance on how to meet

the 10 CFR Part 61 requirements. NUREG- 47

1383, “ Guidance on the Application of Quality

Assurance for Characterizing a Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Site: Final Report,”

(Pittiglio et al., 1990) provides QA guidance

related to site characterization activities. Chapter

9 of both NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200

provides additional QA guidance for potential

10 CFR Part 61 applicants.

Section 8 of the LLWPA, as amended, also

directs the NRC to identify and publish technical

information for disposal methods other than SLB.

The NRC complied with this requirement by

publishing NUREG-1241, “ Licensing of

Alternative Methods of Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste – Branch Technical Position”

(Higginbotham et al., 1986), and the NUREG/

CR-3774 series, “ Alternative Methods for

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes”

(Bennett et al., 1984; Bennett, 1985; Bennett and

Warriner, 1985; Miller and Bennett, 1985;

Warriner and Bennett, 1985). In addition, the

NRC revised NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200 to

address disposal in BGVs and EMCBs.

 The criteria described in NUREG-1293 are similar 47

to the criteria contained in Appendix B, “ Quality

Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel

Reprocessing Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50. Although

Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 is not applicable to the

NRC's LLW disposal regulation, the criteria it contains

are basic to any nuclear regulatory QA program.
41

7 APPROACH TO DEVELOPING 10 CFR PART 61

Before the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61, no

national or international standards defined what

level of safety was necessary to protect the public

from disposed LLW. The only comparable

regulations in place that defined “ safety”

were the AEC generic criteria, found at 10 CFR

Part 20, which related to occupationally exposed

workers during the operation of licensed nuclear

facilities. These criteria define the maximum

permissible levels of radiation in unrestricted

areas. Although 10 CFR Part 20 does not

contain technical criteria or standards specific to

the disposal of licensed materials such as LLW,

it was nevertheless used to license early LLW

disposal facilities because the regulation was

generally intended to protect both workers and

members of the public. 48

Consistent with the staff’ s 1977 Program Plan

(NRC, 1977d), the Commission published an

ANPR, in October 1978, inviting advice,

recommendations, and comments from

stakeholders on the scope of the EIS the staff was

developing in support of the new 10 CFR Part 61

regulation (NRC, 1978b). The proposed EIS was

not intended to be a generic EIS on LLW

disposal vis-a-vis the NEPA process. Rather, it

was intended to serve as the document that would

provide the bases and record for Commission

decisions on the requirements to be set out in the

forthcoming regulation. To ensure that no viable

LLW disposal alternatives would be overlooked,

as part of the scoping process, the NRC

sponsored a technical study (Macbeth et al.,

1978) that was included as part of the 1978

ANPR. Also see Denham (1988).

The Commission used the comments received

during the ANPR to scope and form the content

of NUREG-0782, “ Draft Environmental Impact

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Wastes” (NRC, 1981c), as well as the

preliminary draft regulation which became

available for public comment on February 28,

1980 (45 FR 13104). The draft regulation

identified the licensing procedures, performance

objectives, and technical requirements necessary

for the licensing of commercial LLW disposal

facilities. The proposed regulation also reflected

the NRC’ s longstanding ALARA or “ as low as

reasonably achievable” regulatory principles (The

White House, 1987). During the summer and 49

fall of 1980, the Commission also sponsored four

regional workshops to give stakeholders an

opportunity to discuss the issues addressed in the

proposed 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. The

Commission received 36 comments from the

public on the ANPR. The respondents strongly

supported the Commission’ s development of

specific standards and criteria for the disposal of

LLW (NRC, 1981b). Among the comments

received were specific recommendations that a

system was needed for classifying or segregating

 This section provides some general background on 48

the approach used to develop 10 CFR Part 61 and, in

doing so, highlights a few key issues considered important

at the time. This summary is not intended to be

exhaustive. NUREG-0782 (NRC, 1981c) and NUREG0945 (NRC, 1982a) provide a more detailed account of

this development process, as well as the disposition of key

issues related to that development.

 10 CFR Part 20 establishes standards for protection 49

against radiation hazards arising out of NRC-licensed

activities. A guiding principle for 10 CFR Part 20 is that

NRC licensees make every reasonable effort to maintain

radiation exposures and releases of radioactive materials

as low as is reasonably achievable or ALARA [see 10

CFR 20.1101(b)]. As defined in 10 CFR 20.1003,

ALARA requires that every reasonable effort be made to

maintain exposures below the 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits,

taking into account the state of the technology, the

economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to

the health and safety of the public and occupational

workers, other societal and socioeconomic considerations,

and the utilization of nuclear energy in the public interest.

However, a review of how ALARA principles were

considered and applied to the development of the 10 CFR

Part 61 LLW regulation is beyond the scope of this report.
42

the waste based on (radiological) hazard (46 FR

38082). After considering the information

received, the Commission published its proposed

10 CFR Part 61 LLW regulation on July 24,

1981 (46 FR 38081). The NRC staff and one of

its technical assistance contractors, ORNL,

conducted a series of three symposia between

1981 and 1983 to examine technical issues

related to the siting, design, and/or performance

of LLW disposal facilities, as well as the

proposed draft 10 CFR Part 61 regulation. See

Yalcintas and Jacobs (1982) and Yalcintas

(1982b, 1983). 

The Commission received comments from 107

individuals, organizations, and entities on the

proposed regulation and considered the general

response to the proposed rule to be favorable (47

FR 57447). For the most part, the comments

were evenly split, either explicitly supporting the

rule and the Commission’ s proposed overall

regulatory approach, or offering constructive

comments on specific aspects of the proposed

rule without taking a general position on the rule

itself, or offering support with reservations. No

state group or existing LLW disposal site

operator expressed opposition to the proposed

rule. Only 15 commenters expressed outright

opposition to the rule or some significant portion

of it. As a result of the generally favorable

comments received, the Commission finalized 10

CFR Part 61 in 1982 (47 FR 57446). To support

publication of the final rule, the staff also issued

NUREG-0945, ”Final Environmental Impact

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Wastes,” (NRC, 1982a), which contained a

detailed analysis of the comments received on the

DEIS, as well as the decision bases and staff

positions in support of the final regulation. A

series of independent analyses also supported the

EIS.

7.1 Elements of the LLW Regulation

The 10 CFR Part 61 regulation applies to any

near-surface and above-ground disposal

technology for commercial LLW. The regulation

covers all phases of LLW disposal from site

selection through facility design, licensing,

operations, closure, and postclosure stabilization,

to the period when active institutional controls

end. The regulation also establishes the

procedures, criteria, terms, and conditions that

the Commission would use to issue and renew

existing licenses. The requirements emphasize

an integrated systems approach to LLW disposal,

including consideration of site selection, site

design and operation, waste form, and disposal

facility closure. Because of the long periods of

time contemplated for the control of radioactive

material, 10 CFR Part 61 also emphasizes

passive rather than active systems to minimize

and retard releases to the environment. To

provide flexibility in siting and designing disposal

facilities, the Commission devised an LLW

classification system based on the half-lives and

concentrations of radioactive materials that are

expected to be in the wastes. All commercial

LLW classes are subject to minimum waste form

characteristics.

The 10 CFR Part 61 regulation is organized into

several subparts. Various subparts cover general

provisions and procedural licensing aspects,

while other subparts cover the performance

objectives; financial assurances; state and tribal

participation; and records, reports, tests, and

inspections. In addition, the regulation specifies

requirements that the waste generator must meet,

including requirements for waste form and

content, waste classification, and waste

manifests. See Appendix C to this report for

more details on major subject areas in the

regulation.

As noted previously, the 10 CFR Part 61

regulation focuses on the long-term disposal of

commercial LLW. The Commission employed a
43

top-down, integrated systems approach to

developing the regulation. It proposed

performance goals (objectives) that accounted for

both short-term and long-term radiological

exposures. The regulation was oriented towards

overall performance objectives that define the

safety goals (regulatory policies) to be achieved

in waste disposal. (See next section of this

report.) The performance objectives are

supported by a narrow (minimum) set of

prescriptive technical standards that, based on

past operating experience, are judged to be

important to meeting the overall performance

objectives. The intent of this regulatory

approach was to give flexibility to LLW disposal

facility developers, consistent with a particular

geologic and/or geographic setting, in choosing

advantageous siting and design features and

operating practices necessary to achieve the

performance objectives (46 FR 38083). The

Commission chose not to include too much

specificity in the technical standards as that

would require considerable detailed knowledge

about the spectrum of designs, techniques, and

procedures for disposing of commercial LLW.

Alternatively, the Commission chose to provide

prospective applicants with flexibility in deciding

how they would meet the performance objectives.

Through the earlier scoping process, the site

(geosphere) was considered to be part of the

containment system which, in concert with

specific design features (e.g., clay liners,

engineered barriers), would slow the expected

release of LLW to acceptably small quantities of

radioactive material over time. The technical

requirements apply to site suitability, specific

features of the facility design, operations and

closure, waste classification, waste form, and

certain institutional assurance measures.

Requirements for environmental monitoring in

the postclosure phase would ensure the

assessment of the overallsystem’ s performance.

Based on past reviews and experience, the

Commission deemed these minimum technical

requirements collectively important to achieving

successful waste disposal. Because there are

multiple barriers (including a stabilized waste

form), reliance is not placed on any one

component of the LLW disposal system to ensure

that the performance objectives are met. Rather,

all components of the system, acting in concert,

are intended to contain and isolate the wastes.

This concept of multiple barriers is consistent

with the Commission’ s traditional views

regarding defense-in-depth and aids in the 50

decisionmaking for issuing a 10 CFR Part 61

license using the standard of “ reasonable

assurance.”

51

 “ Defense-in-depth” is more of an NRC design

50

principle and operational philosophy than a regulatory

requirement per se. A review of the literature indicates

that there is no official or preferred definition (Sorensen et

al., 1999, p. 1). One of the essential features of the

principle is the concept of employing successive

compensatory measures to prevent accidents or mitigate

damage if a malfunction or accident occurs. (As applied

to a disposal system containing LLW, the compensatory

measures would be multiple physical barriers that provide

redundancy in containment.) The net effect of

incorporating defense-in-depth into design, construction,

maintenance, and operation is that the facility or system

tends to be more tolerant of internal failures and external

changes. As applied to the NRC’ s regulatory programs,

this principle is discussed in more detail in NRC (1983c,

48 FR 28196–28197), NRC (1998b), and Powers (1999).

 Section 61.23, “ Standards for Issuance of a 51

License,” of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

defines the standards the Commission will use to

determine if it can issue a 10 CFR Part 61 license

application to operate an LLW disposal facility. In issuing

any license, the Commission would apply the standard of

reasonable assurance. Historically, the Commission has

used the concept to describe the acceptability of

information submitted in a license application that would

demonstrate that the licensed facility would perform as

intended and, in doing so, protect public health and safety.

The Commission, at 48 FR 28204, describes how it would

use the standard in the context of 10 CFR Part 60,

“ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic

Repositories,” the NRC’ s generic geologic disposal

regulations for SNF and other HLW. See also Schweitzer

and Sastre (1987, pp. 4–5). 
44

7.2 Who Should Be Protected and What

Should the Level of Protection Be?

As noted earlier, the Commission’ s intent in

promulgating 10 CFR Part 61 was to develop a

regulation that addressed all phases of the LLW

disposal cycle. This meant that the regulation

had to be sufficient to cover disposal operations

and closure, as well as the long-term period of

waste isolation. 

The Commission developed the performance

objectives defined in Subpart C expressly for

commercial LLW. They define the overall 52

level of safety to be achieved by disposal.

Although the Commission’ s requirements in

10 CFR Part 20 were considered appropriate for

existing types of nuclear facility operations, they

were not considered appropriate for the longterm disposal of LLW (NRC, 1989c, p. 7). The

10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives are

intended to provide protection from normal

disposal facility operations as well as longer term

protection from the release of radioactive

materials after facility closure, including

accidental exposures caused by inadvertent

human intrusion and waste exhumation, in which

the intruder is unaware of the presence of the

disposal site. The technical requirements in

Subpart D are minimum requirements intended to

help ensure compliance with the performance

objectives.

The Commission was also concerned about the

potential for inadvertent human intrusion once

institutional control of the site had ended and

knowledge of the hazard ceased. Near-surface

disposal raises the possibility of exposures to

ionizing radiation resulting from man’ s efforts to

reclaim a disposal site for productive use such as

farming, housing, or natural resource

development. Archeological activities and

scavenging could also lead to waste exhumation.

The staff recognized early in the EIS scoping

process that because these behaviors could not be

predicted, there was no way to guarantee that

inadvertent human intrusion at the site would not

occur at some point in the future (46 FR 38083).

Consequently, the staff determined that future

generations, in effect, should be afforded the

same level of protection as the general population

today. Although widely used today in the

evaluation of radioactive waste disposal

systems, the human intruder scenario was a 53

unique concept when the Commission first

proposed it.

In another type of intergenerational equity

concern, the Commission took the position that

future generations should not bear the

responsibility for managing wastes produced by

past generations. The Commission stated that the

disposal facility, its components, and even certain

types of LLW should be robust (physically stable)

and recognizable for some minimum period of

time into the future while the radiological hazard

still exists so as to preclude the potential for

releases into the environment (NRC, 1982b,

47 FR 57457, 57459). 

As a result of these considerations, during the

rulemaking scoping process, the Commission

proposed the following performance objectives

found in Subpart C:

• Protect members of the public (at 10

CFR 61.41, “ Protection of the General

Population from Releases of

Radioactivity”).

 In the absence of applicable environmental radiation 52

standards promulgated by EPA, the NRC developed the

four performance objectives through rulemaking. See

Section 7.4.2 of this report for further information.

 By evaluating the disruptive consequences of 53

borehole drilling, the robustness of radioactive waste

disposal designs to human intrusion scenarios can be

evaluated. For example, see Charles and McEwen

(1991), Nuclear Energy Agency (1991), Berglund (1992),

and Wescott (2001). 
45

• Protect inadvertent human intruders

entering the facility once disposal

operations have ceased and the facility

has been decommissioned (at 10 CFR

61.42, “ Protection of Individuals from

Inadvertent Intrusion”).

• Protect occupationally exposed workers

during facility operation (at 10 CFR

61.43, “ Protection of Individuals during

Operations”).

• Assure the long-term physical stability of

the disposal facility to obviate the need

for long-term maintenance after

decommissioning of the facility (at

10 CFR 61.44, “ Stability of the Site

after Closure”).

These performance objectives effectively defined

the Commission’ s policy on who would be

protected (and when) as the result of the

operation of a commercial LLW disposal facility.

The first performance objective applied to shortterm exposures associated with the preclosure

phase of facility operations. As noted earlier, the

intent of this requirement was to ensure that

LLW disposal facilities would be operated in

conformance with the same standards for

radiation protection that the Commission already

applied to existing nuclear materials licensees.

As a consequence, this performance objective

required compliance with existing 10 CFR Part

20 criteria for radiation exposure to workers.

With the update of 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC,

1991c), there are now two different bases for

doses in 10 CFR 61.41 and 10 CFR 61.43. The

whole-body and organ dose limits specified in

10 CFR 61.41 are based on the older system of

dose calculation methods as documented in the

International Commission on Radiological

Protection (ICRP) Publication 2 (ICRP, 1960).

This system is based on the principles of

maximum organ burdens and intakes so annual

doses are limited to the maximums allowed for

critical organs. Currently, 10 CFR Part 20 is

based on ICRP Publications 26 and 30. See

ICRP (1977 and 1979–88, respectively). The 54

principles in these reports are based on estimating

doses for 50 years for intakes that occur in a year

of practice and limiting exposures so that the

assigned dose for intakes in that year does not

exceed limits.

The practical result is that under the new system,

long-lived radionuclides are more restricted than

under the old system. In short, a dose expressed

in mrem/yr to the whole body using the concepts

in 10 CFR 61.41 is not necessarily equivalent to

25 mrem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE)

assigned to a year of practice using the concepts

in 10 CFR Part 20. The difference is greater if

more long-lived radionuclides are involved in

internal exposures. 

Although appropriate for the preclosure phase of

operations, the Commission did not consider

10 CFR Part 20 adequate for the postclosure

phase, as the manner, the timing, and the nature

of potential radioactive releases for specific types

of LLW would be more difficult to predict under

any scenario – natural or otherwise – for any

particular repository design. The determination

of what specific technical requirements might be

needed to achieve safety during the postclosure

phase required a more definitive assessment of

the potential radiological hazard. To conduct this

assessment, the Commission postulated two

logical exposure scenarios, (a) an event in which

radioactive material is transported off-site (i.e.,

ground-water migration) as a result of the natural

evolution of the disposal system and its environs

(this is now commonly referred to as the

undisturbed or “ base case” scenario) or (b) a

potential event similar to the one already

described above in which individuals come into

 ICRP Publication 30 was issued in four parts 54

between 1979 and 1988. See ICRP (1979, 1980, 1981,

1988). Including indexes and supplements, eight volumes

are associated with the Publication 30 series.
46

unintentional, direct contact with the buried

waste (this is now commonly referred to as a

disturbed or “ human intrusion” scenario).

The Commission thus intended the remaining

three performance objectives (Sections 60.42,

60.43, and 60.44) to address potential long-term

exposures that might be encountered during the

postclosure period of the disposal facility life

cycle. In proposing these performance objectives

(and the supporting technical requirements), the

Commission recognized that the period of

greatest reliance on the disposal system would be

long after the facility had been closed as some

LLW can remain hazardous for many hundreds

if not thousands of years. Because of the

potential for humans to inadvertently enter a

disposal facility and come into contact with

radioactive waste, the Commission quickly

recognized that, when taking into account the

long timeframes of concern, the intruder scenario

would likely be the key scenario driving

decisions on what combination of siting and

design requirements was necessary to provide

sufficient protection to ensure the safety of the

public and the environment. 55

7.3 10 CFR Part 61 Scoping Activities

Based on the review of the past performance of

some commercial and Federal waste disposal

sites, the Commission recognized that certain

LLW management practices (i.e., siting and

design decisions, preferred waste forms,

packaging techniques) had already produced

favorable disposal outcomes. At some sites,

LLW had been contained in disposal cells, and

no releases of radioactive material to the

accessible environment had occurred. The

challenge in developing the new regulation was

to understand what combination(s) of practices

and/or standards could be relied on to produce

the same favorable outcomes at future disposal

sites. Understanding the answers to these

questions would help determine what level of

protection was necessary for the operation of a

LLW disposal facility. 

7.3.1 NUREG-0456: A Proposed LLW Dose

Assessment Model

In developing the technical criteria and standards

for SLB, the Commission recognized that it

would need to define the concentrations and

quantities of waste acceptable for disposal under

an LLW regulation. This meant developing an

analytical methodology that allowed the

interfaces between key components of an LLW

disposal system (i.e, specific siting and design

features, performance objectives, and source

terms) to be defined quantitatively. More

specifically, for certain key radionuclides and

waste forms, the staff needed to identify the

existing LLW management practices and/or

disposal methods that worked best in containing

wastes and limiting doses.

One of the early analyses the staff conducted as

part of the DEIS scoping process was the

development of a generic LLW dose assessment

methodology. For certain key radionuclides and

waste forms, the staff sought to identify (and

quantify) an optimal set of model parameters

(e.g., disposal practices) that could be used to

control doses. Using a consistent set of relatively

simple exposure pathways, the staff proposed a

deterministic dose assessment methodology in

NUREG-0456, “ A Classification System for

 If there were complete assurance that a commercial 55

LLW disposal site would not be subject to human

intrusion, then the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking effort

would have been reduced to determining what technical

criteria were necessary to ensure that the disposed wastes

would remain within the confines of the disposal facility

until such time that the LLW had decayed to background

levels. However, because complete assurance in this

regard was not possible, the rulemaking effort needed to

account for the eventuality that there would be human

intrusion into a disposal site and exhumation of or contact

with the wastes. The Commission recognized that specific

design precautions and/or waste form specifications might

be necessary to protect against the more hazardous, longer

lived LLW forms, specifically Class B and C wastes

(47 FR 57451).
47

Radioactive Waste Disposal – What Waste Goes

Where?” (Adam and Rogers, 1978). It was

applied to two reference disposal methods (sites)

and a preliminary three-tier LLW classification

system. Analysts could compare estimated dose

impacts with dose guidelines developed for the

study to determine maximum allowable 56

concentrations (limits) of radionuclides

appropriate for each of the proposed waste

classification tiers through “ what-if” types of

analyses.

The most likely release path of radionuclides

from a near-surface disposal facility to the

biosphere is transport by groundwater following

dissolution of the LLW form. However, nearsurface disposal facilities are also subject to

exhumation by geologic processes, as well as by

inadvertent human intrusion. To account for

these scenarios, the dose methodology developed

was the traditional release-transport-exposureconsequence model. The methodology consisted

of a basic dose model, dose guidelines, exposure

scenarios, and calculational basis. Analysts

considered two mechanisms or exposure

scenarios in which individuals could come into

contact with the waste. They were the “ onsite

reclaimer” scenario and the “ offsite transporter”

scenario. The onsite reclaimer scenario

considered six potential exposure pathways,

while the offsite transporter scenario considered

four. See Table 11. These exposure scenarios

were believed to be reasonably conservative. All

features of the NUREG-0456 dose methodology

were deterministic. The intruder scenario was

assumed to occur with a probability of one, 150

years after the end of institutional controls at the

disposal site, when most of the short-lived

radionuclides would have already decayed. The

offsite transporter scenarios were also calculated

deterministically and were assumed to be initiated

immediately after the waste was disposed. In this

latter scenario, there is essentially no credit for

radionuclide decay, and the releases therefore

can be considered instantaneous exposures.

Once developed, the overall methodology was

benchmarked against existing analog sites to

validate the computational features of the

analysis. The analog locations selected were the

Maxey Flats LLW disposal site (in Kentucky) and

the Latty Avenue uranium mill tailings site (in

Missouri). In addition, based on the study’ s

dose guidelines limits, the methodology was able

to provide preliminary estimates of the maximum

concentrations or inventories of radioactive

material in commercial LLW that were

permissible to ensure that exposures did not

exceed the assumed safety goals for maximum

individual and total population doses. Before

publication, all features of the NUREG-0456

methodology and results underwent a peer review

to provide a critical, independent assessment of

the work.

7.3.2 NUREG/CR-1005: A Proposed

Radioactive Waste Classification

System

Having defined a generic methodology for

understanding the sensitivity (coupling) between

key disposal system interfaces, analysts needed to

move to the next phase of the EIS scoping

process. This involved devising a waste

classification system that would allow a

correlation between the hazard posed by the

waste, the safety goal to be achieved by disposal,

and some prescriptive regulatory requirements

necessary to achieve the safety goals. Any

disposal solution must recognize that

radiotoxicity and environmental mobility are key

 By law, EPA was responsible for the development 56

of radiation exposure standards and criteria to be applied

to LLW. However, at the time of the staff’ s scoping

analyses, such criteria were not available. Consequently,

the NRC staff postulated a reasonable set of guidelines to

provide protection from the effects of ionizing radiation,

based on a review of the recommendations of national and

international standard-setting organizations, consistent

with ICRP Publication 26 (ICRP, 1977). See Adam and

Rogers (1978, pp. 6–10) and the discussion in Section

7.4.1 of this report for more information.
48

Table 11 Exposure Scenarios Considered in NUREG-0456. Taken from Adam and Rogers (1978, pp. 15–17).

Scenario Event Pathway Comments

Onsite Reclaimer Inhalation Worker Inhalation of contaminated dust 

Resident

Ingestion Well Water Consumption Ingestion of contaminated groundwater

and/or consumption of food grown in soil

Food Consumption irrigated with contaminated groundwater

Direct Exposure Worker Direct exposure to gamma radiation

Resident

Offsite Transporter Inhalation Continuous Operational Release Atmospheric transport

Accidental Release

Ingestion Groundwater-to-River Ingestion from contaminated groundwater

resource

Surface Erosion

parameters in defining the magnitude of exposure

hazards to the public. 

For example, analyses from NUREG-0456

already indicated that certain disposal practices,

such as increasing the timeframe when the first

exposure occurs through the use of institutional

(administrative) controls, can limit the magnitude

of those exposures or obviate the significance of

certain exposure scenarios altogether.

Alternatively, burying wastes at greater depths

can achieve similar dose outcomes by eliminating

the potential for certain types of intruder

scenarios, as well as providing some shielding of

the wastes (Adam and Rogers, 1978, pp. 5–7).

Hence, by focusing on the length of institutional

controls and limiting the physical accessibility of

the wastes, analysts were able to formulate

disposal categories that indicated how specific

types of waste should be treated, as well as to

recommend radionuclide concentration limits for

each disposal category.

Thus, in considering the importance of half-life

(decay) and environmental mobility to potential

dose outcomes, King and Cohen (1977)

suggested that any one of the following three

disposal actions could occur:

(1) The radioactive waste does not pose

significant radiological health risk to the

public, and the waste can be disposed of

as part of the municipal waste stream.

(2) The radioactive waste does pose some

level of radiological health risk to the

public, and the waste needs to be

confined in some controlled manner to

allow limited releases to the environment

at predictably low rates, consistent with

levels of background radiation found in

nature.

(3) The radioactive waste poses a significant

radiological health risk to the public,

over an extended period of time, and the

waste needs to be isolated so that

biologically significant releases of

radioactive material to the environment

(or inadvertent human intrusion) were

unlikely.
49

Thus, for the purposes of scoping the 10 CFR

Part 61 regulation, NUREG/CR-1005, “ A

Radioactive Waste Disposal Classification

System,” proposed a “ what type of radioactive

waste goes where” disposal classification system

(Rogers, 1979). Five types of disposal solutions

were proposed applicable to all types of

radioactive waste. The principal considerations

in defining the proposed disposal categories were

the duration of institutional controls (caretaker

oversight) and reclaimer accessibility (Rogers,

1979, p. 24). As previously noted, it was

believed that governmental institutions could

restrict public access to disposalsites and thus the

potential for coming into contact with hazardous

wastes if a caretaker oversight period was

specified. If this oversight period were

sufficiently long, potential exposures to the

hazard would be reduced by virtue of the

inevitable radioactive decay of the wastes.

Similarly, if the wastes were buried at depths

greater than those routinely reached during

construction activities, this geologic “ isolation”

would also help to reduce potential exposures.

Both considerations were key to the NRC’ s

10 CFR Part 61 regulatory concept. 

Building on the earlier work of NUREG-0456,

analysts proposed deterministic disposal

concentration guides (DCGs) applicable to each 57

disposal class consistent once again with some

specified safety goal. The DCGs are the frontend parameters of the dose assessment model and

represent the activity of the waste available for

consideration in the assessment at the time of

disposal. Analysts derived the DCGs by starting

with a specified dose limit and working

backwards through the dose model, pathway-bypathway, to the initiation point of the analysis.

Another important interface value was the

maximum average concentration (MAC), which

represents the back-end of the dose assessment

model. It corresponds to the radionuclide

contaminant concentration found in a particular

exposure pathway. Both concentration 58

parameters are expressed in units of microcuries

per cubic centimeter (:Ci/cm3 ). By using a

revised dose assessment model (Rogers et al.,

1979) , analysts demonstrated that DCGs and 59

MACs could be used to derive a five-tier system

of disposal recommendations taking into account

duration of institutional controls and reclaimer

exposure pathways. See Table 12. In general,

the NUREG/CR-1005 analysis indicated that for

higher-calculated DCGs (Table 13), additional

caretaker oversight and isolation measures were

needed to ensure the safe disposal of the waste.

The analysis also showed that for some exposure

scenarios, the MAC can be the limiting factor in

the specification of a radionuclide-specific DCG.

The analysis also demonstrated that by comparing

potential doses with study guidelines, the waste

concentrations, waste volumes, or disposal

methods could be modified to provide adequate

protection to the public, which is another

important EIS scoping consideration.

7.3.3 NUREG-0782: The Draft LLW EIS

The last step in the rulemaking process was to

prepare an EIS consistent with NEPA. As noted

earlier, the purpose of the 10 CFR Part 61 DEIS

was to fulfill the NRC’ s NEPA responsibility, as

well as to demonstrate the decisionmaking

process applied to the development of the LLW

disposal regulation. Using the EIS process (e.g.,

Rau and Wooten, 1980), the NRC staff was able

to evaluate the potential health impacts of LLW

disposal, possible means for limiting the impacts,

 Because it is not practical to perform a radioisotopic 57

survey for every type of LLW configuration, dose

conversion factors for individual isotopes were developed

for NUREG/CR-1005.

 In NUREG/CR-1005, analysts considered only four

58

dose pathways (reclaimer dust inhalation, food ingestion

from reclaimed soil, well water consumption, and direct

gamma radiation), because they believed these pathways to

be the most restrictive in limiting doses to receptors.

 Similar to or derived from the NUREG-0456 dose

59

model.
50

Table 12 Waste Disposal Classification Categories Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. Taken from Rogers (1979,

p. 25).

Disposal

Class

 Institutional

Control

Accessibility Comments

A None No reclaimer access Default class. No upper limit for DCGs. Understood to be deep

geologic isolation.

B 150 years No reclaimer access

except well water after

150 years

Ready access to reclaimer is unlikely. Understood to represent

intermediate-depth land burial (about 30 ft). Offsite-transport,

well-water ingestion is controlling exposure scenario after 150

years. DCGs are from Class C and adjusted using a 150-year

decay factor.

C 20 years No reclaimer access

except well water after 20

years

Ready access to reclaimer is unlikely. Understood to represent

intermediate-depth land burial. Offsite-transport, well-water

ingestion is controlling exposure scenario after 20 years.

D 150 years Reclaimer access

following institutional

controls

Understood to represent shallow land burial (about 10 ft).

E None Worker/reclaimer access Understood to correspond to a sanitary municipal landfill.

and considering these measures, the potential

reduction (benefit) that could be achieved. The

EIS contained an exhaustive and detailed analysis

of alternatives such as disposal facility

environments, waste characteristics, disposal 

facility designs, and operating practices. 60

Deterministically-derived doses were presented

for whole body and six organs (bone, liver,

thyroid, kidney, lung, and gastrointestinal

tract). The NRC published its DEIS for the

proposed 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking as

NUREG-0782 (NRC, 1981c). In preparing this

four-volume report, the NRC followed both CEQ

regulations for preparing an EIS, as well as the

NRC’ s NEPA-implementing regulations set out

in 10 CFR Part 51, “ Environmental Protection

 In conducting the 10 CFR Part 61 DEIS scoping

60

calculations, the staff assumed a reference disposal facility

representative of existing LLW disposal facility designs

and operating and management practices throughout the

United States. To summarize, the staff decided that the

DEIS reference design would be an SLB facility located in

a humid environment characteristic of the eastern United

States. The staff selected this general location because

that part of the country was generating most of the LLW

and thus was likely to have the largest number of disposal

facilities in the future. The site had four distinct climate

seasons, although the winters were considered short and

mild with an average annual precipitation of about 46

inches. The reference facility covered an area of 148

acres with a disposal capacity of about 35,000,000 ft (10 3 6

m ). The staff assumed the disposal facility would have a 3

20- to 40-year operational life. At the end of operations,

the disposal site would be stabilized using existing

conservation practices, and the site closed and

decommissioned. Following decommissioning, the NRC

operating license would be terminated, and title of the site

would be transferred to a government agency that would

provide active institutional controls (surveillance,

monitoring, and custodial maintenance) for a period of

about 100 years. During this 100-year caretaker period,

there would be no incidents involving inadvertent human

intrusion.

Appendix F, “ Description of a Reference Disposal

Facility,” to Volume 2 of NUREG-0782 describes in more

detail the reference facility and other applicable model

parameters.
51

Table 13 DCGs for Waste Classes Proposed in NUREG/CR-1005. Taken from Rogers (1979, p. xiv).

Radionuclide Waste Class DCGs (in ìCi/cm3)

a b

A B C D E

c

H 2.9×10 4.3×10 94 94 0.05 3 9 5

C 7.1×10 140 140 2.4×10 1.2×10 14 6 -3 -3

Fe 1.9×10 SA SA SA 12 55 10

Co 9.7×10 SA SA 2.1×10 2.5×10 66 9 6 -4

Sr 3.6×10 38 2.4 0.02 2.3×10 90 8 -4

Tc 1×10 64 64 0.1 0.05 99 4

I 850 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.024 129

Cs 2.4×10 20 20 0.2 0.10 135 3

Cs 1.7×10 SA SA 0.9 4.2×10 137 8 -3

U 41 11 11 0.03 0.015 235

U 6.4 SA SA 0.03 0.015 238

Np 1.3×10 0.3 0.3 0.02 5.4×10 237 4 -4

Pu 3.4×10 SA SA 0.4 3.4×10 238 8 -4

Pu 1.2×10 90 90 0.1 3.0×10 239 6 -4

Pu 4.7×10 810 810 0.1 3.0×10 240 6 -4

Pu 2.2×10 SA SA 5.9×10 0.015 241 9 3

Pu 7.6×10 13 13 0.1 3.1×10 242 4 -4

Am 6.4×10 SA SA 0.4 9.2×10 241 7 -4

Am 3.6×10 SA 600 0.3 9.2×10 243 6 -4

Cm 2.6×10 SA SA SA 0.024 242 10

Cm 6.2×10 SA SA 130 1.5×10 244 8 -3

a. The list of radionuclides found in this table are not identical to those found in Table 10 of Rogers (1979, p. xiv).

b. Waste classes are defined in Table 12 of this report.

c. Specific activity (SA) of the isotope.
52

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related

Regulatory Functions.” The deterministic

analyses in NUREG-0456 and NUREG/CR-1005

provided a generic methodology for evaluating

the risks of different types of radioactive wastes

and proposing disposal solutions commensurate

with those risks. NUREG-0782 relied on those

methodologies and integrated them into the

NEPA-EIS framework necessary to support the

proposed rulemaking. However, unlike the

earlier analyses, NUREG-0782 considered

information viewed as more representative of the

types and kinds of LLW being managed at the

time, as well as pervasive LLW management

practices. Volume 1 of NUREG-0782 was a

summary report; Volume 2 described the NEPArequired analyses. Volumes 3 and 4 of the DEIS

contained the technical analyses and other

supporting information that addressed the

required elements of an EIS. 61

The following sections of this report discuss two

key features of the analytical framework used to

evaluate the performance of a hypothetical LLW

disposal facility. They are the commercial LLW

streams and exposure pathways considered in the

DEIS (Sections 7.3. 3. 1 and 7.3.3.2,

respectively).

7.3.3.1 The Waste Streams Considered62

At the time the NRC was developing the

regulation, an estimated 20,000 NRC materials

licensees were producing commercial LLW in a

wide variety of waste types, forms, and amounts.

This LLW was not a uniform physical quantity.

It contained both short-lived and long-lived

radionuclides and ranged from trash that was

only suspected of being contaminated to highly

radioactive material such as activated structural

components from nuclear power reactors. It

could be in solid, liquid, or gaseous forms. See

Wild et al. (1981).

For the purposes of the DEIS scoping process

and analyses, the NRC staff separated existing

commercial LLW into 36 distinct waste streams

(Table 14). Each waste stream represented a

separate type of LLW generated by a particular

type of waste source and had distinct physical,

chemical, radiological, and other characteristics

unique to that waste stream. The staff also

analyzed the isotopic content of various waste

streams and then identified the most important

radionuclides present in each stream for

consideration in the DEIS analysis (Table 15).

To allow for the required consideration of

disposal impacts and alternative management

options, the staff also considered the volumes of

commercial waste in each stream. In developing

the regulation, the Commission noted that a key

safety concern was the mobility of certain longlived radioisotopes (iodine-129, technetium-99,

carbon-14, and tritium) in the environment,

especially in groundwater. By defining

radionuclide concentration limits for a LLW

disposal facility, the Commission sought to

ensure that the proposed 10 CFR Part 61

performance objectives related to groundwater

would be met (47 FR 57455).

As discussed earlier, another of the Commission

objectives in developing the LLW regulation was

to identify existing as well as new LLW

management practices and designs that could

contribute to meeting the overall performance

objectives. For example, certain waste forms

and processing options may reduce the potential

for radionuclide dissolution and subsequent

biosphere transport. Consequently, the

Commission decided to also consider waste form

and processing options as part of the DEIS

scoping analysis. It achieved this by categorizing

existing commercial LLW into four waste

 Specifically, the purposes, scope, and need for the 61

rulemaking action, description of the affected

environment, and discussion of a preferred action, as well

as consideration of alternatives, costs, and impacts. 

 Appendix D, “ Low-Level Waste Sources and 62

Processing Options,” to Volume 2 of NUREG-0782

describes in more detail the waste stream definition

process.
53

Table 14 Waste Streams Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. Taken from NRC (1981c,

Volume 2 , p. 3-11).

Waste Stream Group Group Description

Group I: LWR Process Wastes PWR Ion Exchange Resins

PWR Concentrated Liquids

PWR Filter Sludges

PWR Filter Cartridges

BWR Ion Exchange Resins

BWR Concentrated Liquids

BWR Filter Sludge

Group II: Trash PWR Compactible Trash

PWR Noncompactible Trash

BWR Compactible Trash

BWR Noncompactible Trash

Fuel Fabrication Compactible Trash

Fuel Fabrication Noncompactible Trash

Institutional Trash (large facilities)

Institutional Trash (small facilities)

Industrial SSTrash (large facilities)

Industrial SS Trash (small facilities)

Industrial Low Trash (large facilities)

Industrial Low Trash (small facilities)

Group III: Low Specific Activity Wastes Fuel Fabrication Process Wastes

UF6 Process Wastes

Institutional LSV Waste (large facilities)

Institutional LSV Waste (small facilities)

Institutional Liquid Waste (large facilities)

Institutional Liquid Waste (small facilities)

Institutional Biowaste (large facilities)

Institutional Biowaste (small facilities)

Institutional SS Waste 

Institutional Low-Activity Waste

Group IV: Special Wastes LWR Nonfuel Reactor Components

LWR Decontamination Resins

Waste from Isotope Production Facilities

Tritium Production Waste

Accelerator Targets

Sealed Sources

Industrial High-Activity Waste

Abbreviations: LWR

PWR

BWR

SS

LSV

light-water reactor

pressurized-water reactor

boiling water reactor

sources and special nuclear material

liquid scintillation vial
54

Table 15 Radionuclides Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. Taken from NRC (1981c, Volume 2,

p. 3-12).

Radionuclide* Half-Life

(years)

Radiation

Emitted

Principal Means of Production

H 12.3 â Fission; Li (n, á)

3 6

C 5730 â Ni (n, p) 14 14

Fe 2.60 ã Fe (n, ã)

55 54

Co 5.26 â, ã Co (n, ã)

 66 59

Ni 80,000 ã Ni (n, ã)

59 58

Ni 92 â Ni (n, ã)

63 62

Sr 28.1 â Fission 90

Nb 20,000 â, ã Nb (n, ã)

94 93

Tc 2.12×10 â Fission; Mo (n,ã), Mo (â))

99 5 98 99

I 1.17×10 â, ã Fission 129 7

Cs 3.0×10 â Fission; daughter Xe 135 6 135

Cs 30.0 â, ã Fission 137

U 7.1×10 á, ã Natural 235 8

U 4.51×10 á, ã Natural 238 9

Np 2.14×10 á, ã U (n, 2n), U (â))

237 6 238 237

Pu 86.4 á, ã Np (n, ã), Np â)); daughter Cm 239 237 238 242

Pu 24,400 á, ã U (n, ã), U (â)), Np (â))

239 238 238 239

Pu 6580 á, ã Multiple n-capture 240

Pu 13.2 â, ã Multiple n-capture 241

Pu 2.79×10 á Multiple n-capture; daughter Am 242 5 242

Am 458 á, ã Daughter Pu 241 241

Am 7950 á, ã Multiple n-capture 243

Cm 32 á, ã Multiple n-capture 243

Cm 17.6 á, ã Multiple n-capture 244

* The list of radionuclides in this table is not identical to the list in Table 10 of Rogers (1979, p. xiv).
55

Table 16 Waste Spectra Considered in 10 CFR Part 61 EIS Scoping Analyses. Adopted from NRC (1981c,

Volume 2, p. 3-21). Each waste spectrum represents a cross section of all waste streams that might be

generated and disposed of in an LLW disposal facility.

Waste

Spectrum

Description

1 This spectrum assumes a continuation of existing and some past waste management practices. Some of the LWR wastes

are solidified. However, no processing was done on organics, combustible wastes, or streams containing chelating agents. 

LWR resins and filter sludges are assumed to be present at disposal sites in a dewatered form. LWR concentrated liquids

are assumed to be concentrated in accordance with current practices and are solidified with various media. No special

effort is made to compact trash. Institutional waste streams are shipped to disposal sites after they are packaged with

currently utilized absorbent materials. Resins from LWR decontamination operations are solidified in a medium with highly

improved characteristics.

2 This spectrum assumes that LWR process wastes are solidified using improved solidification techniques. LWR

concentrated liquids are additionally reduced in volume through an evaporator/crystallized. All LWR concentrated liquids

are evaporated in 50 weight percent solids, and all LWR process wastes are solidified. In the case of cartridge filters, the

solidification agent fills voids in the packaged waste but does not increase the volume. Liquid scintillation vials are crushed

at large facilities and packed in absorbent material. All compactible trash streams are compacted; some streams are

compacted at the source of generation, and some are compacted at the disposal facility. Liquids from medical isotope

production are solidified.

3 This spectrum assumes that LWR process wastes are solidified and that further improved waste solidification agents are

used. LWR concentrated liquids are first evaporated to 50 percent weight solids. All possible incineration of combustible

material (except LWR process wastes) is performed; some incineration is done at the source of generation (fuel cycle trash,

LWR decontamination resins, institutional wastes from large facilities, and industrial trash from large facilities) and some at

the disposal site (institutional and industrial trash from small facilities). All incineration ash is solidified. 

4 This spectrum assumes extreme volume reduction. All wastes amenable to evaporation or incineration with fluidized bed

technology are calcined and solidified; LWR process wastes, except cartridge filters, are calcined in addition to the streams

incinerated in Waste Spectrum 3. All noncompactible wastes are reduced in volume at the disposal site or at a central

processing facility using a large hydraulic press. This spectrum represents the maximum volume reduction that can be

practically achieved. 

“ spectra” representing generic processing

options to be considered. See Table 16.

7.3.3.2 The Exposure Pathways Considered

Based on a review of exposure pathways

considered in earlier studies, the NRC staff

selected a limited number of exposure events for

evaluation in the DEIS. As stated previously, the

intent was to determine which waste streams as

well as which hypothetical exposure scenarios

produced the highest doses. Two exposure

scenarios considered: concentration-limited and

activity-limited exposure pathways (or events).

Concentration-limited exposure events were

inadvertent human intruder exposures that

resulted from the direct contact with LLW. Doses

were restricted to a few individuals and were a

function of the concentration of radionuclides

found in the particular waste stream that the

intruder came into contact with. By contrast,

activity-limited exposure events were inadvertent

human intruder exposures that resulted from the

indirect contact with LLW. In this exposure

scenario, surface water and groundwater

mobilize the radioactive waste leaching from a

degraded disposal facility and environmentally

transport it by dispersive forces to some distant

receptor location. Doses to a small population

are estimated based on some estimate of total

activity of the LLW inventory, in all waste

streams, initially present at the disposal facility.
56

As noted earlier, all of the human intruder

scenarios described in the DEIS were assumed to

occur with a probability of one some hundreds of

years following waste disposal, when

governmental controls end and institutional

knowledge about the LLW facility ceases. It was

assumed that the probability of human intrusion

was one and that the probability of intruding into

Class C waste was also one (for concentrationlimited exposure pathways). Further, in all cases,

the conditions of intrusion, the lack of hazard

recognition, and exposure routes to the intruder

(or receptor) can be best characterized as

bounding.

For each of the exposure scenarios studied, the

staff addressed the following four potential

mitigation actions in the context of the DEIS:

(1) controlling the concentrations of the

radionuclides in the specific waste

streams 

(2) considering alternative waste form

and/or waste packaging configurations

(3) evaluating the effectiveness of the

duration of institutional controls 

(4) examining the effects of engineered

and/or natural barriers to human

intrusion

Consistent with the DEIS scoping process and

rulemaking objectives, the intent was to

understand what effect, if any, potential

mitigation actions would have on predicted dose

outcomes based on expected waste streams. If

effective, these actions might make reasonable

regulatory recommendations to advance for the

10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking. The Commission

would decide on these recommendations by

identifying which exposure scenarios were the

most restrictive (i.e., produced the highest doses)

and then evaluating the effectiveness of the

potential mitigation actions listed above in

reducing the estimated doses. 

Concentration-limited exposure events. Three 63

concentration-limited exposure events were

considered in the DEIS. The first was an

“ intruder-construction scenario.” For this

hypothetical exposure event, it was assumed that

the inadvertent human intruder constructs a

house or building directly over the disposal

facility footprint unaware of any potential

radiological hazard. Radiation exposures to

construction workers were principally from the

inhalation of contaminated air and dust, and

direct exposure to gamma radiation.

The second exposure event considered was an

“ intruder-agriculture scenario.” Here the

inadvertent human intruder is represented by a

resident farmer who is also unaware of the LLW

disposal facility. The hypothetical farmer builds

a homestead within the disposal facility footprint

and engages in agriculture. Radiation exposures

occur through the food-ingestion pathway when

food grown on contaminated soil present at the

site is consumed. Additional exposure pathways

to the resident farmer included inhalation of

contaminated air and dust resulting from home

construction and soil tilling as well as direct

gamma radiation exposures from the radioactivity

suspended in the soil. As was the case with the

intruder-construction scenario, the intruderagriculture exposure scenario assumes that the

LLW has degraded to a form that is

indistinguishable from other indigenous soils

found at the site. 

The last exposure event considered in the DEIS

was the “ intruder-discovery scenario.” For this

hypothetical exposure scenario, a human intruder

unknowingly exhumes a LLW disposal cell,

removes a waste package container, and opens

the container only to abandon it shortly

thereafter. Now directly exposed to the elements,

the contents of the LLW waste package container

 Chapter 4, “ Presentation and Analysis of 63

Alternatives – Intruder,” of Volume 2 of NUREG-0782

discusses in more detail the treatment in the EIS of these

three exposure scenarios.
57

are transported offsite by wind and/or surface

water. The focus of the dose analysis is a nonoccupational acute radiation exposure to

members of the general public.

Both the intruder-construction scenario and

intruder-discovery scenario were considered by

to be acute exposure events lasting less than a

year whereas the intruder-agriculture scenario

was assumed to be a chronic, longer-term

exposure event since it was possible that the

resident farmer would live at the site for several

years in order to establish the farm. The relative

severity of any concentration-limited exposure

event depended on the particular waste stream

(spectrum) considered in the dose assessment.

Activity-limited exposure events. This DEIS 64

analysis examined potential radiation doses

associated with drinking contaminated

groundwater. For this exposure event, LLW was

assumed to leach from a degraded disposal

facility, enter the water table, and migrate

beyond the disposal site boundary. Many years

later, once caretaker oversight at the site ends

and institutional knowledge of the site ceases, an

inadvertent human intruder in search of a

drinking water supply unknowingly drills a well

into the contaminated aquifer or withdraws water

from a stream that receives discharge from the

aquifer. The entire LLW inventory present at the

site provided an initial source term for the

analysis. Traditional environment fate and

transport numerical methods (e.g., Codell et al.,

1982) were used to estimate temporal

concentrations of radionuclide in the contaminant

plume.

Unlike the concentration-limited exposure events,

whose dose assessments were limited principally

to locations (and individuals) within the disposal

facility footprint, the dose assessments for the

activity-limited exposure events included receptor

locations beyond the disposal site boundary and

considered both individuals and small

populations. See Table 17. 

In general, the DEIS scoping studies found that

the concentration-limited exposure events

(scenarios involving food consumption, dust

inhalation, and direct gamma radiation

exposures) produced the highest calculated doses

rather than exposure events involving the

consumption of contaminated groundwater

(NRC, 1981c, Volume 2, p. 4-5). In addition,

the human intrusion analysis was found to

provide a useful “ hazard index” for ranking or

“ classifying” the different waste streams for

disposal (Op cit.)

7.4 Assumed Definition of Safety

As noted earlier, EPA was responsible for

developing and issuing environmental standards,

guidelines, and criteria to ensure that the public

and the environment were adequately protected

from potential radiation impacts. President

Richard M. Nixon announced the creation of

EPA with the publication of Reorganization Plan

No. 3 of 1970. The intent of this plan was to

consolidate Federal environmental research,

monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement

activities into one agency to ensure

environmental protection. This plan also granted

EPA its standard-setting authority to establish

“ generally applicable environmental standards

for the protection of the general environment

from radioactive material...” (The White House,

1970, 35 FR 15624).

7.4.1 EPA Efforts to Promulgate LLW

Standards 

In 1972, the EPA Office of Radiation Programs

began a program with the CRCPD to examine the

practice of shallow-land disposal of commercial

LLW (EPA, 1988, p. 1-3). From 1977–78, EPA

conducted a series of public workshops to

examine the policy and technical issues

 Chapter 5, “ Long-Term Environmental Protection – 64

Presentation and Analysis of Alternatives,” of Volume 2

of NUREG-0782 discusses the analysis of these four

scenarios in more detail.
58

Table 17 Activity-Limited Exposure Event Scenarios. Adopted from NRC (1981c, Volume 2 – Chapter 5; and Volume

4 – Appendix G). 

The Water Supply is ... The Exposure Scenario Involves ...

... is an onsite water well located within the disposal site footprint. ... one individual.

... is an onsite water well located at the edge of the disposal site

boundary.

... a few individuals.

... is an offsite water well, located 500 m down-gradient from the

disposal facility.

... a small population of about 100 individuals. 

... is an offsite stream, located 1 km down-gradient from the disposal

facility, that receives discharge from a contaminated aquifer that flows

below the disposal site footprint.

... a small population of about 300 individuals. 

associated with the development of radiation

standards (e.g., EPA, 1978a). As a precursor to

the required standards, and at about the same

time the NRC was developing its LLW disposal

standards, EPA proposed Federal guidance for

the storage and disposal of all forms of

radioactive waste (EPA, 1978c, 43 FR 53262).

Meyer (1980, p. 10) described the sources EPA

was consulting in the development of its proposed

standards at the time. They included the NEPA

statutes, the Biological Effects of Ionizing

Radiation (BEIR) II recommendations (NAS,

1977), ICRP Publication 26 (ICRP, 1977), and

two other reports (National Research Council,

1977; EPA, 1978b). However, the Agency later

withdrew its proposed guidance criteria noting

that the many types of radioactive wastes and

different methods necessary to manage and

dispose of them made the issuance of generic

disposal guidance too complex and that radiation

standards based on waste type would be the best

approach (EPA, 1981). Alternatively, EPA

decided to promulgate regulations specific to the

management and disposal of commercial LLW.

In December 1982, the Commission issued the

final 10 CFR Part 61 regulation. Following its

release, and depending on its final content, the

staff noted its intent to amend 10 CFR Part 61

(and potentially other NRC regulations) once

EPA issued its LLW standards if the regulations

did not comply with the EPA standards (NRC,

1989c, p. 11). In August 1983, EPA published

an ANPR announcing its plans for establishing

general environmental radiation protection

standards for commercial LLW (48 FR 39563).

In connection with the development of these

standards, tentatively designated as 40 CFR

Part 193, EPA developed the PRESTO-EPA

computer code (EPA, 1989a). Similar to the 65

NRC’ s earlier dose modeling efforts in this

regard, the purpose of the EPA-sponsored code

was to model radionuclide transport through

major environmental pathways to humans. EPA

requested that the Agency’ s Science Advisory

Board review a PRESTO-EPA-derived risk

assessment prepared as part of the LLW

standards development (EPA Science Advisory

Board, 1985). As a result of these efforts, EPA

transmitted a proposed regulation to OMB in

1987, which was followed by the publication of

a two-volume DEIS in June 1988. 

 PRESTO is an acronym for Protection of Radiation 65

Effects from Shallow Trench Operations. The computer

code incorporated a simple one-dimensional ground-water

transport model (EPA, 1988, p. 8-2), and although the

code could be used to estimate human intruder exposures,

EPA expressed the view in its DEIS that the intruder

pathway was probabilistic in nature and that safeguards

against it should be considered on a site-specific basis.

For this reason, EPA did not consider the human intrusion

scenario in its DEIS.
59

In describing the proposed LLW standards,

Gruhlke et al. (1989, p. 273) noted that EPA

proposed the following definition of LLW:66

“ radioactive waste that was not

(1) spent fuel, high-level

radioactive waste, or transuranic

waste, as previously defined in

40 CFR Part 191, (2) or

uranium or thorium mill tailings

subject to 40 CFR Part 192, or

(3) or NARM as defined in 40

CFR Part 764....”

EPA’ s proposed LLW regulation never cleared

the OMB review process. The rule encountered

significant interagency opposition during the

review because of concerns over the groundwater

provisions of the proposed standard (EPA,

2000b, p. 21). Consistent with other regulatory

authorities, EPA did successfully promulgate

regulations in other nuclear waste management

areas – uranium and thorium mill tailings (EPA,

1983b) and HLW (EPA, 1985). EPA also

promulgated standards for the maximum

concentration limits (MCLs) of radioactive

material in its National Primary Drinking Water

Standard found at 40 CFR Part 141 (EPA,

1976), as well as standards for airborne 67

emissions of radionuclides under the authority of

the Clean Air Act of 1977 (CAA) (Public Law

95-95), as amended.

68

7.4.2 The NRC Selection of an LLW

Standard

EPA’ s LLW standards and criteria were not

available at the time the NRC was developing its

LLW regulatory framework. Rather than delay

the development of its disposal regulations, the

NRC staff decided to postulate a reasonable set of

“ study guidelines” that could be used as

surrogates for the forthcoming EPA standard. At

the time, there was no nationally accepted set of

safety guidelines defining what level of safety

(protection) disposal facilities should provide the

public from the health effects of ionizing

radiation. Consequently, the staff decided to

review the literature and consider the 69

 Appendix B to this report provides a more detailed 66

discussion of the history and evolution of the LLW

definition.

 EPA first promulgated interim regulations in 1976 67

that established MCLs for radium-226 and radium-228 of

5 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The most recent MCLs can

be found in EPA (2000c), which also includes an MCL of

30 micrograms per liter (:g/L) for uranium. 

 The CAA provided EPA with the specific authority 68

to limit radionuclide emissions to the air. Section 122 of

the act directed EPA to review all relevant information

and determine whether emissions of radioactive pollutants

will cause or contribute to air pollution that may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health.

In 1979, EPA added radionuclides to the list of hazardous

air pollutants under the CAA (EPA, 1979). Among the

radionuclides included were those defined by the AEA as

source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct

materials, as well as TENORM. EPA determined that

radionuclides are a known cause of human cancer and

genetic damage and that radionuclides cause or contribute

to air pollution within the meaning of Section 122(a) of the

CAA. Once pollutants are listed, Section 112(b)(1)(B) of

the CAA requires EPA to establish National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) at a

level which provides an ample margin of safety. In 1989,

EPA published NESHAPs for eight radionuclide source

categories, covering an estimated 6300 sources at 40 CFR

Part 61 (EPA, 1989c). Eleven parties, primarily

representing the regulated community, subsequently sued

EPA during the development of the radionuclide

NESHAPs.

Between 1992 and 1996, EPA evaluated the ALARA

programs at many NRC-licensed facilities. Based on this

evaluation, EPA concluded that radionuclide emissions

from NRC and Agreement State licensees did not exceed

the 10 mrem/yr NESHAP-established standard. The NRC

subsequently issued a “ constraint rule” under 10 CFR

Part 20 that required licensees to maintain emissions

below the 10 mrem/yr standard. EPA found that the

NRC’ s regulatory program protects the public health to a

safe level with an ample margin of safety and rescinded

the NESHAP regulating air emissions from NRC licensees

in 1996 (EPA, 1996). 

Also see EPA (1989b, 1991).

 See Appendix N, “ Analysis of Existing

69

Recommendations, Regulations, and Guides,” to 

Volume 4 of NUREG-0782.
60

recommendations of national and international

standard-setting organizations to identify

surrogate dose guidelines for the scoping

analyses and later the proposed and final rule.

See Table 18.

Then, as now, the ICRP was considered to be the

authoritative body on the subject of radiation

physics. In proposing radiation dose limits, the

ICRP observed that radiation risks were a very

minor fraction of the total number of

environmental hazards to which members of the

public were generally exposed. Consequently, in

considering what the acceptable magnitude of

radiation risk to the public might be, the ICRP

suggested that such risks be considered in light of

the public acceptance of other (involuntary)

health risks encountered in everyday life –

generally in the range of 10 to 10 per year

-6 -5

(Smith, 1995, p. B-2; National Research Council,

1995a, p. 50). In its Publication 26 (ICRP,

1977,p. 23), the ICRP recommended a wholebody dose equivalent of 500 mrem/yr for

individual members of a critical group (i.e., tens

of individuals) provided that the average annual

dose equivalent to individual members of the

public (i.e., hundreds of individuals) did not

exceed 100 mrem/yr. 70

In performing the series of hypothetical dose

analyses described in NUREG-0456 and

NUREG/CR-1005, analysts used the ICRP 1977

recommendations as dose guidelines. See Adam

and Rogers, (1978, p. 70) and Rogers (1979,

p. 9), respectively. These analyses did not treat

separately the estimated exposures to workers

and the (hypothetical) inadvertent intruder.

In developing the 10 CFR Part 61 DEIS –

NUREG-0782, the staff decided to rely on

existing EPA standards in related areas of

radiation management and selected a range of

public exposure limits from those standards

which was expected to bound the forthcoming

EPA rule. The staff selected 1 mrem/yr as a

lower dose bound since, at the time, it was less

than the 4 mrem/yr limit found in the EPA 1976

drinking water standards (EPA, 2000c, 65 FR

76710). See NRC (1981c, Volume 1, p. 34).

Mindful that the NRC’ s goal was to propose an

LLW regulation based on currently available

technology, the staff believed that 1 mrem/yr

would provide a limit against which the

effectiveness of current technology could be

analyzed. The staff selected 25 mrem/yr as an

upper bound since it was already in use as an

existing radiation standard at 40 CFR Part 190,

“ Environmental Radiation Protection Standards

for Nuclear Power Operations” (EPA, 1977b),

applied to routine operating releases from nuclear

fuel cycle facilities. In proposing this range, the

Commission concluded that the forthcoming EPA

LLW standards would not be higher than those

already set out in 40 CFR Part 190 (NRC,

1981c, Volume 1, p. 34). The Commission

applied the specified performance objective in

10 CFR Part 20 to worker safety because it was

already using this standard for other NRClicensed facilities and therefore considered it

applicable to an operating commercial LLW

disposal facility. Because the human intruder

scenario was deemed an unusual (rare) event,

likely to involve only one or two individuals, the

Commission considered the whole-body dose

equivalent of 500 mrem/yr (assuming a 100-year

period of institutional controls) acceptable and

protective, which was consistent with the earlier

recommendations of the ICRP.

From the DEIS scoping analyses, the staff

concluded that a limit in the range of existing

EPA drinking water regulations (4 mrem/yr) was

achievable at the nearest public drinking water

supply given some modest increased costs and

changes to the reference disposal facility design.

 ICRP Publication 26 also introduced a weighted 70

sum dose equivalent to specific organs or tissues that

would apply to internal exposures. This weighted sum,

which could also be applied to external exposures, became

known as an “ effective dose equivalent” in ICRP

Publication 28 (ICRP, 1978).
61

Table 18 Dose Guideline Options Considered by the NRC in Developing 10 CFR Part 61. Taken from the references cited. 

Receptor NUREG-0456

(Adam and Rogers, 1978)

NUREG/CR-1005

(Rogers, 1979)

NUREG-0782

(NRC, 1981c)

Draft Part 61

(NRC, 1981b)

Final Part 61

(NRC, 1982b)

Public

(General

Population)

Individual exposures to a few

individuals (-10s) – 500

mrem/yr a

Individual exposures to a few

individuals (-10s) – 500

mrem/yr a

25 mrem/yr whole-body

exposure to an individual at

the disposal site boundary c

25 mrem/yr whole-body, 75

mrem/yr thyroid, and 25 mrem/yr

to any other organ exposures to

an individual at the disposal site

boundary 

25 mrem/yr whole-body, 75

mrem/yr thyroid, and 25

mrem/yr to any other organ 

exposures to an individual at

the disposal site boundary 

Individual exposures to many

individuals (-100s) – 100

mrem/yr a

Individual exposures to many

individuals (-100s) – 100

mrem/yr a

Meet EPA requirements of 40

CFR Part 141 for the nearest

drinking water supply e

Worker 10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20 b b b

Intruder 500 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr Not specified but implied d d f

a. NUREG-0456 dose guidelines based on recommendations of the ICRP (1977).

b. Includes consideration of ALARA principles.

c. Based on view that releases would not be higher than standards already established for fuel cycle facilities found at 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA, 1977b). Commission considered a range of 1 mrem/yr to 25

mrem/yr.

d. Considered to be an unusual event. Dose guidelines in NUREG-0782 and Draft 10 CFR Part 61 based on recommendations of the ICRP (1977). 

e. Specifically, maximum radiation concentration limits of 10pCi/L above background levels (or 4mrem/yr whole-body exposure). See EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Standards (EPA, 1976).

f. Tied to Table 1 concentration limits in draft 10 CFR Part 61 regulation but 500 mrem/yr retained as one of the bases for limits specified in the tables in the final regulation.

g. Note that the technical bases for dose limits under 10 CFR 61.41, the basis for the concentration limits in the intruder scenario, and the current 10 CFR Part 20 are different. For short-lived radionuclides, the

difference is negligible; for long-lived radionuclides, the difference may be significant. 
62

The staff also concluded that meeting the EPA

drinking water standards at the nearest public

drinking water supply would result in annual

potential exposures of less than 25 mrem whole

body, 75 mrem thyroid, and 25 mrem to any

other organ of an individual who might consume

water from a well located at the site boundary.

Therefore, the staff selected an annual exposure

limit of 25 mrem whole body, 75 mrem thyroid,

and 25 mrem to any other organ to the maximally

exposed individual at the site boundary, coupled

with an annual population limit of 4 mrem at the

nearest public drinking water supply, as the

preferred performance objective when the

proposed regulation was published for public

comment (46 FR 38063).

Following a review of the public comments on its

proposed regulation, the NRC made two changes

to the Subpart C performance objectives in the

final rule. The first change was in response to a

comment from EPA, which expressed the view

that it was inappropriate to apply the agency’ s

drinking water standard in the manner proposed

in draft 10 CFR 61.41 (47 FR 57448). The

Commission deleted that provision from its final

rule. The second comment concerned the

proposed 500-mrem limit for whole-body dose to

the human intruder. Many commenters

suggested that the intruder performance objective

was too restrictive. They also argued that a

licensee would not be able to monitor or

demonstrate compliance with a specific dose limit

for an event that might occur several hundred

years in the future (47 FR 57449). The

Commission deleted this provision from the

Subpart C performance objectives but retained

500-mrem limit as a basis for the waste

classification limits. 

7.4.3 The NRC Proposed LLW

Classification System 

As a means of relating waste characteristics to

the Subpart C performance objectives, the NRC

devised and incorporated a simple waste

classification scheme into the proposed

regulation. It based this three-tier classification

system on the earlier thesis demonstrated during

the rulemaking scoping process that waste

characteristics provide some level of assurance

that the performance objectives will be met. Key

decision parameters in the waste classification

system were the physical stability of the waste

form and its isotopic concentration. The NRC 71

viewed these parameters as important for they

provide the minimum information necessary for

basic decisions on the safe handling and disposal

of commercial LLW.

The three classes of LLW defined in 10 CFR

61.55 as acceptable for disposal in near-surface

facilities were designated Class A, B, and C,

with the highest being Class C. Certain minimum

requirements and stability requirements and 72

 In the Statements of Consideration for the final rule 71

(NRC, 1982b), the Commission noted that “ waste that is

stable for a long period helps to ensure the long-term

stability of the site, eliminating the need for active

maintenance after the site is closed. This stability

requirement helps to assure against water infiltration

caused by failure of the disposal covers and, with the

improved leaching properties implicit in a stable waste

form, minimizes the potential for radionuclide migration

in groundwater. Stability also plays an important role in

protecting an inadvertent intruder, since the stable waste

form is recognizable for a long period of time and

minimizes any effects from dispersion of the waste upon

intrusion....” The Commission also noted its belief that

“ to the extent practicable, waste forms or containers

should be designed to maintain gross physical properties

and identity over 300 years, approximately the time

required for Class-B waste to decay to innocuous

levels...” (47 FR 57457).

 The minimum requirements that all waste forms

72

must meet to be acceptable for near-surface disposal

appear in 10 CFR 61.56(a). In addition to these minimum

requirements, certain wastes (i.e., Class B and C wastes,

and Class A waste that is to be co-disposed with Class B

and C waste) must be physically stabilized and meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 61.56(b). Stability is defined in

terms of the ability to keep the dimensions and form of the

waste material under anticipated disposal conditions.

Stability can be achieved by relying on the inherent

physical properties of the waste form itself (e.g., activated

metals), by rendering the waste into a more stable form

(through cement solidification), by placing the waste in a

high-integrity container (HIC), or relying on the structural
63

specifications for maximum allowable

concentrations of certain radionuclides in each

class determine the class designations. By

controlling isotope concentrations in each waste

class (and to a lesser degree, the site inventory),

the regulation seeks to control radiation

exposures to inadvertent intruders (47 FR

57455). Class A waste includes primarily lightly

contaminated paper, cloth, and plastics. These

wastes must be segregated from other LLW

during disposal because of their potential for

compaction over time owing to decomposition

and the subsequent potential for subsidence of the

ground surface above disposal cells. The isotope

concentrations in this class of wastes are not to

exceed the values listed in the regulation. Class

B waste by definition meets more rigorous

physical stability requirements than Class A

waste. This waste class is also permitted higher

isotope concentrations. The physical form and

characteristics of Class B waste must also meet

the minimum and stability requirements of the

regulation. Class C waste is generally considered

intruder waste (46 FR 38085). Although this

higher activity, longer lived LLW is generally

suitable for SLB, it requires special measures to

protect against human intrusion after institutional

controls lapse. The regulation requires that any

Class C waste, which could have concentrations

that would cause exposures greater than 500

mrem/yr, be protected from human intrusion by

deeper burial and/or through the use of some

type of engineered intruder barrier. Wastes 73

exceeding the Class C concentration limits are,

by regulation at 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv),

“ generally not acceptable” for SLB.

As noted earlier in this report, the 10 CFR Part

61 regulation is deliberately structured around the

three-tier LLW classification system defined by

the concentration of radionuclides in the waste

form, as well as the physical characteristics of

the waste form. This classification system is

integrated with the stylized human intrusion

scenarios that form the basis for the Subpart C

performance objectives. Despite this rigor, the

Commission decided to allow for the

consideration of alternative LLW classification

schemes at 10 CFR 61.58, “ Alternative

Requirements for Waste Classification and

Characteristics,” on a specific (case-by-case)

basis so long as compliance with the Subpart C

performance objectives can be demonstrated. In

10 CFR 61.58, the Commission acknowledges

the need to allow for the future disposal of

different waste types, physical forms, and

quantities that were not necessarily foreseen at

the time the regulation was being developed.

Following promulgation of the commercial LLW

disposal regulation, the NRC staff began to work

with Agreement States on the development of

comparable regulations. See Ratliff et al. (1985).

7.4.4 Summary of the Final 10 CFR Part 61

The Commission developed the final LLW

disposal regulation at 10 CFR Part 61 with the

intent of addressing some of the past LLW site

performance concerns and developing guidelines

for establishing technical criteria for selecting,

evaluating, licensing, and operating new

commercial disposal sites. The final regulation

covers all phases of shallow, near-surface LLW

disposal from site selection through facility

design, licensing, operations, closure, postclosure

stabilization, to the period when active

institutional controls end. See Figure 1.

Key provisions of the Commission’ s commercial

LLW disposal regulation include the following:

stability of the disposal unit itself (e.g., vault disposal).

 The calculation performed to establish the Class C 73

limits was based on a postulated SLB disposal method.

The Commission considers these limits conservative, since

there may be near-surface disposal methods (and costs)

other than SLB (NRC, 1987a, 52 FR 5999).
64

Figure 1 Lifecycle of a Hypothetical Commercial LLW Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

Taken from NRC (1989, p. 2c).
65

• specifying minimum geologic/

geomorphic characteristics of an

acceptable LLW disposal site using the

site suitability requirements at 10 CFR

61. 50, ”Disposal Site Suitability

Requirements for Land Disposal”

• defining a three-tier waste classification

system for commercial LLW disposal

based on the concentrations of longer

lived radionuclides at 10 CFR 61.55,

“ Waste Classification”

• specifying the minimum requirements

that all commercial LLW forms must

meet to be acceptable for near-surface

disposal at 10 CFR 61.56(a), “ Waste

Characteristics”74

• introducing requirements for caretaker

oversight of LLW disposal sites for a

period of 100 years following facility

closure at 10 CFR 61.59,”Institutional

Requirements”

The regulation also establishes procedures,

criteria, terms, and conditions under which the

Commission would issue and renew licenses for

the SLB of commercially generated LLW. 

In issuing its final LLW regulation, the NRC

staff prepared a FEIS in response to public

comments received on the DEIS (NUREG-0782)

and the earlier proposed rule. The FEIS,

designated NUREG-0945, was not an updated

version of the DEIS. Rather, it referenced that

earlier document and presented the staff’ s

decision bases and conclusions (costs and

impacts) for the Commission’ s final regulation.

Consistent with NEPA, the staff also prepared a

comparative evaluation of alternatives to

highlight the costs and impacts of the 10 CFR

Part 61 regulation. These alternatives included a

review of past LLW disposal practices, existing

LLW disposal practices, disposal practices based

on proposed final 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory

requirements (the preferred alternative), and an

upper-bound example. Lastly, the earlier impacts

analysis methodology (Oztunali et al., 1981) used

to estimate radiological doses was updated.

Although the Commission left many of the

proposed 10 CFR Part 61 regulations

substantially unchanged following the public

comment period, some rule changes were made

in response to those comments. The specific rule

changes in response to public comments were

described in the Commission’ s 1982 Federal

Register notice (47 FR 57446). Volume 2,

Appendix B (“ Staff Analysis of Public

Comments on Proposed 10 CFR Part 61

Rulemaking”) of the FEIS report also provides a

detailed accounting of the staff’ s views

concerning individual stakeholder comments. 

In addition, the FEIS clarified several specific

rule provisions, including the following:

• Doses were generally presented only for

the whole body, thyroid, and bone.

• Waste classification represented a

combination of waste form, radionuclide

char act e r isti c s, r a dio nucli d e

concentration, method of emplacement,

and to some extent, site characteristics.

• The concentration limits for Class A and

C waste disposal were reevaluated. 75

• The Class C waste concentration limits

were raised by a factor of 10 (to 100

nCi/g) for all radionuclides, except for

 In addition to these minimum requirements, certain 74

LLW classes must be physically stabilized and meet the

requirements at 10 CFR 61.56(b).

 The Commission established the concentration limits 75

based on the staff’ s understanding at the time of the

characteristics and volumes of LLW reasonably expected

to the year 2000, as well as potential disposal methods

(52 FR 5999). 
66

cesium-137. 76

• A fourth class of LLW (GTCC LLW)

was considered generally unacceptable

for near-surface, shallow-depth

disposal. 77

In 1992, the staff proposed to amend 10 CFR

Part 61 to clarify that the regulations would also

apply to the licensing of an above-ground

disposal facility (i.e., an above-ground vault –

AGV). See NRC (1992b). The staff amended

the definition of “ land disposal facility” (at

10 CFR 61.2, “ Definitions”) to clarify that LLW

disposal facilities also include those that are on or

protrude through the ground surface and do not

have an earthen cover (57 FR 8094). However,

in adopting the amendments (definition), the

Commission chose not to develop specific aboveground technical criteria until actual plans to

develop such a facility existed. See NRC

(1993a, 58 FR 33888).

 Based primarily on two considerations: (a) the 76

reduced likelihood of significant human intruder exposures

because of the regulatory requirement for the adoption of

passive warning devices at a LLW disposal facility, at 

10 CFR 61.31(c)(2) (“ Termination of License”); and 

(b) the expected difficulty (and remote likelihood) of

coming into contact with relatively small volumes of Class

C LLW, at depth. See NRC (1982a, Volume 1, p. 5-33;

and Volume 2, pp. B-83 – B-89).

 In 1986, the NRC staff updated impacts analysis

77

methodology (Oztunali et al., 1981) to allow for improved

consideration of the costs and impacts of treating and

disposing of LLW that was close to or exceeding the Class

C concentration limits. See Oztunali and Roles (1986) and

Oztunali et al. (1986). The updates included the use of the

more recent health physics guidance found in the ICRP

Publication 30 series. 
67

8 THE MANAGEMENT OF GTCC LLW

As defined in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(4)(iv) (“ Waste

Classification”), quantities of LLW with

radionuclide concentrations in excess of certain

values are referred to as GTCC. Small volumes

of GTCC LLW result primarily from the

operation of commercial nuclear power reactors

and other fuel cycle facilities. Examples include

activated metal hardware (e.g., nuclear power

reactor control rods), some spent fuel

disassembly hardware (Stellite balls), some ion

exchange resins, filters, evaporator residues,

some sealed sources that are used in medical and

industrial applications, and moisture and density

gauges. The radionuclides that frequently

contribute to wastes being classified as GTCC

LLW include those found in 10 CFR 61.55,

Table 2. By law, DOE is responsible for

disposing of GTCC LLW.

8.1 NRC Activities

In a 1987 ANPR (52 FR 5992), the Commission

proposed to redefine the existing definition of

HLW in a manner that would apply the term

“ high-level radioactive waste” to materials in

amounts and concentrations exceeding numerical

values that would be stated explicitly in a table.

The Commission proposed to classify wastes as

HLW or non-HLW. Wastes that could not be

disposed of safely in a hypothetical

“ intermediate” disposal facility would be

classified as HLW (52 FR 5996). The technical

basis supporting this proposal was described in

Kocher and Croff (1987). 

Following a review of public comments on the

ANPR, the Commission adopted an alternative

strategy. In 1988 (53 FR 17709), the NRC

published its proposed amendments to 10 CFR

Part 61 recommending, in the first instance,

GTCC LLW disposal in a separate facility

licensed under 10 CFR Part 60, which are the

NRC’ s generic regulations for the disposal of

SNF and other HLW (NRC, 1988c). The

Commission’ s opinion was that, given the

quantities of waste of concern and the likely 78

costs of disposal, a separate disposal facility

unique to GTCC LLW was not justified. That

same year, OTA (1988) published an independent

report with recommendations on the issue that

generally supported the Commission’ s 1988

proposed rulemaking position. In summary, both

OTA and the Commission took the position that

if a review determined that the impact of GTCC

LLW disposal on any HLW repository was

unacceptable, then DOE should develop an

alternative disposal concept. The Commission

proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 61 that

would require the deep geologic disposal of

GTCC LLW in a HLW repository unless the

Commission approved an alternative means of

disposal elsewhere. The intent of this action was

to obviate the need for amending the existing

classifications of LLW and HLW, thereby

insuring that GTCC waste would be disposed of

in a manner consistent with the protection of

public health and safety. Following a review of

public comments in 1989, the Commission

amended 10 CFR 61.55(b)(2)(iv) to permit the

disposal of GTCC LLW in an HLW geologic

repository licensed under 10 CFR Part 60 or

some other type of disposal facility design

approved by the Commission (NRC, 1989a,

54 FR 22578).

On November 2, 1995, the Commission received

a petition from the Portland General Electric

Company (the utility licensed by the NRC to

operate the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant)

requesting that the NRC’ s regulations at 10 CFR

Part 72 (then titled “ Licensing Requirements for

the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

and High-Level Radioactive Waste”) be amended

to specifically provide for storage of GTCC LLW

 Expected to be in the range of 70,000 to 170,000 ft3

78

(2000 to 4800 m ) through 2030, citing DOE estimates 3

(54 FR 22580). This volume corresponds approximately

to a single emplacement drift in an HLW repository.
68

at an independent spent fuel storage installation

(ISFSI) or a monitored retrievable storage (MRS)

facility pending its transfer to a permanent

disposal facility. Because interim storage of the

GTCC LLW would be accomplished in a manner

similar to that used to store SNF at an ISFSI, the

petitioner believed public health and safety and

environmental protection would be ensured. The

NRC staff evaluated the petition and the six

comments received during a public comment

process, which all supported the petition, and 79

concluded that the petitioner's concept had merit

because there are currently no routine disposal

options for GTCC LLW. The Commission

subsequently amended 10 CFR Part 72 to allow

licensing for the interim storage of GTCC waste

in a manner consistent with current licensing for

the interim storage of SNF. See NRC (1996a,

1997b, 2001b). The amendments applied only to

GTCC LLW generated at commercial nuclear

power plants.

8.2 DOE Activities

The 1988 OTA assessment (p. 31) expressed the

opinion that it would be 15 to 20 years before

generators would have disposal access for GTCC

LLW. As an interim measure, OTA

recommended extended onsite waste storage for

those generators with the capacity to do so. For

those without this capacity, OTA recommended

storage at an NRC-licensed DOE disposal facility

(Op cit.). In 1989, an examination of the

potential need for Federal interim storage of

nuclear waste did not refer to the management of

GTCC LLW. See Monitored Retrievable

Storage Review Commission (1989). 

Section (3)(b)(1)(D) of the LLWPAA directed the

Secretary of Energy to issue a report

recommending safe disposal options for GTCC

LLW. In 1987, the Secretary issued such a

report (DOE, 1987), which also described the

types and quantities of GTCC LLW being

generated at the time. Hulse (1991) and

Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company (1994a,

1994b ) have updated earlier estimates of current 80

and future volumes of GTCC LLW from the

original 1987 census. 

DOE published a notice of inquiry (NOI) in 1995

soliciting public and stakeholder input to the

development of a strategy for the management

and disposal of GTCC LLW. In its Federal

Register notice (DOE, 1995), the Department

proposed to prepare a preliminary EIS that

indicated its intent to begin the scoping process

for developing GTCC LLW disposal options.

The scoping process included three public

meetings with stakeholders. The 1995 NOI

proposed five management options to consider

when defining any disposal strategy. The

Department noted that it would address the

decisionmaking process for selecting the

preferred management option in supplemental

NEPA documentation (60 FR 13425). Following

the conduct of three public meetings, the

Department took no additional action to develop

the preliminary EIS.

 The NRC published a notice of receipt of the 79

petition in the Federal Register on February 1, 1996

(NRC, 1996a, 61 FR 3619), allowing a 75-day comment

period. The NRC staff evaluated the petition and the

comments and concluded that the petitioner’ s concept had

merit. The requirements at 10 CFR Part 72 provide only

for licensing storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI and storage

of SNF and solid HLW at an MRS. Nonetheless, a

reactor licensee could elect to store GTCC LLW at an

ISFSI site under licenses issued under other NRC

regulations, namely, 10 CFR Part 30 and 10 CFR Part 70.

However, the 10 CFR Part 30 and 10 CFR Part 70

regulations at the time did not provide specific licensing

criteria for storage of GTCC LLW at an ISFSI, and thus

the petitioner or the commenters may not have known that

GTCC waste can be stored under a 10 CFR Part 30 or a

10 CFR Part 70 license.

 This study concerned sealed sources, which were

80

estimated to number about 250,000 in the United States.
69

Alternatively, in 2005, the Department published

an advance NOI to prepare an EIS for GTCC

LLW. See DOE (2005). As part of the EIS 81

development process, DOE proposed that the

NRC staff participate as a cooperating agency

(NRC, 2005a). After review, the Commission

rejected this proposal and, in a 2005 SRM,

directed the NRC staff to comment on DOE’ s

GTCC LLW EIS (NRC, 2005b).

 It should be noted that in a review of potential waste 81

streams for an HLW repository, another DOE program

office has reviewed the characteristics of GTCC LLW.

See ORNL (1992). In the FEIS for the Yucca Mountain

geologic repository, DOE accounted for GTCC LLW

disposal in a bounding analysis that estimated the

environmental impacts of repository disposal activities

(DOE, 2002, pp. A-57–A-61). However, there are no

published plans at this time suggesting that DOE will place

GTCC LLW in the proposed HLW repository.
70

(Page intentionally left blank.)
71

9 OTHER NRC LLW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS

Section 6 of this report describes the regulatory

products the staff prepared to help potential

licensees develop complete and high-quality

license applications based on 10 CFR Part 61

requirements. Some of these products also

instruct the staff in how to review those license

applications. 

In addition to the development of guidance, the

NRC staff has undertaken a number of initiatives

intended to aid in the implementation of the

NRC’ s LLW regulatory framework. Section

9.1 of this report describes these initiatives,

which occurred at various times over the years in

relation to the development of the 10 CFR

Part 61 regulatory and guidance framework

previously described. The Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research (RES) also undertook

independent LLW technical work, summarized in

Section 9.2. As part of an agency-wide planning

initiative in the early 1990s, the NRC staff

undertook a broad reassessment of its LLW

program. Section 9.3 of thisreport describes this

reassessment.

9.1 LLW Regulatory Guidance and Policy

The NRC staff has historically relied on the use

of guidance documents such as technical

positions or branch technical positions (BTPs) as

a means of interpreting the Commission’ s

regulatory requirements. In addition, the

Commission periodically issues policy statements

to communicate its views on some particular

issue to licensees and stakeholders. The

Commission does not intend these

communications as substitutes for the regulations

and does not require compliance with them.

They generally represent the staff’ s

recommendations on preferred approaches to

address the requirements or the Commission’ s

82

views on issues bearing on its regulatory

activities. Table 19 summarizes the subject areas

for which the Commission has issued policy

statements or the staff has provided additional

regulatory guidance to potential LLW licensees.

The NRC also sponsored many technical

assistance projects intended to provide the

predictive models and analytical tools necessary

to evaluate the performance of LLW disposal

facility systems and components. Areas of past

interest included waste package container

performance, evaluation of leaching phenomena,

hydr ogeological and hydr ochemical

characterization and modeling, and cover

performance. Most of this work focused on SLB

disposal facilities. The use of predictive models

to evaluate the performance of a disposal system

or its components is generally referred to as

“ performance assessment” and has gained

increased use in the NRC’ s waste management

programs over the years. See Eisenberg et al.

(1999). As early as 1987, the staff recognized

that it would need to acquire or develop some

type of assessment methodology for estimating

the performance of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW

disposal facilities (52 FR 5996). To provide

focus and integration of the overall program, the

staff developed an LLW performance assessment

strategy (Starmer et al., 1988). Sandia National

Laboratories subsequently developed a proposed

LLW performance assessment methodology

(PAM) based on this strategy.

In terms of measuring the effectiveness of

disposal facility designs against the 10 CFR Part

61 performance objectives, the guidance

provided by NUREG-1199, NUREG-1200, and

 In general, the staff believes that methods and 82

solutions differing from those set out in guidance

documents should be acceptable if they provide a sufficient

basis for the findings requisite to the issuance of a permit

or license by the Commission. 
72

Table 19 Additional NRC Technical Guidance and Policy Direction in the Area of LLW 

Title Scope Reference

Commission Policy / Position Statements

“Policy Statement on Low-Level Waste

Volume Reduction”a

Licensees are encouraged to establish programs to result in good volume

reduction practices in order to (a) extend the operational life of existing

commercial LLW disposal sites; (b) alleviate concerns regarding existing

LLW disposal capacity should there be delays in establishing regional

disposal facilities; and (c) reduce the number of LLW shipments. 

NRC (1981d)

“Regulatory Issues in Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Performance

Assessment” (SECY-96-103)b

The Commission expressed its views on (a) consideration of future site

conditions, processes, and events; ( b) performance of engineered barriers;

(c) specification of a timeframe for an LLW performance assessment;

(d) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty in LLW performance

assessments; and (e) the role of performance assessment during the

operational and closure periods.

NRC (1996c)

Technical Positions / Recommendations

Branch Technical Position on “LLW

Burial Ground Site Closure and

Stabilization” (NUREG-0782)

In closing and stabilizing an LLW disposal facility, the overall objective is

to leave the site in a condition such that the need for active ongoing

maintenance is eliminated, and only passive surveillance and monitoring

are required to the point when the NRC license is terminated.

NRC (1979a)

Branch Technical Position on “Site

Suitability, Selection, and

Characterization” (NUREG-0902)

Provides the staff’s interpretation of (a) the site suitability requirements

proposed at 10 CFR 61.55; (b) the site selection process as related to the

consideration of alternatives, as required by the NEPA process; and (c) the

scope of site characterization activities necessary to develop site-specific

data necessary for a 10 CFR Part 61 license application and environmental

report.

Siefken et al. (1982)

Technical Position on “Radioactive

Waste Classification”

Provides guidance on procedures to determine the presence and

concentrations of radionuclides listed in 10 CFR 61.55, and thereby

classifying the waste for near-surface disposal.

NRC (1983a)

Technical Position on “Waste Form” Provides guidance on acceptable methods for demonstrating compliance

with the waste form structural stability requirements found at 10 CFR 61.56.

NRC (1991b)

Branch Technical Position on

“Concentration Averaging and

Encapsulation”

Defines a subset of concentration averaging and encapsulation practices

that the staff would find acceptable in determining the concentrations of 10

CFR 61.55 tabulated radionuclides. 

NRC (1995a)

“A Performance Assessment

Methodology for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities

—Recommendations of NRC’s

Performance Assessment Working

Group” (NUREG-1573) 

c

Describes (a) an acceptable approach for systematically integrating site

characterization, facility design, and performance modeling into a single

performance assessment process; (b) five principal regulatory issues

related to the interpretation and implementation of the 10 CFR Part 61

performance objectives and technical requirements, all of which are integral

to an LLW performance assessment; and (c) how to implement the NRC's

PAM. 

NRC (2000)

a. The policy statement acknowledged but did not specifically identify LLW volume reduction technologies under review at the time. See Trigilio (1981). In

a report prepared for the ACNW, Long (1990) examined the use of incineration as a potential volume reduction method. 

b. The Commission later restated its positions in NUREG-1573.

c. See Appendix D to this report.
73

NUREG-1300 was general and did not address

many specific implementation issues and

acceptable approaches for resolving them.

Moreover, the existing guidance documents did

not explicitly deal with the relationships between

the overall 10 CFR Part 61 data and design

requirements and the specific LLW performance

assessment needs. Previously, site

characterization, facility design, and performance

modeling were considered separate activities. To

clarify these and other issues for potential

applicants, the staff developed detailed

information and recommendations related to the

performance objective concerned with the

radiological protection of the general public (at

10 CFR 61.41) in NUREG-1573, “ A

Performance Assessment Methodology for LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –

Recommendations of NRC’ s Performance

Assessment Working Group,” (NRC, 2000).

9.2 LLW Research

Once the NRC had established its regulatory

framework, the staff focused its attention on

conducting technical studies and analyses

intended to improve the understanding of the

behavior of a disposal facility and its components

based on lessons-learned at commercial and

DOE-operated LLW disposal sites. Many of the

NRC regulatory products and activities described

elsewhere in this report were conducted by or on

the behalf of NMSS. In addition, RES has

sponsored a substantial amount of LLW technical

work. For example, in 1989, RES staff

published an research program plan which

presented its strategy for pursuing LLW research

studies. See O’ Donnell and Lambert (1989).

NUREG-1573 cites many of the RES-sponsored

research projects completed through 2000 in the

area of LLW based on that strategy. Appendix E

to this report contains a selected bibliography of

technical reports and papers sponsored by RES in

the LLW area since NUREG-1573 was

published.

As noted earlier in Section 2.3 of this report, the

USGS had certain basic and applied research

responsibilities in the area of LLW. In April

1992, the USGS cooperated with RES on basic

research applied to LLW siting, monitoring, and

modeling issues through an interagency

memorandum of understanding (MOU). A major

accomplishment of the MOU was the convening

of the joint workshop on research related to LLW

disposal, held from May 4–6, 1993, at the USGS

National Center in Reston, Virginia. The

workshop covered (a) surface and ground-water

pathway analysis, (b) ground-water chemistry,

(c) infiltration and drainage, (d) vapor-phase

transport and volatile radionuclides, and

(e) ground-water flow and transport field studies.

The workshop and its subsequent proceedings

(Stevens and Nicholson, 1996) addressed the

current state of the art and practice in research

related to LLW disposal hydrogeologic,

hydrologic, geochemical, and performance

assessment issues at commercial and militaryrelated facilities. Presenters and participants

came from academia, DOE national laboratories,

consulting companies, Federal and state agencies,

and international research centers.

Other related workshops on modeling or

monitoring and their published proceedings

include (a) NUREG/CP-0163, “ Proceedings of

the Workshop on Review of Dose Modeling

Methods for Demonstration of Compliance with

the Radiological Criteria for License

Termination” (Nicholson and Parrott, 1998),

(b) NUREG/CP-0177, “ Proceedings of the

Environmental Software Systems Compatibility

and Linkage Workshop” (Whelan and Nicholson,

2002), which helped to initiate the MOU on

multimedia environmental modeling signed by

nine Federal agencies , and (c) NUREG/CP- 83

0187, “ Proceedings of the International

Workshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity, and

Parameter Estimation for Multimedia

Environmental Modeling” (Nicholson et al.,

 See http://www.ISCMEM.org.

83
74

2004). These workshop proceedings highlight

the advances in environmental modeling and

performance assessments applicable to LLW

issues since the 1993 USGS-NRC LLW

workshop.

RES has issued numerous technical reports and

sponsored many technology transfer workshops.

Of particular significance to LLW are

NUREG/CR-6805, “ A Comprehensive Strategy

of Hydrogeologic Modeling and Uncertainty

Analysis for Nuclear Facilities and Sites”

(Neuman and Wierenga, 2003), and

NUREG/CR-6843, “ Combined Estimation of

Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Parameter

Uncertainty” (Meyer et al., 2004), which discuss

guidance and tools for modeling hydrogeologic

systems and radionuclide transport relevant to

LLW.

9.3 Strategic Planning

In addition to the guidance development activities

described above, in the early 1990s, the staff

undertook a broad reassessment of its LLW

program which considered factors outside the

control of the NRC. This assessment took place

at the same time that other reviews of the

national program were occurring (e.g., GAO,

1992a). 

As part of the NRC’ s first assessment, the staff

categorized strategies and options for the

Commission to consider to advance the goals and

objectives of the LLWPAA. These included

expanding technical assistance, revising the

existing 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory framework,

seeking greater public involvement in the current

LLW program, and passing additional Federal

LLW legislation. See Taylor (1993). Focusing

on the option to revise 10 CFR Part 61, the staff

identified specific areas in the existing regulation

as potential candidates for revision with the goal

of enhancing public health and safety through the

establishment of more precise regulations coupled

with addressing the states’ experiences in

applying the rule. Table 20 lists the candidate

areas identified in the current regulation as

proposed for revision. These areas include socalled “ active” disposal concepts. 84

At the time these candidate areas were proposed,

the staff’ s position was that there was no

evidence that the current regulatory framework

was impeding the development of new LLW

disposal facilities (Taylor, 1993, p. 6). In fact,

the staff and several of the Agreement States

believed that major revisions to 10 CFR Part 61,

along with the requirement for conforming

revisions by the Agreement States, could create

instability in current LLW siting and licensing

efforts (Op cit., pp. 6–7). 

As an alternative to revising specific sections of

the regulation, the staff proposed to revise

10 CFR Part 61 by making it less specific and

more performance-oriented with a greater

emphasis on the overall performance objectives.

The staff introduced this proposal before the

Commission published its Probabilistic Risk

Assessment (PRA) Policy Statement. See

Appendix F to this report. Under such an

approach, the staff would develop guidance

documents to address siting, design, construction,

operation, closure, and waste form issues. 85

There is no information to suggest that the

Commission responded to the staff’ s 1993

analysis. That analysis was first overtaken in

1995 by the issuance of a Commission paper

SECY-95-201, entitled “ Alternatives to

Terminating the NRC's Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Program” (NRC, 1995c), which

described three options for the future of the

 The staff generally defined active disposal concepts 84

to include retrievablility, active maintenance and

monitoring, and a longer period of custodial oversight

(Taylor, 1993, p. 7).

 At the time, the staff estimated that it would take 2 85

to 3 years to complete a performance-based rulemaking

and an additional 3 years for the Agreement States to

adopt it.
75

Table 20 Potential Candidate Areas in 10 CFR Part 61 Identified for Amendment by the NRC Staff in 1993. 

Adopted from Attachment B to NRC (1993a).

10 CFR Part 61 1993 NRC Staff Recommendation

Requirement Subpart Subject Area

10 CFR 61.29 B Active Maintenance In conjunction with a longertime period of institutional control, include

provisions in the regulation for more inspections and preventive

maintenance of the disposal facility following closure to assure that

the facility is performing as intended.

10 CFR 61.41 C Performance Objectives Establish dose requirements more stringent than the current 25

mrem/yr for protection of the general population .

10 CFR 61.50 D Technical Requirements for

Land Disposal Facilities

Develop specific technical criteria to cover disposal in above-ground

vaults, which are not currently addressed in the regulations.

10 CFR 61.50(a) D Site Suitability Requirements Current requirements are considered to be “minimum” basic

requirements. Past experience indicates the need for more specific

siting and design requirements. More credit is also needed for

performance of engineered barriers to compensate for site

deficiencies. 

10 CFR 61.53 D Environmental Monitoring In conjunction with a longer time period of institutional control, include

provisions in the regulation for a period of environmental monitoring

after the 100-year caretaker period.

10 CFR 61.59(a) D Land Ownership Consider assigning a responsible third party to the caretaker role

other than the government. 

10 CFR 61.59(b) D Institutional Control Period Extend governmental caretaker period for more than 100 years. 

10 CFR 61.55 and

10 CFR 61.56

D Waste Classification and

Characterization

Include specific concentration-averaging requirements in the

regulations.

n/a n/a Retrievability Option Currently, there is no provision in the regulation to require that the

wastes be recoverable should the disposal facility fail to perform as

intended.

n/a n/a Groundwater Protection

Requirements

The regulation could be made more explicit on how the ground-water

resource would be protected. ACNW has previously recommended

specific regulatory action in this area.

NRC’ s LLW program. In SECY-95-201, the 86

staff recommended reducing the current NRC

program by eliminating or reducing various parts

of the program based on current developments in

the national program and the reduced budget

allocations at the agency. The ACNW provided

its views on these recommendations in a letter

dated December 29, 1995. (Also see Section

10.2.1 of this report.)

Later, in 1995, the Commission’ s Strategic

Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative

superseded SECY-95-201. This initiative was a

four-phase strategic planning exercise, the goal

of which was to assess and rebaseline the NRC’ s

regulatory activities to provide a sound

foundation for future agency direction and

 Briefly described, these options are (a) continue the 86

program as currently in place; (b) reduce the program by

eliminating or reducing various parts; and (c) terminate all

parts of the LLW program.
76

decisionmaking. The principal focus of the

initiative was the identification of key strategic

issues associated with the NRC’ s primary

responsibility to protect public health and safety

and the environment. These key issues were

called direction-setting issues (DSIs). For each

of the 16 DSIs, the staff developed background

papers containing the Commission’ s preliminary

views on policy options in the DSI topical areas.

The goal in developing these papers was to

identify and classify issues that affected each of

the NRC programs and, ultimately, the means by

which the Agency does its work. The Strategic

Planning Framework (NRC, 1996d), a

compilation of these 16 DSIs, became available

for public comment on September 13, 1996. 

DSI 5 applied to the NRC’ s LLW program.

The position paper superseded the staff’ s earlier

1993 program analysis by recommending six

options for managing the NRC’ s LLW

programs. The six (unranked) options proposed

were:

(1) The NRC assumes a greater leadership

role in the national LLW program.

(2) The NRC assumes a stronger regulatory

role in the national LLW program.

(3) The NRC retains its current LLW

program.

(4) The NRC recognizes progress in the

national LLW program and reduces the

size of its current program.

(5) The NRC recommends to Congress that

its LLW responsibilities be transferred to

EPA.

(6) The NRC encourages the long-term

storage of LLW under the concept of

“ assured storage.”

In an SRM dated March 7, 1997, the NRC

Executive Director of Operations informed the

staff of the Commission’ s preference for Option

3, to maintain the current LLW program. The

ACNW provided its views regarding DSI 5 and

other cross-cutting issues outlined in the Strategic

Planning Framework in a letter dated January 30,

1997.
77

PART III. PAST NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWS

10 THE ACRS AND THE ACNW

The NRC (and its predecessors) has relied on

independent advisory committees to review its

regulatory activities. Before 1988, the ACRS

Waste Management Subcommittee reviewed the

NRC’ s LLW activities. In April 1988, the

Commission established the ACNW as a separate

advisory committee to continue this oversight.

Collectively, both Committees have commented

on various LLW management issues as well as

the implementation of the NRC’ s LLW

regulatory framework in more than 40 letter

reports. This section summarizes the past advice

of the ACRS and the ACNW in the commercial

LLW area.

10.1 Background

The NRC established the ACNW as a Federal

advisory committee to provide independent

technical advice on agency activities, programs,

and key technical issues associated with the

regulation, management, and safe disposal of

certain types of radioactive waste. The

Committee is independent of NRC staff and

reports directly to the Commission, which

appoints its members. Consistent with the

NRC’ s regulatory mission, the ACNW

undertakes independent studies and reviews of

the transportation, storage, and disposal of HLW

and LLW, including the interim storage of SNF,

materials safety, and facility decommissioning.

The ACNW also independently evaluates staff

efforts to develop and apply a risk-informed and

performance-based regulatory framework to these

programs , consistent with Commission direction.

This includes reviews of and comments on

proposed rules, regulatory guidance, licensing

documents, staff positions, and other issues, as

requested by the Commission.

The provisions of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (Public Law 92-

463) govern the operational practices of the

ACRS and the ACNW. FACA requires that,

with very few exceptions, advisory committee

meetings will be open the public (General

Services Administration, 2001). Letter reports 87

document the results of the Committees’

reviews, consisting of both comments and

recommendations. Each year, the Commission

publishes the compiled letter reports of the ACRS

and the ACNW as updates to NUREG-1125

(ACNW, 1985–89) and NUREG-1423 (ACNW,

1990–2006), respectively.

The ACNW can trace its history to the ACRS, a

statutory Federal advisory committee created in

the late 1940s. The ACRS and its predecessors

(the Reactor Safeguards Committee and the

Industrial Committee on Reactor Location

Problems) independently reviewed and evaluated

the licensing and operation of nuclear power

plants and other major nuclear facilities. Because

of the large number of projects and subjects

reviewed, the ACRS established generic

subcommittees. In the late 1970s, the ACRS

formed the Waste Management Subcommittee to

review increasing staff activities in the

radioactive waste management arena (Lawroski

and Moeller, 1979). The ACRS issued its first

letter report on commercial LLW management in

April 1976. Overall, the Committee issued more

than 10 letter reports in this area. In April 1988,

the Commission established the ACNW as a

separate advisory committee to continue with this

oversight (NRC, 1988b). The Committee held its

first meeting on June 27, 1988. For its part, the

ACNW has produced about 200 letter reports

over its history. It issued its first letter report on

 FACA requires that Committee memberships be 87

fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented

and the agency functions being performed. As a result,

members of specific advisory committees tend to possess

skills that parallel the program responsibilities of their

sponsoring agencies (66 FR 37740). 
78

LLW in August 1988 and has prepared about

30 additional letter reports on various LLW

issues to date.

Table 21 includes a list of past ACRS and

ACNW letter reports on various commercial

LLW management topics. NUREG-1125 and

NUREG-1423 contain copies of these letter

reports and the exact text of the Committees’

recommendations. The following section briefly

summarizes the recommendations from those

letters. Full-text versions of these letters are

available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/

what-we-do/regulatory/advisory/acnw.html.

10.2 Summary of Past ACRS and ACNW

Reviews

Both the ACRS and the ACNW have closely

followed public health and safety issues

associated with the management of commercial

LLW. Most past ACRS and ACNW letters were

in response to requests from the Commission, the

Executive Director for Operations, or NRC

program office staff, although others were in

response to a perceived need identified by the

staff, members of the public, licensees, or other

agencies. The Committees have also followed

international LLW practices and developments,

as well as considerations arising from proposed

or actual activities by the Agreement States.

Both Committees have held individual briefing

sessions and working group meetings dedicated

to commercial LLW issues.

In addition to the broad experience of their

members and supporting staff, the ACRS and

ACNW have covered in their letters a wide band

of selected commercial LLW management issues

– ground-water monitoring, chemically mixed

LLW, onsite storage, performance assessment,

and site characterization – as well as specific

technical topics such as LLW inventories and the

suitability of certain types of LLW disposal

containers. The Committees have also

deliberated on broad topics concerning the

regulation of LLW and the associated NRC

programs.

The principal observations presented in past

Committee letters can be generally classified into

the following six areas:

• general LLW management issues

• the NRC’ s LLW regulatory framework

• ground-water monitoring

• chemically mixed LLW

• performance assessment

• waste package and waste form 

10.2.1 General LLW Management Issues

Interim Report on Management of Radioactive

Wastes (April 15, 1976). Early in the history of

the civilian nuclear energy program, the NRC

recognized the need for a plan to manage the

radioactive wastes produced (NAS, 1957). The

first NRC advisory committee letter commented

on the adequacy of the regulations and

technologies necessary for managing these

wastes. Although it was expected that the 88

longer lived radioactive wastes would be destined

for some yet-to-be-developed Federal repository

(AEC, 1970), the disposal debate at the time had

extended to other fuel cycle waste forms that had

no clearly defined disposal solution (Hileman,

1982). 

As a result of its reviews during 1975–76, the

ACRS determined that the regulatory framework

necessary to manage the radioactive wastes was

not in place. The Committee also found that the

technologies necessary for managing the wastes

had yet to be perfected.

 The ACRS letter generally defined such wastes to 88

include HLW, LLW, and other radioactive wastes

containing TRU elements and fission products.
79

Table 21 Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning LLW Management (listed chronologically)

Letter Report Title Date

Interim Report on Management of Radioactive Wastes April 15, 1976

Report on Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle

(NUREG-0116)

January 14, 1977

Low Level Solid Waste Generation April 12, 1977

Report on Proposed Rule on “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste” September 16, 1981

Establishment of De Minimis Values February 13, 1984

ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1987 June 11, 1985

ACRS Comments on the Definition of Low-Level Radioactive Waste May 13, 1986

ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1988 June 11, 1986

Additional Recommendations on the Development of De Minimis Levels July 16, 1986

ACRS Comments on Various NMSS and RES Waste Management Topics: August 13, 1986

Report No. 1—ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments on NMSS Radioactive Waste

Management Program

Report No. 6—ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments on NRC Staff Policy Statement

and Implementation of NRC Policy on Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern 

ACRS Comments on “Standard Format and Content” (NUREG-1199) and "Standard Review Plan” (NUREG1200), Guidance Documents for the Preparation of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility

March 9, 1987

ACRS Comments on Disposal of Mixed Waste June 6, 1987

ACRS Comments on the Development of Radiation Protection Standards November 10, 1987

ACRS Comments on Radioactive Waste Management Research and Other Activities November 10, 1987

ACRS Comments on Selected FY 1988 NRC Radioactive Waste Management Research Programs February 17, 1988

ACNW Comments on Proposed Branch Technical Position Concerning Environmental Monitoring for LowLevel Waste Disposal Facilities August 9, 1988

ACNW Comments on Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Exemptions for Practices

Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) 

August 9, 1988

Proposed Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern September 15, 1988

Suitability of High Density Polyethylene High Integrity Containers September 16, 1988

Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory

Control for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern

December 30, 1988

Final Rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 61 Relative to the Disposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive

Waste

February 24, 1989

Management of Mixed Hazardous and Low-Level Waste (Mixed Wastes) May 3, 1989
Letter Report Title Date

80

Reporting Incidents Involving the Management and Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste July 5, 1989

Comments on Technical Position Paper on Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilities

September 19, 1989

Low-Level Waste Performance Assessment Methodology October 18, 1989

Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control January 30, 1990

NRC Program on Low-Level Radioactive Wastes January 30, 1990

Revision 1 of Draft Technical Position on Waste Form September 6, 1990

Priority Issues in Radioactive Waste Management January 21, 1991

Regulation of Mixed Wastes February 28, 1991

Comments Regarding 10 CFR Part 61 Proposed Revisions Related to Groundwater Protection June 27, 1991

NRC Capabilities in Computer Modeling and Performance Assessment of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities December 2, 1991

Proposed Expedited Rulemaking: Procedures and Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-Level Radioactive

Waste

April 30, 1992

Source Term and Other Low-Level Waste Considerations March 31, 1993

Review of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Performance Assessment Program June 3, 1994

Private Ownership of Low-Level Waste Sites February 6, 1995

Regulatory Issues in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Performance Assessments June 28, 1995

Lessons-Learned from the Ward Valley, California, Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Siting Process August 10, 1995

Comments on SECY-95-201 and the NRC Activities Regarding Low-Level Radioactive Waste December 29, 1995

Elements of an Adequate NRC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program July 24, 1996

Comments on Selected Direction-Setting Issues Identified in NRC’s Strategic Assessment of Regulatory

Activities

January 30, 1997

Time of Compliance for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities February 11, 1997

NRC Staff Research on Generic Post-Disposal Criticality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste July 30, 1998

Branch Technical Position on Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilities

August 2, 2000

Opportunities in the Area of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management December 27, 2005
81

To address these and other shortcomings, the

ACRS recommended several actions, including

the following:89

• the development of an updated (and

integr ated) r adioactive waste

classification system

• the development of both interim and

long-term waste storage, siting, and

handling criteria

• the establishment of an R&D program

for the solidification of liquid radioactive

wastes

• the creation of criteria for

decommissioning of nuclear facilities

• the sponsoring of R&D for the

management of nuclear wastes containing

TRU elements and fission products 

To ensure the achievement of these goals, the

ACRS also recommended that the NRC assume

an “ aggressive leadership role in the

development and implementation of a

comprehensive long-term waste management

program....”

Report on Environmental Survey of the

Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions

of the LWR Fuel Cycle (NUREG-0116)

(January 14, 1977). In 1976, the NRC published

NUREG-0116, “ Environmental Survey of

Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of

the LWR Fuel Cycle” (Bishop and Miraglia,

1976). At the time, the NRC was licensing

commercial LWRs, and the purpose of this report

was to both fulfill the Commission’ s NEPA

responsibilities and update the AEC’ s earlier

1972 generic study with detailed plant-specific

data.

Following a review of the NUREG, the

Committee noted that several areas of the report

needed further discussion and evaluation. In

reviewing the information on LLW, the ACRS

commented that the NUREG’ s discussion about

the environmental and public health impacts of

LLW disposal was inadequate. Specific ACRS

recommendations included the need for an

evaluation of the migration of LLW with

moderate- and long-lived radionuclides from SLB

disposal facilities, sensitivity studies of the impact

of LLW radionuclide inventory on dose

calculations, an evaluation of the potential for

and the consequences of radiological accidents

during waste emplacement (disposal) operations,

and better documentation of occupational

exposures during SLB operations. Finally, the

ACRS recommended that the NRC update

NUREG-0116 to include an analysis of the

impacts of TRU waste reclassification as HLW

on a future Federal repository.

Low Level Solid Waste Generation (April 12,

1977). Foremost among the responsibilities of

the ACRS is the independent review and

evaluation of license applications for the

construction and operation of all commercial

nuclear power plants. During one such review,

the Committee learned that the volume of solid

LLW expected to be generated from the

operation of a PWR was about 200 m (7000 ft3 )

3

per year per reactor unit. An earlier NRC study

(NRC, 1977c) estimated the volume of solid

LLW generated to range from 400 to 800 m

3

(14,000 to 28,000 ft3 ) per year per reactor unit.

Asthisinformation was important for forecasting

future LLW disposal needs, the Committee

requested some clarification of the discrepancy.

ACRS Comments on Radioactive Waste

Management Research and Other Activities

(November 10, 1987). During its 331 meeting, st

the ACRS reviewed, among other things, LLW

management research activities within RES. In

its letter following that meeting, the ACRS noted

that the staff needed to better define the scientific

bases for some of the requirements specified in The GAO (1977) later studied and commented on 89

many of the issues the ACRS reviewed.
82

various technical positions and the connection

between these requirements and the NRC

regulations they support. The ACRS noted that,

in some cases, these requirements appeared to

have been introduced only for the convenience of

Agreement States or the operators of existing

disposal facilities. The Committee believed that

this practice called for careful examination to

determine whether it established an undesirable

precedent and whether the states’ needs could be

accommodated without the exercise of regulatory

power.

As an example of this problem, the ACRS noted

the staff’ s technical position on waste form

undergoing development at that time. The 90

Committee commented that the technical position

had not clearly defined the relationship between

the waste form testing requirements and 10 CFR

Part 61's performance objectives. The Committee

recommended that the staff reexamine the

fundamental bases of its technical position and its

requirements, and ensure that the test and

performance requirements pertained to the

conditions likely to be found in SLB facilities.

For example, the ACRS noted that the staff

proposed leach testing of the waste form.

However, they were not able to demonstrate any

relationship between the proposed technical

position and any 10 CFR Part 61 regulatory

criteria. The Committee recommended that the

staff either define the relationship or withdraw

the proposed technical position. The ACRS also

recommended that the technical position and the

supporting analyses that form the bases of

performance evaluation and acceptance of LLW

forms readily available for public comment. 

Following revisions that addressed the

aforementioned concerns, in November 1990 the

ACNW recommended publication of the final

NRC technical position (NRC, 1991b).

In its November 1987 letter, the ACRS also

referred to the (inevitable) decontamination and

decommissioning of domestic nuclear power

plants and the associated LLW generated from

those activities. The Committee observed that

the chemical complexity of those future waste

streams required that the staff begin to anticipate

potential problems in their management and to

formulate a potential solution. To aid in this

decisionmaking, the Committee recommended

that the staff begin to engage outside consultants

and/or RES staff (and its contractors).

Finally, the ACRS review of the RES programs

at the time revealed only a very modest level of

peer review of those programs. The Committee

also noted that the ongoing request for proposal

for the Federally Funded Research and

Development Center (e.g., the Center for

Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses) appeared to

discourage the contractor from publishing its

results in refereed journals, thereby disallowing

the usual form of peer review. They

recommended that in addition to encouraging

journal publication, the staff should implement a

careful, focused, and visible peer evaluation

process of both the quality of the research results

and their applicability to regulatory requirements.

See, for example, the American Chemical

Society and the Conservation Foundation (1985).

It was also recommended that the staff should

initiate such evaluations for each program to the

extent feasible, should make the evaluations

periodic, and should design them to provide clear

objectives for the management of the research

program.

ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and

Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Years

1987–88. In its June 11, 1985, letter reviewing

the proposed LLW research programs for fiscal

year (FY) 1987, the ACRS concluded that the

current research budget was adequate. In its

subsequent June 11, 1986, letter, the ACRS

endorsed the proposed FY 1988 LLW research

program, noting that the NRC was one of the few

Federal agencies at the time conducting research This discussion applied to an early version of NRC 90

(1991b). See also Section 10.2.6 of this report.
83

in this field. The Committee remarked that the

states urgently needed the results of the NRC’ s

research studies because of the strict

Congressionally-mandated timetable for

developing new LLW disposal facilities.

However, the ACRS noted that the program, as

outlined, was the minimum necessary to meet

NRC responsibilities in this area. The

Committee recommended that the NRC allocate

additional funds for research to develop the

following:

• a technical basis for defining criteria for

the designation of BRC materials

• radiation protection guidance for

alternatives to the SLB of LLW 

• an appropriate technical basis for

managing GTCC LLW

ACRS Comments on Selected FY 1988 NRC

Radioactive Waste Management Research

Programs (February 17, 1988). During its 334

th

meeting, the ACRS met with NRC staff to

discuss selected radioactive waste management

research programs. These discussions included

a review of research in the LLW area.

The Committee noted that the FY 1988 program

plans did not include any research on the effects

of organic chelating compounds on the behavior

of LLW radionuclides. The Committee

recommended that plans and resource allocations

for FY 1988 be changed to include studies on this

subject. Recognizing that such materials can

have significant effects on radionuclide mobility

and the increasing concerns about the

management and disposal of chemically mixed

LLW that frequently contain such materials, the

Committee also reviewed the joint

NRC/Canadian efforts to determine the adequacy

and applicability of transport models for

predicting the movement of radionuclides

through groundwater and soils. The Committee 91

also made several recommendations concerning

the use of sensitivity studies in these models.

The Committee recommended that the work be

completed in a timely manner to address the

technical needs of the regional compacts

evaluating and selecting candidate LLW disposal

sites at the time.

The ACRS review included – and identified for

further discussion – the development of reliable

methods for the solidification of LLW,

particularly in a concrete matrix, and improved

environmental monitoring programs for LLW

disposal sites.

Reporting Incidents Involving the Management

and Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes

(July 5, 1989). It had been previously reported

that certain physical forms of LLW performed

poorly in disposal facilities (e.g., National

Research Council, 1976). To address this issue,

the Committee considered recommendations to

characterize the various LLW streams to allow

for the identification and treatment (stabilization)

of problematic waste form compositions. The

development of a staff technical position on LLW

forms (NRC, 1991b) partially addressed this

issue. However, the Committee believed that a

system for reporting performance incidents

involving problematic LLW forms was also

needed and that it should be developed in a

timely manner. The Committee was concerned

that the limitations in staff resources at the time

be promptly addressed to avoid a highly

undesirable delay in development of such a

reporting system.

Priority Issues in Radioactive Waste

Management (January 21, 1991). In response to

a request from the Commission (dated December

10, 1990), the ACNW identified several waste

 Results of these studies were later published as

91

Robertson et al. (1987, 1989), Link et al. (1999), and 

Robertson et al.(2000).
84

management technical issues as deserving priority

attention. In the area of LLW, the issues

included the following:

• Performance Assessments. The

Committee noted that although some

guidance and a regulatory base existed

for evaluating SLB facilities, few if any

of the new facilities being proposed

would be of this type. The Committee

believed that the Agreement States, in

particular, needed assistance in

developing capabilities for assessing

bunkered types of disposal facilities, and

the deadlines mandated by the LLWPAA

emphasized the urgency for such

assistance. Included in these

considerations, the Committee identified

a need for improved capabilities to assess

the magnitudes of the source terms for

certain long-lived radionuclides, such as

iodine-129 and carbon-14. The

Committee noted that data on the

quantities of these radionuclides that had

been disposed in existing facilities were

inaccurate.

• Other Items. The Committee considered

other LLW-related issues, including the

regulation of chemically mixed

(radioactive) wastes, BRC policy, the

decommissioning of nuclear power

plants, and the evaluation of the

performance assessment capabilities for

newer types of LLW disposal facilities.

Private Ownership of Low-Level Waste Sites

(February 6, 1995). In 1994, the Commission

issued an ANPR (59 FR 39485) which indicated

that it was considering a change to allow for

private ownership of LLW sites as an alternative

to the 10 CFR 61.59(a) requirement allowing

only Federal or state ownership. In its review of

this topic, the ACNW found no fundamental

reasons why private ownership of LLW disposal

sites should be prohibited but identified several

related issues that, in its view, required deliberate

and cautious action.

The first major issue concerned the need to

ensure the protection of public health and safety

and the environment. Earlier Commission policy

discussions on adequacy and compatibility of

Agreement State regulations with NRC’ s

requirements had not included provisions for

private ownership of waste disposal sites. In its

February 1995 letter, the Committee advised the

NRC to include explicit statements for pertinent

requirements under the heading of adequacy and

compatibility before proceeding with generic

approval of private ownership. The Committee

believed that the NRC should require effective

and timely transfer of ownership to another

responsible and capable entity, such as the state,

when any changes in the private ownership

provision for waste sites, including dissolution of

the corporate entity, occurred. The Committee

stated that the measure of adequacy and

compatibility of Agreement State operations

should include effective and frequent monitoring

and evaluation of private entities responsible for

waste sites.

The Committee noted that 10 CFR 61.7(a)

(“ Concepts”) presents 500 years as the

target reference for siting and intruder barrier

considerations. However, disposed LLW could

pose a significant hazard for periods that, under

some conditions, could well exceed 500 years.

The Committee noted that the Commission

should expand the criteria to ensure that the state

(or some governmental entity) maintain an active

interest in the protection function of the disposal

site for as along as the waste poses a hazard (as

defined in the regulations).

The second major issue concerned the

administrative procedures leading to

privatization. The NRC’ s openness procedures

for regulatory affairs provide ample opportunity

for all interested parties to voice their views.

The Committee observed that transferring LLW

management accountability to a private corporate

entity, with a likely modest life expectancy

compared with the period of time the waste poses

a hazard, would require administrative (licensing)

procedures comparable to those already used by
85

the Commission. The Committee noted that it

had not obtained information that this was the

case when the State of Utah first acted. 92

In summary, although the Committee believed

that private entities were potentially capable of

meeting the long-term protection function

requirements of LLW management, it thought

that some type of governmental-oversight entity

should ultimately be responsible for the long-term

performance of an LLW disposal facility.

Furthermore, the Committee believed that any

decisionmaking by private operators of such sites

should adhere to an open process not unlike the

NRC’ s current administrative decisionmaking

process.

Following review, the Commission decided not

to amend 10 CFR 61.59(a).

Comments on SECY-95-201 and the NRC

Activities Regarding Low-Level Radioactive

Waste (December 29, 1995). In a September 14,

1995, SRM, the Commission requested the

ACNW to provide comments on SECY-95-201,

“ Alternatives to Terminating the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Program” (NRC, 1995c),

including practicable alternatives to the proposed

options and the Committee’ s views on the

significant consequences of the available

alternatives.

SECY-95-201 identified three options for the

future of the NRC LLW program. Briefly, these

options were as follows:

• Option 1: Continue the program as

currently in place

• Option 2: Reduce the program by

eliminating or reducing various parts

• Option 3: Terminate all parts of the LLW

program

In SECY-95-201, the staff concluded that, based

on statutory requirements and budget restrictions,

Option 2 was the only practicable alternative.

The Committee was unable to evaluate in detail

the program as outlined in Option 2 because of

the lack of specific resource allocations for

various activities. The ACNW had a number of

concerns with the conclusions of SECY-95-201.

While recognizing the current budgetary

constraints, the Committee concluded that it was

in the national interest to maintain a centralized

LLW program within the NRC, and it strongly

recommended that the Commissioners prioritize

the LLW program in relation to all activities

within the agency. Further, the Committee noted

that the use of terms such as “ limited” and

“ essential” to describe the resources and

activities under Option 2 was ambiguous. The

Committee believed that the most important

shortcoming of the SECY paper was its failure to

address the fundamental question of what type of

LLW program would be necessary and sufficient

to satisfy the NRC’ s public health and safety

mission.

Later in 1995, the Commission’ s Strategic

Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative

superseded further consideration of SECY-95-

201.

Elements of an Adequate NRC Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Program (July 24, 1996).

The Committee prepared this letter report in

response to a request from then-Chairman

Jackson, who asked the Committee to review

what would constitute an adequate LLW

program. The Committee’ s earlier review of

SECY-95-201 included a discussion of this topic.

 Acting in its capacity as an NRC-approved 92

Agreement State, the State of Utah had previously issued

an exemption to the governmental land ownership

requirement in its LLW regulations to Envirocare of Utah

in March 1991 when the state issued a license allowing

that private corporation to operate an LLW disposal

facility on privately-owned land.
86

In its July 1996 letter, the Committee stated that

an adequate NRC LLW program was one which

would ensure that the processing, storage, and

disposal of LLW, as defined in 10 CFR Part 61,

would be carried out in accord with other NRC

regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20) and that the

current and future impact of such activities would

not represent an excessive risk to the affected

population or the environment. Further, the

Committee observed that including GTCC LLW

as defined in 10 CFR Part 61 and mixed waste in

such a program would also be desirable. Under

such an expanded scope, the program would

include NARM and NORM, wastes from

uranium recovery and processing, wastes formed

by the inadvertent concentration of contaminants

(e.g., sewage, baghouse dust), and wastes

derived fr om decontamination and

decommissioning activities.

Comments on Selected Direction-Setting Issues

Identified in NRC’ s Strategic Assessment of

Regulatory Activities (January 30, 1997). The

Commission undertook a four-phase strategic

planning exercise in 1995 known as the Strategic

Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative (NRC,

1996d). This planning exercise was described

earlier in Section 9.3 of this report. The

initiative’ s principal focus was the identification

of key strategic issues associated with the

NRC’ s primary responsibility to protect public

health and safety and the environment. These

key issues were called DSIs, and DSI 5 applied

to the NRC’ s LLW program. 

In its January 30, 1997, letter, the ACNW

commented on DSI 5 and other cross-cutting

waste management issues outlined in the strategic

planning documents. The ACNW recommended

that the Commission adopt Option 2 as set forth

in SECY-95-201 and “ assume a strong

regulatory role in [a] national LLW program....”

The Committee’ s other recommendations

included the following:

• A number of waste types were missing

from the discussion. In its general

introductory comments, the Committee

noted its concern about the omission of

DSI cross-cutting issues such as the

management of chemically mixed wastes

and GTCC LLW. The Committee

believed that the agency’ s strategic

planning needed to address these issues

adequately.

• The NRC’ s acceptance of long-term

storage of LLW, although attractive as a

practical solution to a (then) current

problem, may not be acceptable to the

Nation. The Committee noted that the

current national policy is to provide

permanent disposal by the present

generation in a manner that does not

jeopardize current or future public health

and safety. The DSI paper did not

adequately address the requirements for

implementing long-term storage of

commercial LLW. The Committee was

also concerned about the rather favorable

light placed on interim waste storage in

the DSI paper, which was presumably

because, to date, no incident had been

reported as a result of storage at the

originating (generating) site. However,

the Committee also noted that no

evidence exists that onsite storage can be

effective over the expected life of the

waste and that the proliferation of

storage sites enhances the risk.

• The Committee suggested that caution be

exercised in using “ rules of thumb” to

define waste types in terms of the length

of time over which they may be

hazardous. In view of the absence of a

de minimis position on radioactivity

(Section 3.5 of this report) and the broad

application of the linear no-threshold

view of the human health effects of

radiation, the Committee believed that

rules of thumb were a significant

oversimplification.
87

• Finally, the Committee questioned the

appropriateness of using DOE sites as

potential disposal sites for commercial

LLW. The selection of existing DOE

sites did not involve the application of

criteria used in siting and licensing

commercial disposal facilities, and

evidence was lacking that these sites

could meet the standards and regulations

in effect.

In conclusion, the Committee recommended

Option 2 but encouraged additions to develop a

more comprehensive definition of LLW and to

evaluate the potential implementation and impact

of assured storage with adequate protection and

termination procedures.

10.2.2 The NRC’ s LLW Regulatory

Framework

Report on Proposed Rule on “ Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste” (September 16, 1981). In July 1981, the

NRC staff proposed its LLW disposal regulations

at 10 CFR Part 61 (46 FR 38081). In its

September 1981 letter to the Commission, the

ACRS provided both general and specific

comments on the proposed rule, as noted below:

General Comments

• Adequacy of Proposed Rule. The ACRS

observed that the proposed rule

contained criteria to ensure improvement

in the siting, design, and operation of

near-surface LLW disposal facilities.

The Committee recommended that the

staff continue to seek better containment,

stabilization, and immobilization of LLW

as well as completion of the criteria for

deeper land burial and disposal in mined

cavities. The Committee also

recommended an evaluation of the

possible disposal of such wastes at sea.

In addition, the ACRS recommended that

the Commission address the processes

that result in the production of

commercial LLW. In this regard, the

Committee recommended that the

Commission look at techniques both for

reducing the volumes of wastes

generated and for ensuring that the

wastes produced are in, or can be

converted to, a form amenable to safe

disposal.

• Applicability to Existing Disposal

Facilities. The proposed rule stated that

many of the proposed operational

requirements were currently in effect at

licensed LLW disposal facilities and that

such facilities should have no difficulty

in complying with the proposed

requirements. However, the ACRS

observed that there were no proposed

requirements for sites that had ceased

operating because of earlier performance

problems. The Committee noted in its

letter that the NRC staff had stated that

the regulatory guides issued in support of

the proposed rule would enumerate

methods for decommissioning those

facilities. The Committee suggested that

development of satisfactory guidance for

such actions could be difficult as many

decommissioning sites at the time

contained wastes that included plutonium

and other long-lived radionuclides that

had already been mobilized because they

had come into contact with water.

• Types and Quantities of Wastes Subject

to Disposal. The ACRS observed that

development of the proposed rule

revealed certain deficiencies in available

LLW census data. It noted that this was

particularly true with respect to the

compilation of detailed inventories on the

quantities and specific radionuclide

concentrations in the LLW buried at

existing disposal sites. The Committee
88

noted that the NRC staff was, at the

time, attempting to compile the needed

data. With respect to this effort, the

Committee observed that the

development of instrumentation to

identify and assess radionuclide

concentrations in waste packages would

also be necessary. The Committee

suggested that such data were essential to

a clear understanding of current LLW

disposal practices and the impact of

various regulatory actions, particularly

the influence of the establishment of de

minimis concentrations for selected

radionuclides in specified types of

wastes. The Committee also noted that

the data were essential to assess the

impact of various restrictions on the

types of wastes acceptable for disposal at

a given site.

Specific Comments

• Timespans for Various Requirements.

The ACRS reported that the proposed

rule lacked specificity concerning the

timespan during which the various design

requirements would apply. They

recommended that the proposed rule

clearly state that restrictions – such as

those pertaining to floods, erosion, and

water drainage – would apply through

the time of site closure as well as the

period of institutional control. However,

the Committee saw little need for a

specific instruction to observe long-term

tectonic changes potentially affecting the

site.

• Avoidance of Soil Subsidence. The

proposed rule implied that the waste

form plays a major role in the soil

subsidence that frequently occurred at

land disposal facilities in the past. Since

subsidence results from a variety of

factors, including primarily the manner

in which the waste packages are placed

in the disposal trenches, the Committee

recommended that the Commission

reevaluate and revise the proposed rule

on this issue.

• Restrictions on Types of Wastes. The

proposed rule contained a number of

limitations on the types of wastes that

could be disposed of in a near-surface

disposal facility. These included

restrictions on pyrophorics, explosives,

wastes that generate toxic gases, and

other wastes. The proposed rule also set

requirements on the “ stability” of the

wastes which, in the Committee’ s

opinion, lacked clear definition as well as

specification of the minimum

compressive strength for the wastes,

which could unduly increase the volumes

to be buried. The Committee

recommended that the staff carefully

assess the proposed restrictions and

requirements for both their enforceability

and their overall implications.

• Disposal of Chelating Agents. The

proposed rule did not allow the disposal

of wastes containing greater than 0.1

percent chelating agents in near-surface

land facilities. Such agents were present

in a wide variety of radioactive wastes at

the time (for example, in

decontamination solutions), and the

ACRS remarked that the proposed

requirement could exclude many wastes

from burial. Based on earlier discussions

with NRC staff, the Committee noted

that the staff’ s intent was not to exclude

such wastes from burial but to enable

their disposal subject to NRC approval.

The Committee, therefore, recommended

that the proposed rule emphasize that the

disposal of chelating-agent-containing

wastes could be considered on a case-bycase basis.
89

ACRS Comments on the Definition of LowLevel Radioactive Waste (May 13, 1986). On

January 15, 1986, Congress passed amendments

to the LLWPA. In those amendments, Congress

authorized the NRC to develop a regulatory

definition of LLW. In its May 1986 letter, the

ACRS recommended that the Commission

expand the definition of LLW to include NARM

wastes. In making this recommendation, the

Committee stated that it was important to control

such wastes to protect public health and safety.

ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee

Comments on NMSS Radioactive Waste

Management Program (Report No. 1 —

August 13, 1986). Section 8 of the LLWPAA

directed the NRC to identify methods for the

disposal of LLW other than SLB and to publish

technical guidance regarding licensing of those

facilities. The staff initially complied with this

provision by publishing several reports in the

NUREG/CR-3774 series (Bennett et al., 1984;

Bennett, 1985; Bennett and Warriner, 1985;

Miller and Bennett, 1985; Warriner and Bennett,

1985). 

In March 1986, the staff made a draft BTP

available for public comment that identified and

described alternatives to SLB. See NRC (1986a).

At a July 1986 meeting of the Waste

Management Subcommittee, the staff briefed the

ACRS on its proposed final guidance. In its

August 1986 comments to the Commission, the

ACRS recommended that the staff poll the

Agreement States to determine which SLB

alternatives they would prefer. The Committee

believed the responses could help reduce the

number of approaches to be evaluated. They also

r ecommended that the staff solicit

recommendations from EPA for selecting which

alternatives to consider.

The ACRS suggested that after compiling this

information, the staff should group the

alternatives and develop applicable disposal

criteria on a generic basis.

De Minimis Position and the Below Regulatory

Concern Policy Statements. As noted earlier in

this report, the LLWPAA required the NRC to

establish standards for determining when

radionuclides in waste streams are in sufficiently

low concentrations or quantities as to be BRC

and, therefore, not subject to NRC regulation. In

response to the statute, the staff developed a de

minimis position in conjunction with the 10 CFR

Part 61 rulemaking. Shortly thereafter, the staff

issued two BRC Policy Statements. Section 3.5

of this report discusses both of these activities.

The letter reports listed in Table 22 contain the

ACRS and the ACNW comments, in whole or in

part, on the staff’ s attempts to establish

minimum exemption levels for the management

of materials containing low levels of radioactive

materials.

ACRS Comments on “ Standard Format and

Content” (NUREG-1199) and “ Standard

Review Plan” (NUREG-1200), Guidance

Documents for the Preparation of a License

Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility (March 9, 1987). As noted

earlier in this report, the NRC staff developed

several documents to aid in the implementation of

10 CFR Part 61. NUREG-1199 (NRC, 1991a)

detailsthe components and information needed in

a 10 CFR Part 61 license application. NUREG1200 (NRC, 1994a) provides guidance on the

process the staff would use to review that license

application. 

After reviewing early versions of these two

guidance documents, the ACRS commented that

both were overly detailed and stringent. The

Committee noted that both required prospective

applicants to submit information and to develop

capabilities that were not warranted by the public

health risks associated with the operation of an

LLW disposal facility. While considering the

guidance documents too detailed in some

respects, the Committee also found that they

were not clear enough in other areas.
90

Table 22 Past ACRS and ACNW Letter Reports Concerning De Minimis Issues and Below Regulatory Concern

Policies

Letter Report Title Date

Establishment of De Minimis Values February 13, 1984

ACRS Comments on the NRC Safety and Research Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1987 June 11, 1985

Additional Recommendations on the Development of De Minimis Levels July 16, 1986

ACRS Comments on Various NMSS and RES Waste Management Topics: August 13, 1986

Report No. 6—ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments on NRC Staff Policy Statement

and Implementation of NRC Policy on Radioactive Wastes Below Regulatory Concern 

ACRS Comments on Radioactive Waste Management Research and Other Activities November 10, 1987

ACNW Comments on Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Regulatory Control Exemptions for Practices

Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) 

August 9, 1988

Proposed Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern September 15, 1988

Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory

Control for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern

December 30, 1988

Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control January 30, 1990

Priority Issues in Radioactive Waste Management January 21, 1991

Regulation of Mixed Wastes February 28, 1991

The Committee noted the definition of a

“ buffer zone” as one example. The Committee

also noted that the guidance documents contained

requirements that could exceed current technical

capabilities, such as the verification of the LLW

class of a given waste sample and a determination

of whether it contains chemically hazardous

materials. Lastly, the ACRS noted that

discussions of certain topics (such as

environmental monitoring) were so dispersed

throughout the texts of the documents that they

were too difficult to follow.

In closing its March 1987 letter, the ACRS noted

that both guidance documents cited the ICRP

Publication 30 series as the basis for associated

radiation dose assessments although the

referenced 10 CFR Part 61 regulations were

based on ICRP Publication 2 (ICRP, 1959) and

the standards for radiation protection prescribed

in 10 CFR Part 20. The Committee

recommended that the staff simplify and clarify

NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200. As part of

that clarification effort, ACRS suggested that the

staff examine comparable EPA reports prepared

for the review of disposal facilities for chemically

toxic (i.e., RCRA) wastes.

In the years since the Committee’ s 1987

comments, the staff has twice revised both

NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200.

Final Rulemaking on 10 CFR 61 Relative to the

Disposal of Greater-than-Class C Low-Level

Radioactive Waste (February 24, 1989). In

1988, the Commission proposed amendments to

10 CFR Part 61 that would require the deep

geologic disposal of GTCC LLW unless the

Commission approved an alternative means of

disposal elsewhere. At its 17th meeting, held in
91

1989, the staff briefed the ACNW on the final

proposed rule (NRC, 1988b). Meeting

discussions centered around the public comments

received, and the staff’ s review and disposition

of those comments. Following this review, the

Commission approved amendments at 10 CFR

61.55(b)(2)(iv) to permit the disposal of GTCC

LLW in an HLW geologic repository licensed

under 10 CFR Part 60 or some other type of

approved disposal facility design (NRC, 1989b).

Subject to certain recommendations, the

Committee agreed with the proposed final rule.

(Also see Section 8.1 of this report.)

NRC Program on Low-Level Waste (January 30,

1990). By the early 1990s, the NRC’ s 10 CFR

Part 61 regulatory framework was in place and

supported by a considerable amount of

implementing guidance. Consistent with

direction from the LLWPAA, DOE and EPA had

also undertaken the development of additional

technical information applicable to the

management of commercial LLW.

At its 16 meeting, the ACNW learned the status th

of current LLW activities. As a result of that

briefing, the Committee produced a letter with

several recommendations. It first recommended

that the Commission give more attention to the

generator side of the LLW program with a focus

on processes affecting the types of LLW in the

waste stream. The Committee hoped to identify

potential efficiencies in reducing the quantities of

LLW being generated. The Committee believed

that a “ systems approach” to the management

and disposal of LLW was necessary and could

yield considerable dividends (i.e., lower disposal

costs). (For the NRC’ s part, it observed the

need for closer coordination between the

cognizant program offices within the agency.)

The Committee also noted the need for greater

integration of all pertinent technical information

from all cognizant agencies in order to create a

“ road map” providing comprehensive guidance

to licensees. Both referenced and annotated,

such guidance would contain key regulatory

guides, technical positions, and NUREGs, as

well as other technical information developed by

other agencies with a role in the management of

commercial LLW. The Committee also

recommended that the staff prepare a report on

current operating experiences at existing LLW

facilities and use the insights gained to improve

the NRC’ s regulatory responsibilities. Lastly,

the Committee recommended that the

Commission accelerate the process for

developing new commercial disposal facilities.

Proposed Expedited Rulemaking: Procedures

and Criteria for On-Site Storage of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste (April 30, 1992). At its

42 meeting, the Committee learned of a plan for nd

developing a rule that would allow for the longterm storage of commercial LLW by existing

NRC licensees. The Committee endorsed the

rulemaking plan and its objectives. However,

although the rulemaking plan addressed the

wastes to be generated after 1996, the ACNW

was concerned about wastes generated in the

more immediate post-1992 timeframe, noting that

there were indications that all existing LLW

disposal sites, except Hanford, could stop

accepting radioactive waste by the end of 1992.

The Committee concluded that if this scenario

came true, interim storage of LLW would

become necessary. The staff never implemented

its rulemaking plan.

Regulatory Issues in Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Performance Assessment

(June 28, 1995). This letter was a continuation

of the Committee’ s earlier review of NRC’ s

LLW performance assessment program. In

developing the performance assessment

methodology outlined in draft NUREG-1573, the

staff identified areas in the 10 CFR Part 61

regulation pertaining to LLW performance

assessment for which supplemental advice was

thought to be necessary. The staff sought the

Committee’ s advice on its proposed resolution

of stakeholder comments – received during a

1994 public workshop on the draft NUREG – on
92

the following four regulatory issues:

(1) consideration of site conditions,

processes, and events in an LLW

performance assessment

(2) performance of engineered barriers

(3) timeframe for conducting an LLW

performance assessment

(4) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty in

an LLW performance assessment

The staff later expressed its views on these

regulatory issues, which the ACNW highlighted,

and sought direction from the Commission in

SECY-96-103 (NRC, 1996c). Table D-2 (in

Appendix D) to this report contains a more

detailed discussion of the recommendations and

guidance provided in NUREG-1573.

10.2.3 Ground-Water Monitoring

Environmental Monitoring for LLW Disposal

Facilities. In a November 1987 Federal Register

notice (NRC, 1987b), the NRC staff made

available for public comment a draft BTP on the

subject of the 10 CFR 61.53(c) environmental

monitoring requirements for LLW disposal

facilities. See 52 FR 42486. Following the

request for comments, the staff interrupted work

on the BTP because of resource limitations. In

its comments to the Commission dated August 9,

1988, the ACNW recommended that the staff

complete its work on the BTP and issue the final

guidance. However, in making its

recommendation, the Committee also advised that

the overall purpose of the staff’ s technical

position in this area needed to be clarified to

indicate whether it was prepared to provide

guidance on monitoring policy or to prescribe

detailed monitoring requirements.

After a brief interruption, staff work on the

development of the environmental monitoring

BTP continued, but under the new title of a

“ technical position paper.” Following a second

review, the ACNW noted in its September 19,

1989, letter, that the renamed guidance was

acceptable for publication. However, the staff

never finalized the guidance document but later

identified it as a candidate area for a potential

rulemaking in the future. See Table 20. 

As noted in Section 9.2 of this report, in recent

years RES has sponsored many research projects

and public workshops on environmental

monitoring and modeling. Many of these

products are listed in Appendix E to this report.

Comments Regarding 10 CFR Part 61 Proposed

Revisions Related to Ground Water Protection

(June 27, 1991). In a September 6, 1990, letter,

the ACNW recommended that the staff publish

the revised NRC technical position on waste form

(NRC, 1991b). Along with the recommendation,

however, the Committee expressed several

concerns, including the need to revise 10 CFR

Part 61 regulation to show more direct emphasis

on the resistance of LLW forms to leaching by

percolating groundwater. The Commission

subsequently requested that the Committee justify

its position by evaluating the efficacy of the

existing 10 CFR Part 61 in meeting its concerns.

In a subsequent meeting with staff, the

Committee reviewed the history and performance

experiences of earlier LLW disposal facilities,

particularly as they related to the migration of

radioactive materials. It noted that the staff

considered this past experience in scoping the

10 CFR Part 61 EIS and developing the

subsequent LLW regulation. The Committee

also learned of the staff efforts at the time to

undertake detailed studies of contaminant flow

and transport phenomena as part of a broader

LLW performance assessment effort, later to be

documented in NUREG-1573. This emerging

work assured the Committee that the staff would

provide additional insights into ground-water

protection issues. Lastly, the Committee held a

brainstorming session with NRC staff members
93

and their technical assistance contractors at the

time to explore options that might improve

radionuclide retention in, or retard radionuclide

migration from, LLW waste forms.

On the basis of these interactions, the Committee

set aside its suggestion that the staff revise

10 CFR Part 61 to explicitly include a

requirement for LLW waste form performance as

a means of enhancing ground-water protection.

10.2.4 Chemically Mixed Radioactive Waste

ACRS Comments on Disposal of Mixed Waste

(June 6, 1987). Although not addressed in detail

in this report, chemically mixed LLW is subject

to dual regulation under EPA’ s RCRA

regulations. During the 326 meeting of the th

ACRS in June 1987, the staff described its efforts

to develop jointly with the EPA a definition of,

and acceptable methods for regulating the

disposal of, chemically mixed radioactive waste.

As a result of that briefing, the Committee had

some concerns about the interpretation of the

definition of “ mixed waste.” It noted that if a

strict interpretation resulted in a large increase in

the wastes classified within this category, it could

have a negative impact on the disposal of wastes

from many facets of the nuclear industry. The

ACRS recommended that the staff address

specific questions to resolve this issue, including

the procedures and schedule for licensing

facilities where such wastes could be disposed,

the role of Agreement States in such activities,

and how such wastes would be handled in the

interim.

Management of Mixed Hazardous and LowLevel Radioactive Wastes (Mixed Wastes)

(May 3, 1989). Following meetings with NRC

staff and Nuclear Management and Resources

Council (NUMARC ) representatives, the 93

ACNW offered several recommendations to the

Commission regarding the management of

chemically mixed LLW. The Committee

believed that the Commission should assign

additional resources to study this issue, that its

resolution was primarily institutional, and that the

problems caused by dual jurisdiction were

solvable [although at the time most

knowledgeable institutions seemed to recognize

that any disposal facility meeting NRC regulatory

requirements was also capable of meeting EPA

criteria for the disposal of hazardous

(nonradioactive) wastes].

The Committee also observed that the staff had

overlooked the management of chemically

hazardous GTCC LLW, NARM, and NORM and

needed to give attention to these areas.

Regulation of Mixed Wastes (February 28,

1991). Following the May 1989 letter from

ACNW, OTA (1989) published a comprehensive

report on the status of the national LLW

program. That report included an examination of

chemically mixed LLW issues, and it noted the

lack of mixed waste treatment options, access to

mixed waste disposal facilities, and conflicting

(and inconsistent) EPA and NRC regulations. At

the request of then-Commissioner Curtis, the

ACNW reviewed the comparability of protection

afforded by NRC and EPA regulations when

applied to the disposal of chemically mixed

LLW. The Committee responded to the request

by conducting a working group meeting on the

subject in December 1990 and dedicating

additional time to the matter at subsequent

ACNW meetings.

Following up on its May 1989 letter on

chemically mixed LLW, the Committee reported

that an industry-sponsored study (NUMARC,

1990) seemed to indicate that a facility built in

conformance with 10 CFR Part 61 was slightly

superior to a facility built in conformance with

the EPA RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264,

“ Standards for Owners and Operators of

 In 1994, NUMARC merged with the U.S. Council

93

for Energy Awareness, the American Nuclear Energy

Council, and the nuclear division of the Edison Electric

Institute to form the Nuclear Energy Institute.
94

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and

Disposal Facilities.” However, the NRC staff

stated that certain features of any disposal facility

designed to those regulations, such as the

requirement for a double liner and the leachate

collection and retention provisions, “ appear to

offer enhanced protection of groundwater, at

least temporarily....” The Committee also noted

that the then proposed EPA LLW standard

– 40 CFR Part 193, “ Radiation Protection

Standards for Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal” (Gruhlke and others, 1989), which

included a “ subsystem requirement that groundwater contamination be limited so that no offsite

person will receive an effective dose rate greater

than 4 mrem/yr, may be a potential important

attribute of the EPA regulations that is

important....” The ACNW February 1991 letter

discussed several other considerations. The

Committee noted that most of the chemically

mixed LLW generated in the United States were

at DOE facilities. The Committee suggested,

therefore, that a reasonable solution might be to

have commercially generated mixed wastes

assigned to DOE (similar to the responsibility

already given to DOE for GTCC LLW).

The Committee’ s February 1991 letter also

contained the following:

• The Committee recommended an action

to establish a category of mixed wastes

that was below BRC. Such wastes could

be reclassified as hazardous wastes and

regulated only by the EPA. The

Committee understood at the time that

more than 90 percent of biomedical

wastes would fall into this category.

• Concurr ently, the Committee

recommended that the EPA be

encouraged to modify its regulations to

develop and implement de minimis

criteria for hazardous and mixed wastes.

The NRC should also encourage the EPA

to modify its regulations to permit

interim storage of mixed wastes awaiting

disposal and to develop standards for the

treatment of such wastes. 94

• The Committee also believed that a

combination bunker (i.e., AGV) disposal

for Class B and C LLW, along with a

leachate collection system in place for at

least as long as the EPA regulations

would require, could meet the

combination of disposal requirements for

mixed wastes specified by the NRC and

EPA.

In conclusion, the Committee strongly believed

that adopting its proposal would significantly

reduce the volume of chemically mixed LLW

produced. By virtue of lower production

volumes, the Committee believed that waste

generators would realize a net financial savings.

This cost reduction, combined with some level of

regulatory simplification, would reverse “ the

debilitating trends by scientiststo avoid the use of

radioactive and hazardous materials in important

research....”

10.2.5 Performance Assessment

Low-Level Waste Performance Acceptance

Methodology (October 18, 1989). One of the

staff’ s first tasks after the establishment of the

NRC LLW program was the development of an

LLW performance assessment strategy. See

Starmer et al. (1988). At its 14 meeting, held in th

October 1989, the staff briefed the ACNW on

thatstrategy. In its commentsto the Commission,

the Committee observed that the strategy paper

was well written and of value. The Committee

recommended that the strategy be issued as a

technical position or guidance paper or in another

suitable form to ensure that it received the

attention it deserved. The Committee also

recommended that dose limits be expressed in

 In 2003, the EPA published an ANPR discussing

94

alternatives for the disposal of chemical wastes containing

low concentrations of radioactive material (68 FR 65119).

One of the alternatives cited in the ANPR was the use of

RCRA Subtitle-C disposal technology for such wastes.
95

both metric and English units and that the paper

include the concept of effective dose equivalent.

However, the staff noted that resource

availability was minimal at the time, and the

Committee urged the Commission to make

additional resources available to support this

program.

NRC Capabilities in Computer Modeling and

Performance Assessment of Low-Level Waste

Disposal Facilities (December 2, 1991). The

ACNW prepared this letter report in response to

several questions by then-Commissioner Rogers.

The Committee discussed its response to the

differences in capabilities in addressing the

management and disposal of HLW and LLW.

The letter addressed HLW disposal capabilities

separately. After several pages of discussion

which provided specific comments and addressed

computer modeling capabilities, the ACNW

concluded that the NRC staff was developing

sound computer modeling and performance

assessment capabilities and was assembling a

competent group of analysts. The Committee

also thought that the staff should develop an

overall strategy document for the program,

upgrade existing computer hardware and

software, and establish closer ties with other

groups involved in related activities (both

nationally and internationally). In addition, the

Commission should provide adequate resources

to achieve the Committee’ s recommendations.

Lastly, the Committee believed there should be

timely action on its recommendations in light of

impending needs to license new LLW disposal

facilities.

Review of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Performance Assessment Program (June 3,

1994). This letter summarized the Committee’ s

views based on discussions and presentations by

the staff over a 3-month period. It commented

on the capability of the staff’ s LLW

performance assessment program applied to the

review of new disposal facilities as well as the

development of the draft BTP – later documented

in NUREG-1573 — which was undergoing

development at the time.

Committee comments on the staff LLW

performance assessment capability included the

following: 

• The staff had a sound and functional

understanding of the bases of

comprehensive performance assessments.

The staff was also knowledgeable and

appeared to have the necessary resources

for developing its capability.

• The staff should seek ways to

demonstrate that its performance

assessment results agreed with actual

data obtained from operating sites.

Although such data could be difficult to

obtain, the benefits from such a

demonstration would be worth the effort.

• The staff should develop a rational basis

for the scope and depth of its required

capability in performance assessments,

focusing on its ability to review an LLW

performance assessment for credibility

and completeness.

• The staff should make risk calculations

from an LLW performance assessment

using, to the extent feasible, dose models

that the NRC applied elsewhere for such

purposes. The staff’ s presentations at

the time indicated no such consistency.

• The Committee agreed with, and

strongly supported, the proposed use of

probabilistic techniques in the

performance assessment process. These

techniques are essential to capture

uncertainty, to clearly delineate the

current state of knowledge, and to serve

as a guide to the acquisition of additional

data.

In its June 1994 letter report, the Committee also

offered detailed comments on the draft BTP for
96

the staff to consider.

Time of Compliance for Low-Level Nuclear

Waste Disposal Facilities (February 11, 1997).

In this letter, the ACNW built on the principles

it had outlined in an earlier Committee letter on

the timespan of regulatory compliance for the

proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository

(Pomeroy, 1996) and recommended a two-part

approach to establishing a timeframe over which

compliance with the LLW disposal regulation

would be demonstrated. The first part utilized a

site-specific timespan based on an analysis to

determine the time at which release and transport

of the more mobile radionuclides produce a peak

dose to the critical population group. The second

part was a qualitative evaluation, not requiring a

specific measure of compliance, which identified

any significant deficiencies in the performance of

the disposal system.

The ACNW noted that the current NRC LLW

regulation did not specify the length of time (the

time period of regulatory compliance) during

which the calculated dose should be compared

with the specified radiation standard. The

Committee observed that the rule was concerned

with the minimum times of analyses. For

example, 10 CFR Part 61 at Section 61.7

(“ Concepts”) states that “ in choosing a disposal

site, characteristics should be considered in terms

of the indefinite future and evaluated for at least

a 500-year time frame....” The Committee

suggested that this statement was, in part, the

origin of the misconception that 10 CFR Part 61

is a 500-year rule that only requires a

demonstration of compliance for this time period.

At the time, draft NUREG-1573 recommended a

time specification of 10,000 years, which the 10

CFR Part 61 DEIS scoping calculations

(NUREG-0782) also included. However, the

Committee noted that the 10 CFR Part 61 FEIS

(NUREG-0945) did not include (specify) a

compliance or time period during which the

required analyses were to be performed.

The final published version of NUREG-1573

(NRC, 2000) contains the staff’ s views and

recommendations on an appropriate timeframe

for an LLW performance assessment. This issue

is discussed in more detail in Appendix D to this

report. (See Table D-1.)

The NRC Staff Research on Generic

Postdisposal Criticality at Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Facilities (July 30, 1998). This letter

report, drafted in response to SECY-98-010,

“ Petition for Envirocare of Utah to Possess

Special Nuclear Material in Excess of Current

Regulatory Limits” (NRC, 1998a), directed the

NRC staff to consult with the ACNW on whether

to pursue a research project to evaluate the

potential for postclosure criticality as a result of

hydrogeochemical processes reconcentrating

uranium at LLW disposal facility sites.

On the basis of the information provided by the

staff at the time, the ACNW agreed that the

likelihood of reconcentration in an LLW disposal

facility was remote and the consequences of any

resulting criticality appeared similarly minimal.

The Committee could not conclude that any

significant research on postclosure criticality was

warranted. However, it did believe that much

could be learned from limited additional

research, namely a quantitative risk

(performance) assessment of a specific site. At

the time, the analyses performed to date

contained elements of risk assessment but lacked

consistency of application in the propagation of

realistic uncertainties throughout the analytical

models.

Branch Technical Position on a Performance

Assessment Methodology for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities (August 2,

2000). Following publication of a draft for

public comment and resolution of the comments

received (NRC, 1997a), the staff briefed the

ACNW on the final proposed NUREG-1573 at

the Committee’ s 119 meeting. It its subsequent

th

August 2000 letter to the Commission, the

ACNW recommended issuance of the NUREG in
97

final form. The Committee also provided some

commentsfor the Commission to consider, which

the staff responded to in Appendix E to the final

NUREG. Table D-3, in Appendix D to this

report, summarizes the Committee’ s comments

and the staff’ s responses thereto.

Lessons Learned from the Ward Valley,

California, Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

Siting Process (August 10, 1995). In 1995, NAS

issued its report examining the validity of seven

site-suitability issues raised by staff geologists at

the USGS regarding the Ward Valley LLW

disposal site. The ACNW reviewed the report 95

(National Research Council, 1995b) and a

member of the NAS panel made a presentation to

the Committee on this topic at the 75 meeting of th

the ACNW. That panel member identified key

lessons learned from the Ward Valley peer

review, which the Committee also endorsed in its

letter. Foremost among these lessons learned

was that future LLW siting activities should

ensure that information developed on the site

characteristics would be accompanied, preferably

from its initiation, by an independent, ongoing

peer review focused on the scientific and

technical quality and completeness of the field

investigations, analytical programs, and planning

for the work that accompanies them. A

recognized and demonstrably competent panel of

experts should conduct such a review.

The Committee also recognized at the time that

any future LLW sites were likely to be developed

under the purview of the Agreement States.

Nevertheless, for those states in which a disposal

facility is contemplated, the developer should

provide a plan that describes the process of

forming such peer review panels and the way in

which their output could best be used in future

decisionmaking.

10.2.6 Waste Package and Waste Form

Suitability of High-Density Polyethylene High

Integrity Containers (September 16, 1988). The

NRC’ s LLW regulation at 10 CFR 61.56(b)

(“ Waste Containment”) requires the use of a

waste container of sufficient structural stability

for the disposal of Class B and C LLW.

NUREG-1199 (NRC, 1991a) gives guidance on

demonstrating that the 10 CFR Part 61 structural

stability requirement has been met. The staff has

previously investigated the suitability of

fabricating HICs from high-density polyethylene

(HDPE) – a type of durable plastic. Based on

presentation material from its third and fourth

meetings, as well as a review of selected

technical documents, the Committee stated in its

letter that the HDPE HIC designs under

consideration at the time would have difficulty in

meeting the NRC’ s mechanical properties

criteria for Class B and C waste containers. The

Committee recommended coupling (integrating)

HDPE with another suitable material to satisfy

the pertinent NRC regulatory criteria. The

Committee recommended that the staff bring to

closure the HDPE HIC studies for previously

submitted designs, thus allowing the industry to

better plan its response and further action.

Revision 1 of Draft Technical Position on Waste

Form (September 6, 1990). A key feature of the

NRC’ s 10 CFR Part 61 regulation is the waste

form stability requirements set forth in 10 CFR

61.56(a). As noted earlier in this report, the

Commission established these requirements to

address some past performance issues at early

LLW disposal facilities. Following publication

of its final LLW rule, the staff published

guidance, in the form of a technical position, on

suggested approaches (including testing

 In 1993, the State of California approved a license

95

to construct a new LLW disposal facility in Ward Valley

on lands held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The state later asked the U.S. Department of the Interior

(DOI) to transfer those lands to state control to allow for

the construction of the disposal facility. While DOI was

considering the transfer, three USGS geologists (acting as

individuals rather than in an official Government capacity)

expressed seven concerns about the suitability of the site.

Before making a decision to transfer the BLM’ s land,

DOI asked NAS to convene a committee to act as a peer

review of the validity of the disputed issues. See also

GAO (1997) and Andersen (1998).
98

procedures) for demonstrating compliance with

the requirements. See NRC (1983b). Later, in

parallel with the staff’ s efforts, NUMARC

(1988) prepared a technical basis document that

potential licensees could use to support their

compliance demonstrations.

In June 1990, the staff prepared a revised version

of the 1983 technical position. In its September

1990 letter, the ACNW noted that the 1990

revision represented a significant expansion of

the previous version and reflected many of the

points that the Committee called to the attention

of the NRC staff during previous ACNW and

ACRS subcommittee meetings. Taking into

account the significance that the quality (stability)

of the LLW form has to public health and safety

(i.e., performance of the LLW disposal facility),

the Committee concluded that the revised

technical position (NRC, 1991b), when fully

implemented, would serve as a useful guide in

the evaluation of waste forms used in LLW

disposal.

Nevertheless, the Committee did identify the

following areas in which the staff could still

improve the revised technical position:

• 10 CFR Part 61 lacks a requirement for

a specified resistance of the waste form

to leaching of radionuclides by

groundwater. The NRC should revise its

LLW regulation to address this point.

Until then, the staff should amend the

technical position to reflect more directly

the attention that leaching resistance

merits.

• Testing requirements should be

representative of conditions likely to be

encountered in an SLB site.

• Testing requirements of waste form

radiation resistance may not be

sufficiently conservative when

considering the potential for hydrogen

generation in closed spaces.

• Testing requirements of aged waste

forms is insufficient.

• Ongoing revisions to 10 CFR Part 20

(10 CFR 20.311 at the time) need

comparison to the technical position to

ensure compatibility.

• Newly developed criteria for

compressive strength of acceptable

cementitious waste forms [500 pounds

per square inch (psi)] lack a strong

technical justification but were selected

to preclude the use of unstable waste

forms. The staff should recognize that

the waste form may not retain the

compressive strength that is initially

called for in the guidance for its required

life. Long-term degradation of

compressive strength to lower levels, but

not less than the approximately 60 psi

required for other waste forms, may be

acceptable.

Source Term and Other Low-Level Waste

Considerations (March 31, 1993). The ACNW

convened a working group to obtain better

information on the inventory of radionuclides in

commercial LLW going into disposal facilities.

At the time, the Commission was considering

amendments to its regulations to improve the

quality and uniformity of information on LLW

transfers between generators and operators. The

Committee noted that one of the guiding criterion

in the ongoing development of the Uniform LowLevel Waste Manifest System was to provide 96

data deemed essential to LLW disposal facility

performance assessments. In its 1993 letter, the

Committee observed that the staff should confirm

that the manifest data collected could be used

through the full range of disposal environments

likely to be found consistent with the site-specific

 “ Appendix G to Part 20 – “ Requirements for 96

Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended for

Disposal at Licensed Land Disposal Facilities and

Manifests.”
99

data requirements imposed by the 10 CFR

Part 61 regulation for estimating the release and

transport of radionuclides from disposal facilities.

The letter highlighted many other source term

observations/considerations proposed or

discussed by the working group participants. See

NRC (1992c, 1995b) for more background on

this issue.
100

(Page intentionally left blank.)
101

11 REFERENCES

Adam, J.A., and V.L. Rogers, “ A Classification

System for Radioactive Waste Disposal – What

Waste Goes Where?,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-0456, July 1978.

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, “ A

Compilation of Reports of the Advisory

Committee on Nuclear Waste, July 1988–August

2004,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG-1423, 15 vols., August 1990–October

2006.

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety, “ A

Compilation of Reports of the Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safety, 1957–1988,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1125,

Vols. 5–10, April 1985–April 1989.

American Chemical Society and the Conservation

Foundation, Issues in Peer Review of the

Scientific Basis for Regulatory Decisions,

Washington, DC, November 1985.

Andersen, G., Disposing of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste in California – A Guidebook

for Public Participation, Crestline, League of

Women Voters Environmental Action

Committee, September 1998.

Austin, J.H., “ Naturally Occurring and

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material –

1987 Review,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-1310, March 1988.

Battelle Memorial Institute, “ Alternatives for

Managing Wastes from Reactors and Post-Fission

Operations in the LWR Fuel Cycle,” U.S.

Ener gy Resear ch and Development

Administration, ERDA 76-43, 5 vols., May

1976.

Bedinger, M.S., “ Geohydrologic Aspects for

Siting and Design of Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal,” U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1034, 1989.

Bennett, R.D., W.O. Miller, J.B. Warriner, P.G.

Malone, and C.C. McAneny, “ Alternative

Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive

Wastes – Task 1: Description of Methods and

Assessment of Criteria,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol.

1, April 1984. [Prepared by the U.S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.]

Bennett, R.D., “ Alternative Methods for

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes –

Task 2e: Technical Requirements for Shaft

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR3774, Vol. 5, October 1985. [Prepared by the

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station Geotechnical Laboratory.]

Bennett, R.D., and J.B. Warriner, “ Alternative

Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive

Wastes – Task 2b: Technical Requirements for

Above-Ground Vault Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 3, October

1985. [Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station Geotechnical

Laboratory.]

Berglund, J.W., “ Mechanisms Governing the

Direct Removal of Wastes from the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Repository Caused by

Exploratory Drilling,” Albuquerque, Sandia

National Laboratories, SAND92-7295, December

1992. [Prepared by the New Mexico

Engineering Institute for DOE.]

Bishop, W.P., and F.J. Miraglia, Jr., editors,

“ Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and

Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel

Cycle – A Task Force Report,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0116

(Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.

Bolling, L.A., J.O. Lubenau, and D.A.

Nussbaumer, “ Regulation of Naturally
102

Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive

Materials — An Update,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0976, October

1984.

Bowerman, B.S., R.E. Davis, and B. Siskind,

“ Document Review Regarding Hazardous

Chemical Characteristics of Low-Level Waste,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-4433, March 1986. [Prepared by

the Brookhaven National Laboratory.]

Bowerman, B.S., C.R. Kempf, D.R.

MacKenzie, B. Siskind, and P.L. Piciulo, “ An

Analysis of Low-Level Wastes: Review of

Hazardous Waste Regulations and Identification

of Radioactive Mixed Wastes – Final Report,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-4406, December 1985. [Prepared

by the Brookhaven National Laboratory.]

Buckley, J., “ Status of Decommissioning

Program – 2004 Annual Report; Final Report,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG1814, January 2005.

Carter, M.W., A.A. Moghissi, and B. Kahn,

editors, “ Land Burial Case Histories (Chapter

VIII),” in Management of Low-Level Radioactive

Waste, New York, Pergamon Press, Vol. 2,

1979.

Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Commission, “ Annual Report 2003–2004,”

Lincoln, Nebraska, 2004.

Charles, D., and T.J. McEwen,

“ Radiological Consequences of Drilling

Intrusion into a Deep Repository for High Level

Waste,” United Kingdom, Intera Sciences,

[Report] I244-1, January 1991. [Prepared for the

Swedish National Institute of Radiation

Protection.]

Clancy, J.J., D.F. Gray, and O.I. Oztunali,

“ Data Base for Radioactive Waste Management

– Review of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal History,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-1759, Vol. 1,

November 1981.

Codell, R.B., K.T. Key, and G. Whelan, “ A

Collection of Mathematical Models for

Dispersion in Surface Water and Groundwater,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG0868, June 1982.

Coley, R.F., “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Generation Rates at Domestic Nuclear Power

Plants — 1982 through 1985 Update,” in

Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste

Management, March 1–5, 1987, Tucson,

Arizona, University of Arizona Press, Vol. 3,

1987.

Combs, F.C., “ Status of States in Providing

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste –

October 11, 1991,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Office of State Programs, January

24, 1992. [Memorandum.]

Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors, “ Suggested State Regulations for

Control of Radiation. Volume 1 – Ionizing

Radiation, Part N: Regulation and Licensing of

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring

Radioactive Material (TENORM),” Frankfort,

Kentucky, CRCPD Task Force on TENORM

(E-36), December 1999. [Revised April 2004.]

Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors, “ Part N: Regulation and Licensing of

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring

Radioactive Material (TENORM): 1999

Rationale,” Frankfort, Kentucky, CRCPD Task

Force on TENORM (E-36), December 1999.

[Revised April 2004.]

Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors, “ Implementation Guidance for

Regulation and Licensing of Technologically

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive

Material (TENORM) – Part N of the Suggested

State Regulations for Control of Radiation
103

(SSRCR),” Frankfort, Kentucky, CRCPD Task

Force on TENORM (E-36), April 2004.

Cunningham, R.E., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Letter to All Holders of NRC

Materials Licenses, "Extended Interim Storage of

Low-Level Radioactive Waste by Fuel Cycle and

Materials Licensees," Washington, DC,

Information Notice No. 90-09, February 5, 1990.

Denham, D.H., R.D. Stenner, P.A. Eddy, R.E.

Jaquish, and J. V. Ramsdell, Jr . ,

“ Recommendations to the NRC for Review

Criteria for Alternative Methods of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal – Environmental

Monitoring and Surveillance Programs,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR5054, July 1988.

Diaz, N.J., et al., Memorandum and Order, “ In

the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.

(National Enrichment Facility),” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, CLI-05-20, October 19,

2005.

Dinwiddie, G.A., and N.J. Trask, editors, “ U.S.

Geological Survey Research in Radioactive

Waste Disposal – Fiscal Years 1983, 1984, and

1985,” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 87-4009, 1987.

Dircks, W.J., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Letter to All Holders of and

Applicants for Operating Licenses and

Construction Permits, "Storage of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste at Power Reactor Sites,"

Washington, DC, Generic Letter 81-38,

November 10, 1981.

Dircks, W.J., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Letter to All Licensees,

"Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites of

Low-Level Radioactive Waste not Generated by

the Utility,” Washington, DC, Generic Letter 85-

14, August 1, 1985.

EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Corrective Measures

Technology for Shallow Land Burial,” Idaho

Falls, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,

Low-Level Waste Management Handbook Series,

DOE/LLW-13Te, October 1984. [Prepared for

DOE.]

EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Radioactive Waste

Management: A Summary of State Laws and

Administration,” Idaho Falls, Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, DOE/LLW-18T,

Revision 6, December 1985. [Prepared for

DOE.]

EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Environmental Monitoring

for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites,” Idaho

Falls, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,

Low-Level Waste Management Handbook Series,

DOE/LLW-13Tg, 2 vols., Revision 1, September

1989. [Prepared for DOE.]

EG&G Idaho, Inc., “ Directions in Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Management: A Brief

History of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive

Waste,” Idaho Falls, Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory, DOE/LLW-103, Revision 1, August

1994. [Prepared for DOE.]

Eisenberg, N.A., M.P. Lee, T.J. McCartin, K.I.

McConnell, M. Thaggard, and A.C. Campbell,

“ Development of a Performance Assessment

Capability in the Waste Management Programs

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,”

Risk Analysis, 19(5):847–876, October 1999.

Electric Power Research Institute, “ Radwaste

Generation Survey Update, Volume 1: Boiling

Water Reactors, Final Report,” Palo Alto,

Project 1557-26, EPRI NP-5526, February

1988a. [Prepared by Analytical Resources, Inc.]

Electric Power Research Institute, “ Radwaste

Generation Survey Update, Volume 2:

Pressurized Water Reactors, Final Report,” Palo

Alto, Project 1557-26, EPRI NP-5526, February

1988b. [Prepared by Analytical Resources, Inc.]
104

Electric Power Research Institute, “ On-Site

Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste at

Power Reactors: An International Scoping

Study, Final Report,” Palo Alto, Project 2724-3,

EPRI NP-6163, December 1988c. [Prepared by

Science Applications International Corporation,

Inc.]

Electric Power Research Institute, “ Interim

On-Site Storage of Low Level Waste – Licensing

and Regulatory Issues,” Palo Alto, EPRI TR100298, Vol. 1, May 1992.

Electric Power Research Institute, “ Solid

Low Level Waste Management Guidelines,” Palo

Alto, EPRI TR-104583, November 1994.

Electric Power Research Institute, “ Interim

Storage of Low and Intermediate Level Wastes:

Guidelines for Extended Storage,” Palo Alto,

EPRI 000000000001002763, October 2002.

Federal Radiation Council, “ Background

Material for the Development of Radiation

Standards,” Washington, DC, Staff Report No. 5,

July 1964.

Federal Radiation Council, “ Background

Material for the Development of Radiation

Standards — Protective Action Guides for

Strontium-89, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137,”

Washington, DC, Staff Report No. 7, May 1965.

Federal Radiation Council, “ Guidance for

the Control of Radiation Hazards in Uranium

Mining,” Washington, DC, Staff Report No. 8

(revised), September 1967

Fisher, J.N., “ Hydrologic Factors in the

Selection of Shallow Land Burial Sites for the

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 973, 1986.

Forstom, J.M., and D.J. Goode, “ De Minimis

Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology.

IMPACTS — BRC User’ s Guide and

Methodology for Radioactive Wastes Below

Regulatory Concern. Draft Report for

Comment, ” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-3585, Vol. 2, July

1986.

Fuchs, R.L., “ 1995 State-by-State Assessment

of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at

Commercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&G

Idaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-237, September 1996.

[Prepared for DOE.]

Fuchs, R.L., “ 1996 State-by-State Assessment of

Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at

Commercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&G

Idaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-243, September 1997.

[Prepared for DOE.]

Fuchs, R.L., “ 1997 State-by-State Assessment of

Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at

Commercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&G

Idaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-247, August 1998.

[Prepared for DOE.]

Fuchs, R.L., “ 1998 State-by-State Assessment of

Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at

Commercial Disposal Sites,” Idaho Falls, EG&G

Idaho, Inc., DOE/LLW-252, May 1999.

[Prepared for DOE.]

General Research Corporation, “ Study of

Chemical Toxicity of Low-Level Wastes,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR1793, 2 vols., November 1980.

Gesell, T.F., and H.M. Prichard, “ The

Technologically-Enhanced Natural Radiation

Environment,” Health Physics, 28:361–366,

April 1975.

Goode, D.J., S.M. Neuder, R.A. Pennifill, and

T. Ginn, “ Onsite Disposal of Radioactive Waste

— Estimating Potential Groundwater

Contamination,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-1101, Vol. 3, November

1986.
105

Goodell, P.C. and D. Caskey, editors, “ Nuclear

Waste Disposal Issues in the El Paso-Juarez

Region: Ft. Hancock, Texas,” The El Paso

Geological Society, University of Texas at El

Paso, December 1991.

Gruhlke, J.M., F.L. Galpin, W.F. Holcomb, and

M.S. Bandrowski, “ USEPA’ s Proposed

Environmental Standards for the Management

and Land Disposal of LLW and Waste,” in R.G.

Post, editor, WM ’ 89 – Proceedings of the

Symposium on Waste Management, February

26–March 2, 1989, Tucson, Arizona, [University

of Arizona Press], 2:273–276, 1989.

Higginbotham, L.B., K.S. Dragonette, and C.L.

Pittiglio, Jr., “ Licensing of Alternative Methods

of Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste –

Branch Technical Position,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1241,

December 1986.

Hileman, B., “ Nuclear Waste Disposal – A Case

of Benign Neglect?,” Environmental Science and

Technology, 16(5):271A–275A, 1982.

Howekamp, D.P.,U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Letter to J.E. Lemley, U.S. Ecology,

“ Renewal of Approval to Operate a Chemical

Waste Landfill for PCB Disposal,” January 16,

1996. [Available from the American Ecology

Web site at http://www.americanecology.com/

usecology/pdf/beatty/tsca_permit.pdf.]

Hulse, R. A., “ Greater-Than-Class C LowLevel Radioactive Waste Characterization:

Estimated Volumes, Radionuclide Activities, and

Other Characteristics,” U.S. Department of

Energy, DOE/LLW-114, August 1991.

Illinois Emergency Management Agency, “ An

Evaluation of the Potential Effects from the

Closure of Available Disposal Capacity on the

Central Midwest Compact Region’ s Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Generators,” Springfield,

Bureau of Environmental Safety, IEMA 341-400-

2/06, September 2005. [Prepared for the Central

Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Commission.]

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Report of ICRP Committee II on

Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959),

with Bibliography for Biological, Mathematical

and Physical Data,” Health Physics, Vol. 3,

[1959]. [Reprinted in 1975 as ICRP Publication

2.]

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological

Protection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1,

No. 3, 1977. [ICRP Publication 26.] 

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ The Principles and General

Procedures for Handling Emergency and

Accidental Exposures of Workers – Statement

from the 1978 Stockholm Meeting of the ICRP,”

Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1978. [ICRP

Publication 28.] 

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides

by Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, Nos.

3/4, 1979. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 1.]

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides

by Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 4, Nos.

3/4, 1980. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 2.]

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides

by Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 6, Nos.

2/3, 1981. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 3.

Includes addendum to Parts 1 and 2.]

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides

by Workers: An Addendum,” Annals of the

ICRP, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1988. [ICRP Publication

30, Part 4.]
106

Johnson, T., “ Below Regulatory Concern

Wastes – Identification and Implications for

Mixed Waste Management,” in U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mixed Waste Workshop, July 19–20, 1988,

Denver, Colorado, 1988.

Kaplan, S., and B.J. Garrick, “ On the

Quantitative Definition of Risk,” Risk Analysis,

1(1):11–27, March 1981.

Kempf, C.R., D.R. MacKenzie, and B.S.

Bowerman, “ Management of Radioactive

Mixed Wastes in Commercial Low-Level

Radioactive Wastes — Draft Report for

Comment, ” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-4450, January 1986.

[Prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory.]

King, W.C., and J.J. Cohen, “ Interim Report to

the NRC on Radioactive Waste Classification

System,” Livermore, California, Lawrence

Livermore Laboratory, UCID-17497, April 18,

1977. [Prepared for the NRC.]

Klein, J.A., J.E. Mrochek, R.L. Jolley, I.W.

Osbrne-Lee, A.A. Francis, and T. Wright,

“ National Profile on Commercially Generated

Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR5938, December 1992. [Brookhaven National

Laboratory prepared report jointly sponsored by

the NRC and EPA.]

Kocher, D.C., and A.G. Croff, “ A Proposed

Classification System for High-Level and Other

Radioactive Wastes,” Oak Ridge, Tennessee,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM10289, 1987.

Lacker, D.K., Chairman/[NRC] Agreement

States, Letter to G.W. Kerr, Directorate of

Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,

“ Agr eement St a te s Requests and

Recommendations for the AEC,” Austin, Texas,

October 16, 1974.

Landa, E., “ Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings

and Their Component Radionuclides from the

Biosphere – Some Earth Science Perspectives,”

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 814, 1980.

Lauer, M.T., “ Is There Relief Ahead on the

Low-Level Waste Front? — A Look at Waste

Control Specialists in Texas,” Radwaste

Solutions, 10(4):12–16, July/August 2003.

Lawroski, S., and D. W. Moeller, “ Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards: Its Role in

Nuclear Safety,” Nuclear Safety, 20(4): 387–400,

July-August 1979.

LeMone, D.V ., R. Dodge, H. Xie, R.P.

Langford, and G.R. Keller, “ Remote Sensing of

the Sierra Blanca (Faskin Ranch) Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, Hudspeth

County, Texas,” in WM’ 02 – Proceedings of the

Waste Management 2002 Symposium, February

24–28, 2002, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia,

Inc., 2002.

Lennemann, W.L., “ United States Atomic

Energy Commission Interim Radioactive Waste

Burial Program,” in International Atomic Energy

Agency and European Nuclear Energy Agency of

the OECD, Proceedings of a Symposium on the

Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into the Ground,

May 29–June 2, 1976, Vienna, Austria, Vienna,

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1976.

Leopold, L.B., F.E. Clarke, B.B. Hanshaw, and

J.R. Balsley, “ A Procedure for Evaluating

Environmental Impact,” U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 645, 1971.

Link, S.O., K.J. King, M.Benz, W.G. Evenden,

and D.E. Robertston, "Environmental Dynamics

of Carbon-14 Near a Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Burial Ground,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6587, May 1999.

[Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory –

PNL.]
107

Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company,

“ Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Characterization: Estimated Volumes,

Radionuclide Activities, and Other

Characteristics,” Idaho Falls, Idaho Engineering

National Laboratory, DOE/LLW-114, Revision

1, September 1994. [Prepared for DOE.]

Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company,

“ Greater-Than-Class-C Sealed Sources,” Idaho

Falls, Idaho Engineering National Laboratory,

DOE/LLW-163, 3 vols., September 1994.

[Prepared for DOE.]

Long, S.W., “ The Incineration of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste,” Advisory Committee on

Nuclear Waste, NUREG-1393, June 1990.

Macbeth, P.J., D.E. Christensen, B.J. Thamer,

and G. Wehmann, “ Screening of Alternative

Methods for the Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Wastes,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CP-0308, October 1978.

[Prepared by Ford, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc.]

Mazuzan, G.T., and J.S. Walker, “ Controlling

the Atom — The Beginnings of Nuclear

Regulation 1946–1962, ” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1610, April

1997.

Metlay, P., “ Radioactive Waste Management

Policy (Appendix A-1, dated June 1981),” in

Office of Technology Assessment, “ Managing

the Nation’ s Commercial High-Level

Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-0-171,

March 1985a.

Metlay, P., “ Major Events in Radioactive Waste

Management History, 1944–81 (Appendix A-2,

dated June 1981),” in Office of Technology

Assessment, “ Managing the Nation’ s

Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste,”

U.S. Congress, OTA-0-171, March 1985b.

Meyer, G.L., “ Modeling and Analyses to

Support EPA’ s Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Standards,” in C.A. Little and L.E. Stratton,

compilers, Modeling and Low-Level Waste

Management, Proceedings of December 1–4,

1980, Workshop, Denver, Colorado, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, June 1981.

Meyer, P.D., M. Ye, S.P. Neuman, and K.J.

Cantrell, “ Combined Estimation of

Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Parameter

Uncertainty,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6843, March 2004.

Miller, W.O., and R.D. Bennett,

“ Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Wastes – Task 2c: Technical

Requirements for Earth-Mounded Concrete

Bunker Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive

Waste,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 4, October 1985.

[Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station Geotechnical

Laboratory.]

Moeller, D. W., Environmental Health,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University

Press, 1992.

Monitored Retrievable Storage Review

Commission, “ Nuclear Waste: Is There a Need

for Federal Interim Storage?,” Washington, DC,

November 1, 1989.

Morganwalp, D.W., and H.T. Buxton, editors,

U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances

Hydrology Program – Proceedings of the

Technical Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina,

March 8–12, 1999. Volume 3 – Subsurface

Contamination from Point Sources,” U.S.

Geological Sur vey Water-Resour ces

Investigations Report 99-4018-C, 1999.

National Academy of Sciences, “ The Disposal of

Radioactive Waste on Land,” Washington, DC,

Division of Earth Sciences, National Research
108

Council Publication 519, 1957.

National Academy of Sciences, “ Considerations

of Health Benefit-Cost Analysis for Activities

Involving Ionizing Radiation Exposure and

Alternatives — A Report of [the] Advisory

Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing

Radiations [BEIR],” U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA 520/4-77-003, 1977.

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and the

Atmosphere, “ Nuclear Waste Management and

the Use of the Sea – A Special Report to the

President and the Congress,” Washington, DC,

April 1984.

National Bureau of Standards, “ RadioactiveWaste Disposal in the Ocean – Recommendations

of the National Committee on Radiation

Protection,” U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 58,

August 25, 1954.

National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements, “ Managing the Disposal of LowActivity Radioactive Materials,” Bethesda,

Maryland, 2005. [NCRP Scientific Committee

87.1 on Waste and Volume Reduction.]

National Research Council, “ Radioactive Waste

Disposal into Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Waters,”

Washington, DC, Committee on Oceanography,

NAS-NRC Publication 655, 1959.

National Research Council, “ Disposal of

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Pacific Coastal

Waters,” Washington, DC, Committee on

Oceanography, NAS-NRC Publication 985,

1962.

National Research Council, “ Radioactivity in the

Environment,” Washington, DC, Committee on

Oceanography, 1971.

National Research Council, “ The Shallow Land

Burial of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated

Solid Wastes,” Washington, DC, 1976.

National Research Council, “ Decision Making in

the Environmental Protection Agency,”

Washington, DC, Vol. II, 1977.

National Research Council, “ Technical Bases for

Yucca Mountain Standards, Washington, DC,

National Academy Press, July 1995.

National Research Council, Ward Valley: An

Examination of Seven Issues in Earth Science and

Ecology, Washington, DC, National Academy

Press, 1995.

National Research Council, “ The State of

Development of Waste Forms for Mixed Wastes

– U.S. Department of Energy’ s Office of

Environmental Management, Washington, DC,

National Academy Press, 1999.

National Research Council, “ The Disposition

Dilemma – Controlling the Release of Solid

Materials from Nuclear Regulatory CommissionLicense Facilities,” Washington, DC, National

Academy Press, 2002.

National Research Council, “ Improving the

Management and Regulation of Low-Activity

Radioactive Wastes – Interim Report on Current

regulations, Inventories, and Practices,”

Washington, DC, National Academy Press,

2003.

National Research Council, “ Improving the

Management and Regulation of Low-Activity

Radioactive Wastes,” Washington, DC, National

Academy Press, 2006.

Neuder, S.M., “ Onsite Disposal of Radioactive

Waste – Guidance for Disposal by Subsurface

Burial,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG-1101, Vol. 1, March 1986.

Neuder, S.M., and W.E. Kennedy, “ Onsite

Disposal of Radioactive Waste — Methodology
109

for the Radiological Assessment of Disposal by

Subsurface Burial,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-1101, Vol. 2, February

1987.

Neuman, S.P., and P.J. Wierenga, “ A

Comprehensive Strategy of Hydrologic Modeling

and Uncertainty Analysis for Nuclear Facilities

and Sites,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6805, July 2003.

Newberry, W.F., T.A. Kerr, and D.H. Leroy,

“ Assured Storage Facilities: A New Perspective

on LLW Management,” Radwaste Magazine,

2(5):13– 22, September 1995.

Newberry, W.F., T.A. Kerr, and D.H. Leroy,

“ Assured Storage: The Most Frequently Asked

Questions,” Radwaste Magazine, 3(5):20–25,

September 1996.

New Jersey Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility Siting Board, “ Disposal

Options Report – Report to the Governor,”

Trenton, June 1999.

Nicholson, T.J., and J.D. Parrott, [compilers],

Proceedings of the Workshop on Review of Dose

Modeling Methods for Demonstration of

Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for

License Termination, NRC Headquarters,

November 13-14, 1997, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CP-0163, May 1998.

Nicholson, T.J., J.E. Babendreier, P.D. Meyer,

S. Mohanty, B. Hicks, and G. Leavesley,

editors, Proceedings of the International

Workshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity, and

Parameter Estimation for Multimedia

Environmental Modeling, NRC Headquarters,

August 19–21, 2003, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CP-0187, October 2004.

NRC Special Inquiry Group, Three Mile Island –

A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 3 vols.,

January 1980.

Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Beneficial Uses

and Production of Isotopes,” Paris, Organisation

for Economic Cooperation and Development,

1998.

Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Future Human

Actions at Disposal Sites,” Paris, France, NEA

Working Group on Assessment of Future Human

Actions at Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites,

Safety Assessment of Radioactive Waste

Repositories Series, Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development, 1991.

Nuclear Management and Resources Council,

“ A Technical Basis for Meeting the Waste Form

Stability Requirements of 10CFR61, ”

Washington, DC, NUMARC/NESP-002, April

1988. [Prepared by the Envirosphere Company

and Nuclear Waste Management, Inc.] 

Nuclear Management and Resources Council,

“ The Management of Mixed Low-Level

Radioactive Waste in the Nuclear Power

Industry,” Washington, DC, NUMARC/NESP006, January 1990. [Prepared for the National

Environmental Studies Project by Rogers and

Associates Engineering Corporation and Nuclear

Waste Management, Inc.] 

Nussbaumer, D.A., J.O. Lubenau, W.S. Cool,

L.J. Cunningham, J.R. Maples, S.A. Schwartz,

and D.A. Smith, “ Regulation of Naturally

Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive

Material – A Task Force Review,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0301, July

1977.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “ Chapter 5.

Miscellaneous Wastes,” in Characteristics of

Potential Repository Wastes, Oak Ridge,

DOE/RW-0184-R1, Vol. 2, July 1992.

O’ Donnell, E., and J. Lambert, “ Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan,”
110

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG1380, November 1989. [Prepared by RES’

Division of Engineering.]

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Radioactive

Waste Management Programmes in OECD/NEA

Member Countries,” Issy-les-Moulineaux, NEA

Radioactive Waste Management Committee,

2005. [Compendium covering radioactive waste

management practices in 20 OECD/NEA

member countries.]

Office of Technology Assessment, “ An

Evaluation of Options for Managing GreaterThan-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste –

Background Paper,” U.S. Congress, OTA-BP-0-

50, October 1988.

Office of Technology Assessment, “ Partnerships

Under Pressure: Managing Commercial LowLevel Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTAO-426, November 1989.

Ohio Department of Health, “ Radiation

Generator and Broker Reporting Requirements –

Assured Isolation Facility,” Ohio Administrative

Code – Rules of the Administrative Agencies,

Chapter 3701:1–54, September 15, 2003.

Oztunali, O.I., G.C. Ré, P.M. Moskowitz, E.D.

Picazo, and C.J. Pitt, “ Data Base for

Radioactive Waste Management – Impacts

Analysis Methodology Report,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1759, Vol.

3, November 1981. [Prepared by Dames and

Moore, Inc.]

Oztunali, O.I., and G.W. Roles, “ De Minimis

Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR3585, Vol. 1, February 1984. [Prepared by

Dames and Moore, Inc.]

Oztunali, O.I., and G.W. Roles, “ Update of Part

61 Impacts Analysis Methodology —

Methodology Report,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-4370, Vol. 1, January

1986. [Prepared by the Envirosphere Company.]

Oztunali, O.I., W.D. Pon, R. Eng, and G.W.

Roles, “ Update of Part 61 Impacts Analysis

Methodology – Codes and Example Problems,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/ CR-4370, Vol. 2, Januar y

1986.[Prepared by the Envirosphere Company.]

Papdopulos, S.S., and I.J. Winograd, “ Storage

of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Ground:

Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Factors,”

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Radiation Programs, EPA-520/3-74-009, 1974.

[Prepared by the USGS.]

Pangburn, G.C., et al., "Environmental Standard

Review Plan for the Review of a License

Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility – Environmental Report,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1300,

April 1987.

Parler, W.C., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Memorandum to Lando W. Zech,

et al., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act,” April

11, 1989.

Pittiglio, C.L., Jr., “ Review Process for LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal License

Application Under Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Amendments Act,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-1274, August 1987.

Pittiglio, C.L., Jr., R.J. Starmer, and D.

Hedges, “ Guidance on the Application of

Quality Assurance for Characterizing a LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Site: Final

Report,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG-1383, October 1990.

Pittiglio, C.L., Jr., and D. Hedges, ”Quality

Assurance Guidance for a Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Facility,” U.S. Nuclear
111

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1293,

Revision 1, April 1991.

Pittman, F.K., U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission, Letter to C. Klingsberg, National

Research Council, “ Request for a National

Research Council Committee Review of Current

AEC Radioactive Waste Land Disposal

Practices,” May 31, 1973.

Pomeroy, P.W., Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste, Letter to the Honorable Shirley Ann

Jackson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, “ Time Span for Compliance of

Proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste

Repository,” June 7, 1996.

Powers, D.A., Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safety, Letter to the Honorable Shirley Ann

Jackson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ The Role of Defense in Depth in a RiskInformed Regulatory System,” May 19, 1999.

Ratliff, R.A., B. Dornsife, V. Autry, L.

Gronemyer, J. Vaden, and T. Cashman,

“ Suggested State Requirements and Criteria for

a Low-Level Radioactive Waste-Disposal Site

Regulatory Program,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-4352, August 1985.

[Prepared by the CRCPD]

Rau, J.G., and D.C. Wooten, editors,

Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook, New

York, McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Raubvogel, R.J., “ Nuclear Waste Disposal in

the Oceans: A Current Status Report and Issues

for Congress,” Washington, DC, Congressional

Research Service, Library of Congress, 1982.

Robertson, J.B., “ Geologic Problems at LowLevel Radioactive Waste-Disposal Sites,” in

National Research Council, “ Groundwater

Contamination,” Washington, DC, National

Academy Press, Studies in Geophysics, 1984.

Robertson, D.E., M.P. Bergeron, D.A. Myers,

K.H. Abel, C.W. Thomas, D.R. Champ,

R.W.D. Killey, G. L. Moltyaner, and J.L.

Young, "Demonstration of Performance

Modeling of a Low-Level Waste Shallow-Land

Burial Site: A Comparison of Predictive

Radionuclide Transport Modeling versus Field

Observations at the Nitrate Disposal Pit Site,

Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories," U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR4879, Vol. 1, November 1987. [Prepared by

PNL.]

Robertson, D.E., M.P. Bergeron, D. Holford,

K.H. Abel, C.W. Thomas, D.A. Myers, D.R.

Champ, R.W.D. Killey, G. L. Moltyaner, J.L.

Young, and T. Ohnuki, "Demonstration of

Performance Modeling of a Low-Level Waste

Shallow-Land Burial Site: A Comparison of

Predictive Radionuclide Transport Modeling

versus Field Observations at the ‘A’ Disposal

Area, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories," U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR4879, Vol. 2, March 1989. [Prepared by PNL.]

Robertson, D.E., C.W. Thomas, S. L. Pratt,

K.H. Abel, E.A. Lepel, A.J. Schilk, E.L.

Cooper, F. Caron, K.J. King, R.W.D. Killey,

P.G. Hartwig, J.F. Mattie, M.K. Haas, E.

Romaniszyn, M. Benz, W.G. Evenden, S.O.

Link, and P. Vilks, "The Role of Organic

Complexants and Colloids in the Transport of

Radionuclides in Groundwater,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6627,

January 2000. [Prepared by PNL.]

Rogers, V.C., “ A Radioactive Waste Disposal

Classification System,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-1005, Vol. 1,

September 1979. [Prepared by Ford, Bacon, &

Davis Utah, Inc.] 

Rogers, V.C., R.D. Baird, B.C. Robertson, and

P.J. Macbeth, “ A Radioactive Waste Disposal

Classification System – The Computer Program

and Groundwater Migration Models,” U.S.
112

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR1005, Vol. 2, September 1979. [Prepared by

Ford, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc.] 

Ryan, M.T., Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste, Letter to the Honorable Nils J. Diaz,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Opportunities in the Area of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Management,” December 27,

2005.

Ryan, M.T., Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste, Letter to the Honorable Dale E. Klein,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Observations from the ACNW Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Working Group Meeting of

May 23-24, 2006,” August 16, 2006.

Schneider, R., E.H. Roseboom, Jr., J.B.

Robertson, and P.R. Stevens, “ Low-Level

Waste,” in “ U.S. Geological Survey Research in

Radioactive Waste Disposal – Fiscal Year 1979,”

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 847, 1982.

Schweitzer, D.G., and C. Sastre, “ Level of

Evidence for Reasonable Assurance Guidelines to

Prediction (Draft),” Upton, New York,

Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL-52075,

April 1987.

Shaw, R.A., “ Low-Level Radioactive Wastes in

the Nuclear Power Industry,” in Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Regulation: Science,

Politics, and Fear, Chelsea, Lewis Publishers,

1988.

Siefken, D., G. Pangburn, R. Pennifill, and R.J.

Starmer, “ Site Suitability, Selection and

Characterization – Branch Technical Position,

Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902,

April 1982.

Siskind, B., D.R. Dougherty, and D.R.

MacKenzie, “ Extended Storage of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste: Potential Problem Areas,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-4062, December 1985. [Prepared

by the Brookhaven National Laboratory.]

Smith, G.M., “ Compilation and Analysis of

Information on Critical Groups (Draft),”

Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, Intera Information

Technologies, August 1995. [Prepared for the

Electric Power Research Institute.]

Sorensen, J.N., G.E. Apostolakis, T.S. Kress,

and D.A. Powers, “ On the Role of Defense in

Depth in Risk Informed Regulation,” in

American Nuclear Society, PSA ‘99 —

Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting

on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, August

22–26, 1999, Washington, DC. [Preprint.] 

Starmer, R.J., L.G. Deering, and M.F. Weber,

“ Performance Assessment Strategy for LowLevel Waste Disposal Sites,” in 10th Annual U.S.

Department of Energy Low-Level Waste

Management Conference: Conference

Proceedings (Session II: Site Performance

Assessment), August 30 – September 1, 1988,

Denver, Colorado, EG&G Idaho,

CONF-880839-Ses.II, December 1988.

[Preprint.]

State of Texas, “ SOAH Docket No. 582-96-

1042 – Application of the Texas Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority for

License No. RW-3100 (Hudspeth County),”

Austin, State Office of Administrative Hearings,

SOAH Docket No. 5382-8601042, July 7, 1998.

[Record of decision.]

Stevens, P.R., and T.J. Nicholson, editors,

“ Joint USGS-USNRC Workshop on Research

Related to Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal, May 4–6, 1993, National Center,

Reston, Virginia,” U.S. Geological Survey,

Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4015,

1996.
113

Strauss, S.D., “ How Utilities Respond to

Radwaste Needs,” Power, 131(8):13–16, August

1987.

Tarlton, S., Hazardous Materials and Waste

Management Division, Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment, Letter to S.

Zoller, Clean Harbors Deer Trail, “ License

Amendment – Colorado Radioactive Materials

License Number Colo. 1102-01,” April 20,

2006. [Available from the CDPHE Internet web

site at http://www.cdphe.state. co.us/hm/hwy36.

htm.]

Taylor, G.M., “ Volume Reduction: Utilities

Caught in the Squeeze,” Nuclear News, 30(3):

66–70, March 1987.

Taylor, J.M., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Memorandum to Ivan M. Selin, et

al., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Strategies and Options for Encouraging the

States and Compacts to Develop New Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities,” April 23,

1993.

The White House [Richard M. Nixon, President],

“ Presidential Documents, Title 3 — The

President, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of

1970,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 194,

pp. 15623–15626, October 6, 1970.

The White House [Ronald Reagan, President],

“ Presidential Documents, Title 3 — Radiation

Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for

Occupational Exposure; Approval of

Envir onment a l Pr ote c tio n Agency

Recommendations,” Federal Register, Vol. 52,

No. 17, pp. 2822–2834, January 27, 1987.

Trask, N.J., and P.R. Stevens, “ U.S. Geological

Survey Research in Radioactive Waste Disposal

– Fiscal Years 1986–90,” U.S. Geological

Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report

91-4084, 1991.

Trigilio, G., “ Volume Reduction Techniques in

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-2006, September 1981. [Prepared

by Teknekron, Inc.]

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ AEC

Withdraws its Land Burial Sites for Licensees

(Press Release on Termination of Interim Burial

Program),” Washington, DC, Press Release F105, May 28, 1963.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Siting of

Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste

Management Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol.

35, No. 222, pp. 17530–17533, November 14,

1970.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Plan for the

Management of AEC-Generated Radioactive

Waste,” Division of Waste Management and

Transportation, WASH-1202, January 1972.

U. S. Atomic Ener gy Commission,

“ Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel

Cycle,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 222, pp.

14188–14191, April 22, 1974.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Transuranic

Waste Disposal; Proposed Standards for

Radiation Protection,” Federal Register, Vol. 39,

No. 175, pp. 32921–32922, September, 12,

1974.

U. S. Atomic Ener gy Commission,

“ Management of Commercial High Level and

Transuranium-Contaminated Radioactive Waste

— Draft Environmental Impact Statement,”

Washington, DC, WASH-1539, September 1974.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Management

 of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste

– Draft Environmental Impact Statement,”

Washington, DC, DOE/EIS-0046-D, 2 vols.,

April 1979.
114

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Management

of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste –

Final Environmental Impact Statement,” Office

of Nuclear Waste Management, DOE/EIS0046F, 3 vols., October 1980.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Recommendations

for Management of Greater-Than-Class-C LowLevel Radioactive Waste –Report to Congress in

Response to Public Law 99-240,” Assistant

Secretary for Nuclear Energy, DOE/NE-0077,

February 1987.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Strategy for

Management and Disposal of Greater-Than-Class

C Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: Notice of

Inquiry,” Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 48,

pp. 13424–13425, March 13, 1995.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Inventory and

Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials,”

in “ Final Environmental Impact Statement for a

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent

Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,”

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management, DOE/EIS-0250, Vol. II, Appendix

A, February 2002.

U. S. Department of Energy, “ Advance Notice

of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class

C Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: Advance

Notice of Intent,” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No.

90, pp. 24775–24778, May 11, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ United States of

America — Second National Report for the Joint

Convention on the Safety of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and on the Safety of Radioactive

Waste Management,” Office of Environmental

Management, DOE/EM-0654, Revision 1,

October 2005. [Prepared in cooperation with

NRC, EPA, and the Department of State.]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Part

141 — Interim Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Promulgation of Regulations on

Radionuclides,” Federal Register, Vol. 41,

No. 133, pp. 28402– 28409, July 9, 1976.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Ocean

Dumping, Final Revision of Regulations and

Criteria," Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 7,

pp. 2462–2490, January 11, 1977.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ Part

190 – Environmental Radiation Protection

Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,

Subchapter F – Radiation Protection Programs:

Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 9,

pp. 2858–2861, January 13, 1977.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Proceedings of a Public Forum on Environmental

Protection Criteria for Radioactive Wastes,

March 30–April 1, 1978, Denver, Colorado,

Office of Radiation Programs, ORP/CSD-78-2,

May 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Improving Government Regulations, ”

Washington, DC, July 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Recommendations for Federal Radiation

Guidance, Criteria for Radioactive Wastes,”

Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 221, pp. 53262–

53268, November 15, 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Addition of Radionuclides to List of

Hazardous Pollutants: Addition to List of

Hazardous Pollutants,” Federal Register, Vol.

44, No. 249, pp. 76738– 76746, December 27,

1979.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Hazardous Waste Management System:

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
115

[Final Rule, Interim Final Rule, and Request for

Comments]," Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98,

pp. 33084–33133, May 19, 1980.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Withdrawal of Proposed Regulations,” Federal

Register, Vol. 46, No. 53, pp. 17567–17568,

March 19, 1981.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards

for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,"

Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 170, p. 39563,

August 31, 1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Environmental Standards for Uranium and

Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial

Processing Sites: Final Rule,” Federal Register,

Vol. 48, No. 196, pp. 45926–45947, October 7,

1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Environmental Standards for the Management

and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level

and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes: Final

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 182, pp.

38066– 38089, September 19, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ LowLevel and NARM Radioactive Wastes — Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed

Rules. Volume 1 — Background Information

Document,” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA

520/1-87-012-1, June 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ PRESTO-EPA: A Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Environmental Transport and Risk

Assessment Code – Methodology and User’ s

Manual,” Washington, DC, EPA-D-89-F-000-

60, April 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ A

Guide for Determining Compliance with the

Clean Air Act Standards for Radionuclide

Emissions from NRC-Licensed and Non-DOE

Federal Facilities,” Office of Radiation and

Indoor Air, EPA 520/1-89-002, Revision 2,

October 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Radionuclides: Final Rule and Notice

of Reconsideration,” Federal Register, Vol.

54, No. 240, pp. 51654–51715, December 15,

1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Guidance on Implementing the Radionuclide

NESHAPS,” Office of Radiation Programs, July

1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ National Emission Standards for Radionuclide

Emissions from Facilities Licensed by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal

Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H: Final

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 251, pp.

68972–68981, December 30, 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Evaluation of EPA’ s Guidelines for

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring

Radioactive Materials (TENORM) – Report to

Congress,” EPA 402-R-00-01, June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Radiation Protection at EPA — The First 30

Years,” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 402-

B-00-001, August 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;

Radionuclides: Final Rule,” Federal Register,

Vol. 65, No. 236, pp. 76708–76753, December

7, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and

Disposal of Mixed Wastes: Final Rule,” Federal
116

Register, Vol. 66, No. 95, pp. 27218–27266,

May 16, 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Approaches to an Integrated Framework for

Management and Disposal of Low-Activity

Waste: Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol. 68, No.

222, pp. 65119–65151, November 18, 2003.

EPA Science Advisory Board, “ Report on the

March 1985 Draft Background Information

Document for Proposed Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Standards,” Office of Radiation Programs,

EPA Report SAB-RAC-85-002, November 1985.

U. S. Gener a l Ac counting Offi ce,

“ Improvements Needed in the Land Disposal of

Radioactive Wastes – A Problem of Centuries,”

Washington, DC, RCED-76-54, January 1976.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Nuclear

Energy’ s Dilemma: Disposing of Hazardous

Radioactive Waste Safely,” Washington, DC,

EMD-77-41, September 9, 1977.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Hazards of

Past Low-Level Radioactive Waste Ocean

Dumping Have Been Overemphasized,”

Washington, DC, EMD-82-9, 1981.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Regional

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites –

Progress Being Made But New Sites Will

Probably Not Be Ready by 1986,” Washington,

DC, GAO/RCED-83-48, April 1983.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Slow

Progress Developing Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Sites,” Washington, DC,

GAO/RCED-92-61, January 1992.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ New

York’ s Adherence to Site Selection Procedures

Is Unclear,” Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-92-

172, August 1992.

U. S. General Accounting Office, “ Interior’ s

Review of the Proposed Transfer of the Ward

Valley Waste Site,” Washington, DC,

GAO/RCED-97-184, July 1997.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Low-Level

Radioactive Waste – States Are Not Developing

Disposal Facilities,” Washington, DC,

GAO/RCED-99-238, September 1999.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Low-Level

Radioactive Waste — Disposal Availability

Adequate in the Short Term, But Oversight

Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls,”

Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-04-604, June

2004.

U.S. General Accountability Office, “ Improved

Guidance, Oversight, and Planning Are Needed

to Better Identify Cost-Saving Alternatives for

Managing Low-Level Radioactive Waste,”

Washington, DC, GAO-06-94, October 2005.

U. S. General Accountability Office,

“ Examination of Best Practices to Improve LowLevel Radioactive Waste Management in the

United States: Announcement,” Washington,

DC, November 8, 2005. [Press release.]

U.S. General Services Administration, “ Federal

Advisory Committee Management: Final Rule,”

Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 139, pp. 37728–

37750, July 19, 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Final

Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of

Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light

Water Cooled Reactors [GESMO] – Health,

Safety, and the Environment,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0002,

5 vols., August 1976.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LowLevel Waste Disposal – Task Force Report,”

Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 47,

pp. 13366–13370, March 10, 1977.
117

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ NRC

Task Force Report on Review of the

Federal/State Programs for Regulation of

Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial

Grounds,” Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, Office of State Programs, NUREG0217, March 1977. [NUREG-0217 also includes

an analysis of public comments on the report

published as a supplement and dated October

1977.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear

Power Plants (1975),” Office of Management

Information and Program Control, NUREG0218, March 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ The

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Management Program,”

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, NUREG-0240, September 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Final

Recommendations of the Task Force on

Regulation of Naturally Occurring and

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials

(NARM),” Commission Paper (Commissioner

Action), SECY-78-211, April 14, 1978.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Management and Disposal of Low-Level

Wastes by Shallow Land Burial and Alternative

Disposal Methods: Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol.

43, No. 207, pp. 49811–49812, October 25,

1978.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ NRC

Act i on on N A RM T a s k F o r c e

Recommendation,” Commission Paper (Policy

Session Item), SECY-78-667, December 18,

1978.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Branch

Technical Position – Low-Level Waste Burial

Ground Site Closure and Stabilization,” Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, LowLevel Waste Branch, Revision 1, May 17, 1979.

[Reproduced as Appendix I in Volume 4 of

NUREG-0782.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste

Activities – Summary Report to Congress on

Extending the Nuclear Regulator y

Commission’ s Licensing or Regulatory

Authority to Federal Radioactive Waste Storage

and Disposal Activities,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0527,

September 1979. [Includes separate summary.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste;

Availability of Preliminary Draft Regulation:

Notice of Availability of Preliminary Draft

Regulation 10 CFR Part 61 for Disposal of LowLevel Radioactive Waste,” Federal Register,

Vol. 45, No. 41, pp. 13104–13106, February 28,

1980.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Biomedical Waste Disposal: Final Rule,”

Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 47,

pp. 16230–16234, March 11, 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Burial of

Radioactive Waste: Proposed Rulemaking,”

Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 142,

pp. 38081–38105, July 24, 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Draft

Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part

61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0782,

4 vols., September 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Policy

Statement on Low-Level Waste Volume

Reduction,” Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 200,
118

p. 51101, October 16, 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Storage

of Low-Level Radioactive Waste at Power

Reactor Sites,” Executive Director for

Operations, Generic Letter 81-38, November 10,

1981. [Issued to all holders of and applicants for

operating licenses and construction permits.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Final

Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part

61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0945,

November 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste: Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 47, No. 248, pp. 57446–57248,

December 27, 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Technical Position on Radioactive Waste

Classification,” Low-Level Waste Licensing

Branch, Revision 0, May 11, 1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Technical Position on Waste Form,” LowLevel Waste Licensing Branch, Revision 0,

May 11, 1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in

Geologic Repositories: Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 48, No. 120, pp. 28194–28229,

June 21, 1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Report for Near-Surface Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste,” Regulatory Guide 4.18,

June 1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Branch

Technical Position Statement on Licensing of

Alternative Methods of Disposal for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste: Draft Technical Position

Statement; Requests for Comments,” Federal

Register, Vol. 51, No. 44, pp. 7806–7811,

March 6, 1986.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern:

Policy Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 51,

No. 168, pp. 30839–30847, August 29, 1986.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Below Regulatory Concern — A Guide to the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’ s Policy on the

Exemption of Very Low-Level Radioactive

Materials, Wastes, and Practices,” NUREG/BR0157, [1986].

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Definition of ‘High-Level Radioactive Waste’ :

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”

Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 39, pp. 5992–

6001, February 27, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility;

Availability and Request for Public Comments on

a Branch Technical Position Paper Concerning

Environmental Monitoring: Request for Public

Comments,” Federal Register, Vol. 52,

No. 214, pp. 42486–42487, November 5, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

"Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced

Radioactive Materials,” Commission Paper

(Policy Issue/Notation Vote), SECY-88-64,

March 2, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste;

Establishment,” Federal Register, Vol. 53,

No. 80, p. 14872, April 26, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: Proposed

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 96,
119

pp. 17709–17711, May 18, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Criteria

and Procedures for Emergency Access to NonFederal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal

Facilities: Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol.

54, No. 22, pp. 5409–5424, February 3, 1989.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: Final Rule,”

Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 100, pp. 22578–

22583, May 25, 1989.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Regulating the Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste — A Guide to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’ s 10 CFR Part 61,”

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, NUREG/BR-0121, August 1989.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Below

Regulatory Concern: Policy Statement,” Federal

Register, Vol. 55, No. 128, pp. 27522–27537,

July 3, 1990.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Standard Format and Content of a License

Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility,” Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, Division of Low-Level

Waste Management and Decommissioning,

NUREG-1199, Revision 2, January 1991.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Technical Position on Waste Form,”

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and

Decommissioning, Revision 1, January 1991.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Standards for Protection Against Radiation:

Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 98,

pp. 23360–23474, May 21, 1991.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LowLevel Radioactive Waste Performance

Assessment Development Program Plan,”

Commission Paper, SECY-92-060, February 21,

1992.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes: Proposed Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 57, No. 45, pp. 8093–8096,

March 6, 1992.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LowLevel Waste Shipment Manifest Information and

Reporting: Proposed Rule,” Federal Register,

Vol. 57, No. 77, pp. 14500–14514, April 21,

1992.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Characterization of Discrete NARM and

Evaluation of the Need to Seek Legislation

Extending NRC Authority to Discrete NARM,”

Commission Paper (Policy Issue/Negative

Consent), SECY-92-325, September 22, 1992.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes: Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 58, No. 118, pp. 33886–33890,

June 22, 1993.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Withdrawal of Below Regulatory Concern

Policy Statement: Withdrawal of Policy

Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 162,

pp. 44610–44611, August 24, 1993.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

"Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking to

Establish Procedures and Criteria for On-Site

Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste After

January 1, 1996,” Commission Paper, SECY-93-

323, November 29, 1993.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Standard Review Plan for the Review of a

License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Facility,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of
120

Low-Level Waste Management and

Decommissioning, NUREG-1200, Revision 2,

January 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Review

of Existing Guidance Concerning the Extended

Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,”

Commission Paper (Policy Issue/Information),

SECY-94-198, August 1, 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Land

Ownership Requirements for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Sites: Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol.

59, No. 148, pp. 39485–39486, August 3, 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Branch

Technical Position on Concentration Averaging

and Encapsulation,” Division of Waste

Management, January 17, 1995.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LowLevel Waste Shipment Manifest Information and

Reporting: Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol.

60, No. 58, pp. 15649–15667, March 27, 1995.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Alternatives to Terminating the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Program, Commission Paper,

SECY-95-201, July 31, 1995.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Portland

General Electric Company; Receipt of Petition

for Rulemaking: Petition for Rulemaking; Notice

of Receipt,” Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 22,

pp. 3619–3621, February 1, 1996.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1437,

Vol. 1, May 1996.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Regulatory Issues in Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Performance Assessment,” Commission

Paper, SECY-96-103, May 17, 1996.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Strategic Planning Framework,” Washington,

DC, September 16, 1996. [Release date.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Availability of Draft Branch Technical Position

on a Performance Assessment Methodology for

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facilities: Availability of Draft Branch Technical

Position,” Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 103,

pp. 29164–29165, May 29, 1997.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Interim

Storage for Greater-Than-Class C Waste,

Changes to 10 CFR Part 72,” Commission

Paper, SECY-97-056, March 5, 1997.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Petition

for Envirocare of Utah to Possess Special

Nuclear Material in Excess of Current

Regulatory Limits,” Commission Paper, SECY98-010, January 20, 1998.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ An

Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk

Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on PlantSpecific Changes to the Current Licensing

Basis,” Regulatory Guide 1.74, June 1998.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Compatibility of Agreement State Programs

that Prohibit the Disposal of Mixed Waste,”

Commission Paper, SECY-99-049, February 12,

1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ A

Performance Assessment Methodology for LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities —

Recommendations of NRC’ s Performance

Assessment Working Group,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1573,

October 2000.
121

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Partial Response to SRM COMEXM-00-0002

– Expansion of NRC Statutory Authority over

Medical Use of Naturally Occurring and

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials

(NARM), ” Commission Paper (Policy

Issue/Information), SECY-01-0057, March 29,

2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Interim

Storage for Greater-Than-Class C Waste: Final

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 197,

pp. 51823–51841, October 11, 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SECY02-0127 – Proposed Response to State of Ohio on

its Assured Isolation Storage Facility Draft

Rules,” Staff Requirements Memorandum,

September 5, 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Rulemaking Plan: Assured Isolation

Facilities,” Commission Paper (Policy

Issue/Notation Vote), SECY-03-0223, December

24, 2003.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SECY03-0223 — Rulemaking Plan: Assured Isolation

Facilities,” Staff Requirements Memorandum,

January 29, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Options

and Recommendations for the Potential Role of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission During the

Development of the Department of Energy

Environmental Impact Statement on Disposal of

Greater-Than-Class-C Radioactive Waste,”

Commission Paper (Policy Issue/Notation Vote),

SECY-05-0104, June 13, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ SECY05-0104 – Options and Recommendations for the

Potential Role of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission During the Development of the

Department of Energy Environmental Impact

Statement on Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C

Radioactive Waste,” Staff Requirements

Memorandum, June 30, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Improving Transparency in the 10 CFR

20.2002 Process,” Commission Paper (Policy

Issue/Notation Vote), SECY-06-0056, March 9,

2006.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Proposed Rule: Requirements for Expanded

Definition of Byproduct Material,” Commission

Paper (Rulemaking Issue/Notation Vote), SECY06-0069, March 27, 2006.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Request

for Comments on the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’ s Low Level Radioactive Waste

Program," Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 130,

pp. 38675–38676, July 7, 2006.

U.S. Radiation Policy Council, “ Report of

the Task Force on Low-Level Radioactive Waste

– Position Paper,” Washington, DC, RPC-80-

004, August 15, 1980.

U.S. Radiation Policy Council, “ Progress Report

and Preliminary 1981-83 Agenda,” Washington,

DC, RPC-80-001, September 30, 1980.

Voth, M.H., and W.F. Witzig, “ A Model of

Economic Incentives for Volume Reduction of

Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” Nuclear and

Chemical Waste Management, 6:213–221, 1986.

Walker, J.S., Permissible Dose — A History of

Radiation Protection in the Twentieth

Century, Berkeley, University of California

Press, 2000.

Warriner, J.B., and R.D. Bennett, “ Alternative

Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive

Wastes — Task 2a: Technical Requirements for

Below-Ground Vault Disposal of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-3774, Vol. 2, October
122

1985. [Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station Geotechnical

Laboratory.]

Washington State Department of Health,

“ Final Environmental Impact Statement –

Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Site, Richland, Washington,” Olympia,

DOH Publication 320-031, Vol. 1, May 28,

2004. [FEIS published in five volumes.]

Wescott, R. G., “ Consequences of Human

Intrusion,” in T.J. McCartin and M.P. Lee,

editors, “ Preliminary Performance-Based

Analyses Relevant to Dose-Based Performance

Measures for a Proposed Geologic Repository at

Yucca Mountain,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-1538, December 2001.

Whelan, G., and T. Nicholson, editors,

Proceedings of the Environmental Software

Systems Compatibility and Linkage Workshop,

NRC Headquarters, March 7–9, 2000, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CP0177, May 2002.

Yalcintas, M.G., and D.G. Jacobs, compilers,

Proceedings of the Symposium of Low-Level

Waste Disposal – Site Suitability Requirements,

Crystal City, Virginia, December 8–9, 1981,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CP-0028, Vol. 1, September 1982.

[Proceedings prepared by ORNL.] 

Yalcintas, M.G., compiler, Proceedings of the

Symposium of Low-Level Waste Disposal – Site

Characterization and Monitoring, Arlington,

Virginia, June 16–17, 1982, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CP-0028, Vol.

2, December 1982. [Proceedings prepared by

ORNL.] 

Yalcintas, M.G., compiler, Proceedings of the

Symposium of Low-Level Waste Disposal –

Facility Design, Construction, and Operating

Practices, Washington, D.C., September 29–30,

1982, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CP-0028, Vol. 3, March 1983.

[Proceedings prepared by ORNL.]
A-1

APPENDIX A

MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT-GENERATED LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

A-1 INTRODUCTION

1

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (AEA), the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE or the Department) is responsible for

research and development (R&D) and defense

production involving nuclear materials, as well as

for managing those materials in a manner that

protects public health and safety. Before DOE,

this responsibility fell first to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers in the 1940s and then to the

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) during the

Cold War era.

 

Nearly every step in the production of materials

and parts for nuclear weapons generates

radioactive waste and other radioactive byproduct

materials. Government-generated radioactive

wastes have been produced at more than 50

current and former DOE R&D and weapons

production facilities located around the United

States. Some of these wastes include spent

nuclear fuel (SNF), liquid high-level radioactive

waste (HLW), low-level radioactive waste

(LLW), and transuranic (TRU) radioactive

waste. Cleanup activities associated with the

decommissioning of certain DOE facilities has

also produced LLW in the form of contaminated

soil, debris from dismantled facilities, and other

scrap materials. A significant proportion of

Government-generated LLW is contaminated

with chemically-hazardous materials and are

considered chemically mixed LLW (MLLW). A

1999 National Research Council report (p. 25)

estimated that between 50 and 80 percent of DOE

LLW is chemically mixed.

The AEA assigned the initial responsibility for

the management of Government-generated

radioactive wastes to the AEC. Successor

agencies, including the Energy Research and

Development Administration and most recently

DOE, have continued this stewardship.

Consistent with the AEA, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not regulate

Government-generated radioactive wastes; DOE

(and its predecessor agencies) self-regulate these

wastes. However, the AEA does require that

DOE keep radionuclide emissions from its

facilities as low as reasonably achievable

(ALARA). The Department is also required to

meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) radionuclide airborne emission standards

called for in the Clean Air Act of 1977, as

amended. Congressional passage of the Federal

Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA)

subjected DOE radioactive mixed waste

management activities to additional Federal

regulation. See Table A-1. 

A-2 LLW MANAGEMENT

Like the NRC, DOE (1999, p. IV-1) defines

LLW by identifying what it is not. Specifically,

DOE defines LLW in the following manner:

“ radioactive waste that is not

high-level radioactive waste,

spent nuclear fuel, transuranic

waste, byproduct material (as

defined in section 11e.(2) of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended), or naturally occurring

radioactive material....”

Initially, the AEC operated the only LLW

disposal facilities for both commercial and

Government wastes. Government wastes were

disposed of on site, at the point of generation, or

 As with commercial LLW, much has been written 1

about the management of Government-owned LLW. This

appendix briefly reviews how DOE manages those wastes.

For additional information, see http://web.em.doe.gov/

doclistb.html.
A-2

Table A-1 Legal Authorities for the Management and Disposal of DOE LLW

Statute Responsibility Guidance / Regulations

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Authorizes DOE to self-regulate the management of its

radioactive wastes.

DOE Order 435.1 and Manual

435.1-1 (for LLW)

Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended

(CAA)

EPA adds radionuclides to the list of hazardous air

pollutants under the CAA. 

40 CFR Part 61 

Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992

(FFCA)

Requires Federal agencies to comply with same

environmental regulations as non-Federal agencies.

Authorizes EPA to enforce RCRA regulations at DOE

facilities for the chemically hazardous constituents of its

radioactive wastes.

Public Law 102–386

Resource Conservation Recovery Act of

1976 (RCRA)

Authorizes EPA to control wastes that are dangerous or

potentially harmful to human health or the environment.

Subtitle C of the RCRA regulations establishes a "cradle to

grave" system for controlling hazardous waste from the

time it is generated to when it is ultimately disposed.

States can be authorized to implement their own RCRA

programs in place of those of the EPA.

40 CFR Parts 260 through 279 

The Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA)

Authorizes Federal agencies to respond directly to

releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances

that may endanger public health or the environment.

Includes requirements for both short- and long-term actions

to permanently and significantly reduce the dangers

associated with releases or threats of releases of

hazardous substances. The act requires that cleanup

remedies be permanent and, to the extent practicable, cost

effective. EPA administers these requirements through its

Superfund Program. *

Chapter 103 of U.S. Code Title 42

* CERCLA disposal facilities do not require RCRA permits.

off site, at other AEC locations. When

commercial disposal facilities began to operate,

the AEC shipped some of its wastes to those

facilities in an attempt to encourage and sustain

their development (DOE, 2000; p. 1-2).

Following shutdowns of and disposal restrictions

at commercial sites in 1979, the Department

issued a policy statement directing all field

offices to cease using those facilities and to begin

using sites within the greater DOE complex.

However, only 6 of the 20 major DOE waste

generators had some type of waste disposal

capability (U.S. General Accounting Office –

GAO, 2000, pp. 8–9). Any site within the

greater DOE complex unable to dispose of its

wastes was to negotiate with other field offices

for offsite disposal or was to request access to a

commercial facility. 2

To provide a comprehensive decisionmaking

framework for managing its wastes and meeting

its regulatory responsibilities, DOE prepared

programmatic, as well as site-specific,

environmental impact statements as required by

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA). As part of the NEPA process, DOE

analyzed four different waste types – HLW,

LLW, TRU waste, and MLLW – and reviewed

 GAO (2000) describes this process.

2
A-3

alternatives disposal options for each waste type.

This analysis also included preparing an

inventory of Government-owned LLW (Goyette,

1995). Two DOE reports (1997b and 1998b)

discuss these NEPA decisions. The Department

subsequently designated Hanford, Washington,

and the Nevada Test Site as regional disposal

sites for both LLW and MLLW because these

sites had the greatest flexibility in terms of the

types and amounts of wastes that they could

receive. To the extent practicable, the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory

(New Mexico), the Oak Ridge Reservation

(Tennessee), and the Savannah River Site (South

Carolina) would continue to dispose of their own

LLW. 

In 1993, DOE resumed the use of commercial

facilities for the disposal of some of its LLW and

MLLW. The Department permits the use of

commercial disposal facilities when the use of

existing DOE facilities is not practical or when a

situation-specific cost-benefit analysis favors nonDOE site disposal. See Guevara (2001). The

NRC, or comparable Agreement State programs,

regulates DOE LLW disposed of at commercial

LLW sites.

The National Safety Council (2002) describes

DOE’ s current LLW management program.

A-2.1 DOE Waste Management Orders

The Department employs management and

operating contractors to run its facilities, and

DOE field managers oversee daily operations.

To ensure consistent management of its facilities,

the Department has relied on “ orders” (i.e.,

policies, guidelines, and minimum requirements)

supplemented by implementing “ manuals,”

which provide specific implementation

instructions The orders do not have the same

legal authority as Government regulations

published in the Code of Federal Regulations;

rather, the orders represent the key contractual

requirements each facility operator must meet for

the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal

of wastes at a particular site (to the extent the

service contract specifies particular orders).

DOE headquarters staff prepares the orders,

which are then implemented by Department field

managers who directly oversee the various

contractors and subcontractors that manage those

sites. The first DOE radioactive waste

management order was issued in August 1982.

See DOE (1982). Since then, the Department

has released several revisions, the most recent in

July 1999. Order 435.1, “ Radioactive Waste

Management” (DOE, 1999a), covers all

Government-owned HLW, LLW, TRU waste,

and the radioactive components of MLLW.

The Department automatically reviews its orders

every 2 years to determine whether they should

be continued, revised, or cancelled [DOE, 1998,

[page 42013 of Volume 63 of the Federal

Register published August 6, 1998 (63 FR

42013)]. Consistent with this policy, DOE had

begun to review Order 5820.2A (DOE, 1988) in

the early 1990s. Order 5820.2A was not unlike

Title 10, Part 61, “ Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste” (10 CFR

Part 61) in that it shared many of the same

performance objectives and other prescriptive

requirements found in the NRC LLW regulation.

See International Technology Corporation (1991)

for a comparison of these two sets of

requirements. Following an independent review

of DOE’ s LLW management programs, the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB

or the Board) issued Recommendation 94-2 (also 3

known as DNFSB 94-2), “ Conformance with

Safety Standards at DOE Low-Level Nuclear

Waste and Disposal Sites” to the Secretary of

Energy (DNFSB, 1994). They recommended

that the Department undertake a comprehensive,

 Congress established the DNFSB as an independent 3

Federal agency in 1988. Pursuant to the AEA, the Board

provides safety oversight of the DOE nuclear weapons

complex.
A-4

complex-wide review of its LLW management

programs in response to questions concerning the

performance of various DOE field offices in

complying with the then applicable Order

5820.2A. For example, the DNFSB noted that

none of the site-specific performance assessments

stipulated in that order had been completed and

approved. The Board observed that such

performance assessments were necessary to

evaluate compliance with standing DOE orders

and other applicable statutes.

As a first step in responding to DNFSB 94-2, the

Secretary of Energy directed the Department to

prepare a program management plan for its LLW

and MLLW programs; DOE issued that plan in

March 1997 (DOE, 1997a). The Department

also committed to continued reliance on an

oversight and peer review panel. Following the 4

DNFSB review, DOE also issued a proposed

revision to Order 5820.2A (Order 435.1) in

August 1998 (DOE, 1998). In July 1999, after a

public comment period, DOE issued its revised

radioactive waste management order and the

associated implementing manual. 5

A-2.2 DOE Order 435.1 

When revising Order 5820.2A, DOE emphasized

performance-based requirements. The current

Order 435.1 contains three basic performance

objectives (i.e., radiological dose criteria) that

are intended to protect the public, workers, and

the environment (DOE, 1999a, p. 3). Using

performance assessment methods, this order calls

for compliance with those dose criteria for a time

period of 1000 years following disposal facility

closure (DOE, 1999b, p. IV-11). In addition,

implementing Manual 435.1-1 specifies a

separate human intruder scenario analysis (Op

cit., p. IV-12. Also see Table A-2). By relying 6

on a performance-based directive, DOE field

managers have the flexibility to determine the

quality and quantity of waste that can be disposed

of at a particular site, design a particular disposal

facility given a particular site and waste

inventory, and in consideration of the

aforementioned, to decide whether an extended

caretaker period (with institutional controls) will

be necessary beyond 100 years. "

7

As the NRC did when developing the 10 CFR

Part 61 dose requirements (see Section 7.4 of this

report), DOE also relied on the recommendations

of the International Commission on Radiological

Protection (ICRP) in Publication 26 (1977) to

develop its radiological compliance

(performance) criteria. DOE radiation protection

exposure standards for the public, Order 5400.5,

“ Radiation Protection of the Public and the

Environment” (DOE, 1990), incorporates these

criteria. The DOE standards permit a total

exposure of 100 millirem per year (mrem/yr) in

the form of an effective dose equivalent to an

individual member of the public from all sources.

 The order also included a provision for the use of an 4

oversight and peer review panel to evaluate those

performance assessments to ensure consistency throughout

the Department. An LLW Disposal Facility Federal

Review Group (LFRG) superseded this panel and assumed

expanded responsibilities. See LFRG (2000).

 The DOE Record of Decision for the public 5

comments received on Order 435.1 can be found at

http://web.em.doe.gov/em30/pubsum16.html.

 DOE (1996) provides guidance on the Department’ s

6

expectations for the conduct of LLW performance

assessments. This guidance is also supported by a

“ critical assumptions” document (Alm, 1997) that

describes the Department’ s views on key performance

assessment policy issues. 

In addition, Appendix D to this report discusses the NRC

staff’ s views on the LLW performance assessment

process, as well as certain key performance assessment

policy issues.

 DOE (1999b, p. IV-12) currently assumes a 100-year

7

caretaker period for its LLW and MLLW sites. However,

the radiological and chemical risks posed by some DOE

disposal sites may extend well beyond 100 years and thus

may entail longer-term stewardship by the Department.

See National Research Council (2000).
A-5

Table A-2 Dose Guidelines for DOE LLW Disposal Facilities

Receptor

(Point of Compliance)

Pathway Compliance Criterion Reference

Public All Pathways not to exceed 100 mrem/yr whole-body exposure

from all sources a

DOE (1990, p. II-1)

not to exceed 25 mrem/yr whole-body exposure

from disposal unit b

DOE (1999b, p. IV-10)

Air Pathway not to exceed 10 mrem/yr whole-body exposure

from disposal unit b

DOE (1999b, p. IV-10 )

c

Ingestion Pathway not to exceed 4 mrem/yr DOE (1990, p. II-5) d

Hypothetical

Inadvertent 

Intruder

All Pathways 100 mrem/yr from chronic exposure DOE (1999b, p. IV-12) b

500 mrem/yr from single acute exposure DOE (1999b, p. IV-12) b

Worker All Pathways 5 rem/yr whole-body exposure from all sources DOE (1993) e 

Environment Air Pathway for radon gas (radon-220 and radon-222), average

flux at surface of disposal unit not to exceed an

average of 20 pCi/m /s 2 b

DOE (1999b, pp. IV-10 – IV-1l)

a. Required for the composite analysis DOE (1999b, p. IV-12).

b. Required for the performance assessment DOE (1999b, pp. IV-12 – IV-13).

c. See also EPA (1979).

d. Drinking water.

e. Defined by DOE as a “general employee.”

Of this total, only 25 mrem/yr can result from

exposure from the operation of an LLW disposal

facility. Furthermore, only 10 mrem/yr can

result from inhalation exposures, and exposures

from drinking water provided by a public supply

at the site are limited to 4 mrem/yr. In addition,

all radiological exposures must be consistent with

the NRC’ s ALARA principle. Permissible

levels of radioactivity would, therefore, depend

on the ability of the disposal system (i.e., the site

and design) to contain the radioactive material.

A-2.3 DOE Manual 435.1-1

DOE retained many of the more prescriptive

requirements previously found in Order

5820.2A, but relocated them in the revision of

the implementing manual for Order 435.1.

Chapter IV of the updated manual (DOE M

435.1-1) specifically addresses the management

of LLW (DOE, 1999b). Similar to the NRC

10 CFR Part 61 regulation, DOE Manual 435.1-

1 emphasizes an integrated-systems approach to

LLW management and disposal, including

consideration of site selection, facility design and

operation, waste acceptance and waste form

requirements, and disposal facility closure. To

ensure effective management of DOE wastes, the

manual focuses on the front end of the LLW life

cycle by including provisions for waste

generation planning (i.e, waste minimization),

waste characterization, tr ansportation

requirements, and waste certification. These

requirements ensure that the site, including

appropriate design and minimum waste

acceptance criteria, can operate safely and

comply with all applicable regulations, both

during facility operation and after site closure.
A-6

In addition to a site-specific performance

assessment, DOE must conduct a site-specific

composite radiological analysis that accounts for

any sources of radioactive material not disposed

of in the LLW disposal facility, particularly those

materials that are left in situ and may contribute

to a projected dose to hypothetical receptors.

Similar to the performance assessment for the

LLW disposal facility itself, the DOE dose

standards permit a total exposure of 100 mrem/yr

in the form of an effective dose equivalent to an

individual member of the public from all sources.

However, if the performance assessment results

exceed 30 mrem/yr, DOE requires additional

analysis or efforts to reduce and/or control the

potential for exposure.

A-2.4 Other DOE LLW Management

Requirements

This appendix summarizes the DOE approach to

managing LLW, which is complicated by the

need to comply with other Federal regulations

(see Table A-1). For example, as previously

noted, a significant proportion of LLW is

contaminated with materials that are also

chemically hazardous. Before 1987, the

Department took the position that EPA’ s RCRA

regulations did not apply to chemically mixed

radioactive wastes (GAO, 1994, p. 18).

However, since 1987, DOE has managed the

hazardous components of MLLW in a manner

consistent with those regulations. Depending on

the RCRA-listed substance, a National Research

Council report (1999, p. 25) estimates that this

could affect between 50 and 80 percent of DOE

MLLW. Before disposal, these wastes will

require some level of pretreatment (i.e.,

stabilization) to meet the applicable disposal

standards. See National Research Council

(1999). Challenging the Department’ s ability to

manage its LLW and MLLW inventory is the

need to decide on an optimal (pretreated) waste

form that satisfies both RCRA disposal

requirements and standing DOE waste

management orders. See GAO (2000a, 2000b,

2001, 2005).

A-3 REFERENCES

Alm, A. L., Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Management, U.S. Department of

Energy, Letter to the Honorable J.T. Conway,

Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board, “ Critical Assumptions Used in DOE

LLW Disposal Facility Performance

Assessments,” March 7, 1997.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

“ Recommendation 94-2 to the Secretary of

Energy, ‘Conformance with Safety Standards at

DOE Low-Level Nuclear Waste and Disposal

Sites,’ ” Washington, DC, September 8, 1994.

Goyette, M.L., “ Low-Level Waste Inventory,

Characteristics, Generation, and Facility

Assessment for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Alternatives Considered in the U.S. Department

of Energy Waste Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement,” Chicago,

Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM20 (DRAFT), April 1995. [Prepared for DOE.]

Guevara, K. “ What is the Cost for DOE LowLevel Waste Disposal,” in WM’ 01–Proceedings

of the Waste Management 2001 Symposium,

February 25–March 1, 2001, Tucson, Arizona,

WM Symposia, Inc., 2001. 

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological

Protection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, No. 3,

1977. [ICRP Publication 26.] 

International Technology Corporation, “ Draft

Comparative Analysis of DOE Order 5820.2A,

NRC, and EPA Radioactive and Mixed Waste

Management Requirements, ” Denver,

Radioactive Waste Technical Support Program,

DOE/LLW-111, July 1991.

Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal

Review Group, “ Low-Level Waste Disposal

Facility Federal Review Group Program
A-7

Management Plan,” U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Environmental Management,

September 18, 2000.

National Research Council, “ The State of

Development of Waste Forms for Mixed Wastes

– U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management, Washington, DC,

National Academy Press, 1999.

National Research Council, “ Long-Term

Institutional Management of U.S. Department of

Energy Legacy Waste Sites,” Washington, DC,

National Academy Press, 2000.

National Safety Council, “ A Guide to the U.S.

Department of Energy’ s Low-Level Radioactive

Waste,” Washington, DC, Environmental Health

Center, January 2002. [Prepared in cooperation

with DOE.]

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order] 5820,

“ Requirements for Low-Level Waste

Management,” Office of Defense Waste and

Transportation Management, August 26, 1982.

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order]

5820.2A, “ Radioactive Waste Management,”

Office of Defense Waste and Transportation

Management, September 26, 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order]

5400.5, “ Radiation Protection of the Public and

the Environment,” Office of Environmental

Safety and Health, February 8, 1990. [Change

2 dated January 7, 1993.]

U.S. Department of Energy,“ Occupational

Radiation Protection: Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 58, No. 238, pp. 65485–65512,

December 14, 1993.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Interim Format

and Content Guide and Standard Review Plan for

U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste

Disposal Facility Performance Assessments,”

Office of Environmental Management, October

31, 1996.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ DOE Low-Level

Waste Management Plan,” Office of

Environmental Management, DOE/LLW/PMP001, Revision 0, March 1997.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Final Waste

Management Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement for Managing, Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and

Hazardous Waste,” Office of Environmental

Management, DOE/EIS-0200-F, May 1997.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Notice of

Availability; Draft DOE Order and Manual on

Radioactive Waste Management,” Federal

Register, Vol. 63, No. 151, pp. 42012–42013,

August 6, 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Information

Package on Pending Low-Level Waste and

Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal Decisions to

Be Made Under the Final Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,”

Office of Environmental Management,

September 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Order] 435.1,

“ Radioactive Waste Management,” Office of

Environmental Management, July 9, 1999.

[Change 1 dated August 28, 2001.]

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE [Manual]

435.1-1, “ Radioactive Waste Management

Manual,” Office of Environmental Management,

July 9, 1999. [Revised June 19, 2001.]

U.S. Department of Energy, “ The Current and

Planned Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity

Report,” Office of Environmental Management,

Revision 2, December 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
A-8

Pollutants; Addition of Radionuclides to List of

Hazardous Pollutants," Federal Register, Vol.

44, No. 249, pp. 76738–76746, December 27,

1979.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Much Effort

Needed to Meet Federal Facility Compliance

Act’ s Requirements,” Washington, DC, GAO/

RCED-94-170, May 1994.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Low-Level

Radioactive Wastes – Department of Energy has

Opportunity to Reduce Disposal Costs,”

Washington, DC, GAO/RCED-00-64, April

2000.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ DOE’ s

Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project –

Uncertainties May Affect Performance,

Schedule, and Price,” Washington, DC,

GAO/RCED-00-106, April 2000.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ DOE Should

Reevaluate Waste Disposal Options Before

Building New Facilities,” Washington, DC,

GAO-01-441, May 2001.

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

“ Improved Guidance, Oversight, and Planning

Are Needed To Better Identify Cost-Saving

Alternatives for Managing Low-Level

Radioactive Waste,” Washington, DC, GAO-06-

94, October 2005.
B-1

APPENDIX B

REGULATORY EVOLUTION OF THE LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE DEFINITION

B-1 INTRODUCTION

Radioactive waste results initially from the

mining of naturally-occurring uraniferous mineral

ores (Finch et al., 1973) to recover uranium

oxides, which are then used to make nuclear

materials. Each subsequent step in the nuclear

fuel cycle produces other types and quantities 1

of radioactive waste (e.g., Finch, 1997, p. 5).

Neither the Atomic Energy Acts (AEA) of 1946

or 1954, which authorized the production and use

of radioactive materials for defense and civilian

purposes, made reference to radioactive waste or

to radioactive waste disposal.

Kocher (1990) previously summarized the

historical development of the regulatory

definitions of low-level radioactive waste (LLW)

and other classes of radioactive waste. That

review indicates that the definition of “ LLW”

has varied over the years. The current definition

of LLW is exclusionary. That is to say it is

defined by what it is not. Before the

promulgation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or the Commission) LLW

disposal regulations found at Title 10, Part 61,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste,” of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 61), the term LLW

was had a precise definition. In general, LLW

was defined as that portion of the solid

radioactive waste stream that did not fit the

prevailing definition of high-level radioactive

waste (HLW) or intermediate-level radioactive

waste and had concentrations of transuranic

(TRU) elements less than 100 nanocuries per

gram (nCi/g). For its part, the U.S. Department

of Energy – DOE (1995, p. 48) has previously

characterized the current definition as a

“ catchall” term for everything that is not HLW,

TRU waste, spent nuclear fuel (SNF), or

uranium mill tailings.

The NRC considers LLW with activity

comparable to that of SNF to be greater-thanClass C (GTCC) radioactive waste. As noted in

Appendix A to this report, DOE is responsible

for managing such wastes.

B-2 DISCUSSION

The use of nuclear power reactors to produce

fissionable materials for defense purposes

beginning in the 1940s and to generate electricity

for the civilian sector beginning in the 1950s has

been the primary source of radioactive wastes.

The regulatory systems that define these materials

were developed initially to ensure worker safety

during the handling and storage of the wastes

(National Council on Radiation Protection –

NCRP, 2002; p. 175). Two waste forms were of

concern. Liquid (aqueous) radioactive wastes

and solid radioactive wastes.

B-2.1 Initial Radioactive Waste Definitions 2

The earliest administrative description (definition)

of radioactive waste was based on the operational

 Generally defined to include uranium mining and 1

mil 6ling, uranium hexafluoride (UF ) conversion,

enrichment, uranium fuel fabrication, spent fuel

reprocessing and recycling, and waste storage/disposal.

See DOE (1979, p. 2-1).

 Researchers have proposed alternative radioactive 2

waste classification systems for the United States. See

Kocher and Croff (1987, 1988), Smith and Cohen (1989),

and LeMone and Jacobi (1993). The NCRP (2002)

summarized these proposals, along with the details of its

recommended waste classification system. These

researchers’ proposals are similar to the International

Atomic Energy Agency’ s (1994) recommendations in that

they all recognized the association of waste classes with

available disposal systems, most included a class of

exempt waste or equivalent, and all suggested quantitative

boundaries between the various waste classes.
B-2

aspects of handling and storing the liquid wastes

generated in reprocessing SNF for defense

purposes and the subsequent reprocessing of such

wastes. The definitions were introduced by the

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in the

1950s, prior to the current legislative and

regulatory framework of definitions that is now

in place. Liquid radioactive wastes contained

varying concentrations of radionuclides,

primarily short-lived fission products, and longlived alpha-emitting transuranium radionuclides.

At the time, Kocher (1990, p. 59) noted the

AEC’ s primary concern was worker protection

from radiation exposures during waste-handling

operations rather than protection of the public.

To permit their safe handling and storage, the

AEC introduced a three-tier classification system

essentially based on the concentration of fission

products. In decreasing order of hazard, this

system classified wastes as HLW, medium or

intermediate-level wastes, and LLW

(Lennemann, 1973, p. 361). Liquid HLW

generated during reprocessing contained the

highest concentrations of radionuclides (i.e.,

strontium-90 and cesium-137), and other longlived radionuclides (i.e., plutonium-139 and

americium-241). These government-generated

wastes were managed by confinement in

underground tanks. Medium or intermediatelevel liquid wastes contained lower

concentrations of radionuclides than HLW and

could be discharged into seepage basins that

permitted delayed release of the radionuclides

into the environment. LLW contained the lowest

concentrations of radionuclides from reprocessing

and could be released to holding ponds and

lagoons or discharged directly to surface waters.

There were no uniform concentration limits for

each AEC liquid radioactive waste class.

Instead, each AEC site developed its own

concentration limits based on the prevailing sitespecific management practices. At the Hanford

nuclear reservation, for example, the following

limits were used to classify liquid wastes from

SNF reprocessing 100 to 200 days after removal

from the reactor (Beard and Godfrey, 1976;

p. 124):

• HLW – total activity concentrations

greater than 100 Ci/m3

• Intermediate-level – total activity

concentrations ranging from 5×10 to -5

100 Ci/m3

• LLW – total activity concentrations less

than 5×10 Ci/m -5 3

As noted previously in this report, the AEC

assumed responsibility for the disposal of

civilian-produced solid radioactive waste in the

early 1960s until commercial disposal facilities

for those wastes could be developed. For

statistical purposes, the AEC defined three

different categories of solid radioactive waste that

would be acceptable for shallow-land disposal

based on the following arbitrary concentration

limits (Lennemann, 1967, p. 264):

• High – total activity concentrations

greater than 35,300 Ci/m3

• Intermediate – total activity

concentrations ranging from 353 to

35,300 Ci/m3

• Low – total activity concentrations less

than 353 Ci/m3

It is important to note that the differing AEC

descriptions of liquid and solid radioactive wastes

resulted primarily from differences in

radionuclide compositions (i.e., the source of the

waste – government versus private sector) and

the operational requirements for safe handling at

waste generating sites rather than with the

potential long-term impacts of disposal on public

health and the environment (NCRP, 2002,

pp. 173–174).

In the late 1960s, a fourth solid waste category,

TRU, came into existence. Soon after, the AEC

established a policy (Hollingsworth, 1970) that
B-3

solid radioactive waste with concentrations of

alpha-emitting radionuclides greater than

10 nCi/g was not acceptable for shallow land

burial (SLB), but required storage and/or burial

in a retrievable manner. 3

B-2.2 Definition of HLW

HLW was the first constituent of commercial

radioactive waste streams to receive a regulatory

definition. In the early days of the commercial

nuclear power program, it was assumed that SNF

would be reprocessed and the residual uranium

and plutonium would be recycled as fuel (Metlay,

1981, p. 204). In 1970, the AEC published the

“ Policy Relating to the Siting of Fuel

Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste

Management Facilities,” as Appendix F to

10 CFR Part 50, “ Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities,” that

defined HLW in the following manner:

“ those aqueous wastes resulting

from the operation of a firstcycle solvent extraction system,

or equivalent, and the

concentrated wastes from

subsequent extraction cycles, or

equivalent, in a facility for

reprocessing irradiated reactor

fuels....” [published in the

Federal Register on November

14, 1970, Volume 35, page

17533 (35 FR 17533)]

Given this policy, HLW became whatever

material was left after fuel reprocessing and

recycling. Consequently, HLW was defined as

the liquid wastes resulting from a particular

source (i.e., reprocessing) rather than the

waste’ s constituents or radiological properties.

For both economic and political reasons,

commercial reprocessing was never undertaken

extensively in the United States. At the time the

AEC published Appendix F to 10 CFR Part 50,

very little domestic commercial reprocessing or

recycling capacity existed. In addition, the 4

evolving regulatory climate raised questions

about the economic competitiveness of the

process compared with the cost of using fresh

nuclear fuel. See Metlay (1981, p. 205) and

OTA (1985, pp. 67–68). Concerns about the 5

potential proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear

material produced during reprocessing led the

Ford Administration to impose a moratorium in

1976 (Op cit., p. 87). To ease the burden of 6

 The AEC selected a threshold of 10 nCi/g because,

3

at the time, it represented the highest concentration of

radium in the Earth’ s crust (AEC, 1974).

 ERDA operated two large-scale plants in Savannah 4

River, Georgia, and Hanford, Washington, for

reprocessing Government-owned nuclear fuel. Nuclear

Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) operated the only commercial

nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the United States.

Located in West Valley, New York, the facility operated

under an AEC license. Allied General Nuclear Services

and General Electric Corporation built two additional

commercial reprocessing facilities in Barnwell, South

Carolina, and Morris, Illinois, respectively (Zebroski and

Levenson, 1976, pp. 119–120). 

 During its 6 years of operation (1966–72), the West 5

Valley facility reprocessed 160 metric tons of commercial

SNF and 480 metric tons of fuel from defense production

reactors at Hanford. The facility closed-down in 1972 for

modifications to increase its processing capacity, reduce

occupational exposures, and reduce radioactive effluents.

However, between 1972 and 1976, major changes

occurred in the AEC regulatory requirements related to

the operation of nuclear facilities. After reviewing the

new regulatory requirements, NFS determined that future

reprocessing activities would not be profitable and

withdrew from the business without removing any of the

in-process liquid radioactive wastes. In 1980, Congress

passed the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP)

Act (Public Law 96-368) directing DOE to solidify the

onsite liquid radioactive wastes for ultimate disposal in a

geologic repository. See DOE (2003).

 In March 2006, DOE announced its intent to prepare

6

an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to evaluate the

potential environmental impacts of new management

technologies, including proliferation-resistant technologies
B-4

utilities that, because of the moratorium, had

already been storing increasing quantities of SNF

on site, the Carter Administration established a

policy whereby the Federal Government would

take title to, and possession of, commercial SNF

for ultimate disposal in a geologic repository.

Shortly before this policy was established, the

Ener gy Resear ch and Development

Administration (ERDA) initiated the National

Waste Terminal Storage Program to survey

locations as candidate sites for the disposal of

commercial SNF and other HLW (Interagency

Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management,

1979).

In 1974, Congress established the first legislative

definition of HLW when it passed the Marine

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Public

Law 95-532). In Section 3(j) of that act

(“ Definitions”), Congress adopted the earlier

1970 AEC definition of HLW. See 35 FR

17533.

Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

transferred to the NRC the regulatory authority

initially assigned to the AEC. Section 202 of the

act gave the NRC specific authority to regulate

certain ERDA waste management facilities,

including those used primarily for the receipt or

storage of HLW from commercially licensed

activities (e.g., reactors, reprocessing plants).

Although not defined in the act, the prevailing

AEC Appendix F definition was understood

(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1977, p. 23).

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act (NWPA) (Public Law 97-425), which

provided further clarification regarding the

definition of HLW. This clarification included

specific legislative reference for the first time to

SNF. Section 2.(12) of the act defines the term

“ HLW” in the following manner:

“ (A) the highly radioactive

material resulting from the

reprocessing of spent nuclear

fuel, including liquid waste

p r oduc ed dir ectl y in

reprocessing and any solid

material derived from such

liquid waste that contains fission

p r o d u c ts in suffic i e n t

concentrations; and

(B) other highly radioactive

material that the [Nuclear

Regulatory] Commission,

consistent with existing law,

determines by rule requires

permanent isolation...”

The law also established the current DOE waste

management program directing the Department

to site, design, build, and operate a Federal

repository for the geologic disposal of SNF and

other HLW (DOE, 1985a, 1985b). The act also

specified that any commercial liquid HLW to be

disposed of in a geologic repository must be

solidified for permanent disposal. 7

Shortly before the passage of the NWPA, the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

proposed generally applicable radiation standards

for the management and disposal of SNF, HLW,

and TRU wastes at 40 CFR Part 191,

“ Environmental Radiation Protection Standards

for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear

Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive

Wastes” (EPA, 1982). In its proposed

environmental radiation standards, EPA defined

HLW at 40 CFR 191.02(b) in the following

manner:

for the reprocessing and recycling of SNF. See DOE

(2006a, 2006b).

 In May 1981, DOE prepared a programmatic EIS on

7

the selection of a preferred strategy for the disposal of

commercially generated radioactive wastes. Without

defining them, DOE indicated its intent to dispose of

commercially generated HLW and TRU waste in a mined

geologic repository (DOE, 1981).
B-5

“ any of the following that

contain radionuclides in

concentrations greater than those

in Table 1 [Appendix ]: (1) 8

liquid wastes resulting from the

operations of the first-cycle

solvent extraction system, or

equivalent, in a facility for

reprocessing spent nuclear fuels;

(2) the concentrated wastes from

subsequent extraction cycles, or

equivalent; (3) solids into which

such liquid wastes have been

converted; or (4) spent nuclear

fuel if disposed of without

reprocessing....” (47 FR 58204)

However, in its final standards EPA (1985)

decided to adopt the NWPA legislative definition

of HLW (50 FR 38075).

The NWPA also directed the NRC to promulgate

generic geologic disposal regulations for HLW.

In 10 CFR 60.2, “ Definitions,” of those

regulations – 10 CFR Part 60, “ Disposal of

High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic

Repositories” – the Commission expanded the

definition of HLW in 1983 to include irradiated

fuel assemblies from commercial nuclear power

plants and dry solid materials in the following 9

manner:

“ (1) irradiated reactor fuel, (2)

liquid wastes resulting from

operations of a first-cycle

solvent extraction system, or

equivalent, and concentrated

wastes from subsequent

extraction cycles, or equivalent,

in a facility for fuel

reprocessing, and (3) solids into

which such liquid wastes have

been converted...” (48 FR

28218) 

In a 1987 advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR), the NRC proposed to modify the

existing regulatory definition of HLW to apply

the term “ high-level radioactive waste” to

materials in quantities and concentrations

exceeding numerical values that would be stated

explicitly in a table (52 FR 5992). The

Commission proposed to classify radioactive

wastes as either high level or non-high level.

The NRC would classify those wastes that could

not be disposed of safely in a hypothetical

“ intermediate” disposal facility as HLW.

Following a review of public comments on the

ANPR, the Commission adopted an alternative

strategy. In 1988, the NRC published its

proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 61

recommending that GTCC LLW be disposed of

in a separate facility licensed under 10 CFR Part

60 (NRC, 1988). 

B-2.3 Definition of TRU Waste

TRU wastes are the byproducts of fuel assembly

and weapons fabrication and reprocessing

operations. These wastes contain isotopes higher

than uranium, which is number 92 on the

Periodic Table of Elements and characteristically

have long half-lives and high radiotoxcicity. The

AEC (Hollingsworth, 1970, p. 2) originally

 EPA proposed a concentration table (Table 1) of 8

certain long-lived radionuclides to be used to identify

HLW (47 FR 58206). In adopting the NWPA definition

of HLW, EPA set aside its earlier Table 1

recommendation.

 This later addition to the definition reflected the 9

production of dry solid materials during the limited SNF

reprocessing demonstration at the WVDP facility. See

DOE (2003). The legislation governing the WVDP

defined HLW to include the following:

“ liquid wastes produced directly in

reprocessing, dry solid material

derived from such liquid waste, and

such other material as the NRC

designates as high-level waste for the

purposes of protecting public health and safety....”
B-6

defined this waste stream as solid waste with:

“ known or detectable

contamination of transuranium

radionuclides...”

10

Congress gave TRU waste its first legislative

definition in the Low-Level Waste Policy Act of

1980 (LLWPA) (Public Law 96-425), but the

definition was later rescinded in 1985 when the

act was amended. Before 1982, AEC Manual

Chapter 0511 defined TRU waste as having

greater than 10 nCi/g of the long-lived alphaemitting tr ansur anium r adionuclides

(Hollingsworth, 1970). This manual chapter also

stated that solid wastes contaminated with certain

alpha-emitting radionuclides to greater than

10 nCi/g should be stored in such a way as to

allow the packages to be readily retrieved (Op

cit., p. 2). As this directive was implemented,

the 10 nCi/g limit gradually was construed as a

concentration limit that defined the distinction

between LLW (material appropriate for SLB) and

other radioactive material destined for disposal in

a more secure mode (e.g., deep geologic

disposal). See Steindler et al. (1982, p. 590). In

1982, Federal agencies concurred with a

recommendation to increase the existing

transuranium radionuclide concentration limit

from 10 to 100 nCi/g (Op cit.) for this class of

wastes.

In its 1982 draft environmental radiation

standards, EPA proposed a new definition for

TRU waste (47 FR 58204). In 1985, EPA

finalized its standards and defined TRU waste at

40 CFR 191.02, “ Definitions,” in the following

manner:

“ wastes containing more than

100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting

transuranium isotopes, with halflives greater than twenty years,

per gram of waste, except for (1)

high-level radioactive wastes; (2)

waste that the Department has

det e r m i ned, w it h t h e

c o ncur r ence o f t h e

Administrator, do not need the

degree of isolation required by

this Part; or (3) waste that the

Commission has approved for

disposal on a case-by-case basis

in accordance with 10 CFR Part

61....” (50 FR 38084)

In 1980, Congress authorized DOE to build a

full-scale research and development (R&D)

facility to test the safe management and disposal

of defense-generated TRU wastes at Los Medaños

near Carlsbad, New Mexico (DOE, 1990b). 11

 At the time, the AEC noted that the detection 10

limit of equipment used for the routine checking of

plutonium-containing waste packages was approximately

500 milligrams per cubic foot for a 5-cubic-foot package

(DOE, 2003).

 Investigation of the Los Medaños site initially took 11

place as part of the National Waste Terminal Storage

Program ( National Research Council, 1970).

Geologically, the Los Medaños site is a bedded, Permianage evaporite (salt) deposit of the Salado Formation within

the Delaware Basin. The goal of this program was to

locate a suitable geologic setting for the disposal of

radioactive waste (Bredehoeft et al., 1978; National

Research Council, 1978).

With the passage of the Department of Energy National

Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy

Authorization Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-164), Congress

authorized DOE to build the WIPP R&D facility. This

law also exempted WIPP from independent NRC oversight

and regulation. Following several years of scientific

evaluation and testing, Congress directed DOE, in the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (Public

Law 102-579), to seek an EPA “ certification” to allow

waste emplacement operations to commence. The EPA

certification criteria (1996, 61 FR 5224) required that the

WIPP site and design meet the Subpart B and C

performance objectives of the EPA radiation standards at

10 CFR Part 191. In May 1998, EPA reviewed the

Department’ s compliance certification application (DOE,

1996) and found that the WIPP could comply with the

pertinent radiation standards (EPA, 1998). For the most

part, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) conducted these

performance assessments. Rechard (1995) describes the
B-7

This R&D facility was later renamed the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In association with

the WIPP development program, DOE prepared

a number of NEPA-related documents. All of

these documents (DOE, 1980, 1989b, 1990a)

used the prevailing definition of TRU waste at

the time of their respective publication (Steindler

et al., 1982). 

12

NRC considers TRU waste as a higher activity

form of LLW (i.e., GTCC waste) subject to

disposal in an HLW repository or some other

disposal facility approved and licensed by the

NRC. See Section 7.5.1 of this report. Kocher

(1990, p. 67) notes that the NRC has not

developed a regulatory definition of TRU waste

because only small quantities are produced in the

civilian sector and EPA currently regulates its

disposal. 

B-2.4 Definition of LLW

As discussed earlier in Section B-2.1, LLW was

originally defined by the AEC to include any

radioactive waste with concentrations of

radionuclides less than those in HLW or

intermediate-level radioactive waste, taking into

account worker protection needs at the waste

generating sites. Subsequent regulatory and

legislative actions related to the (re)definition of

HLW and TRU waste changed the current

regulatory definition of LLW to one of exclusion

(National Research Council, 2006, p. 120).

Although the NRC has the statutory authority to

define LLW, it has not done so. Rather, the

category of “ LLW” had been defined by default

– in other words, it was defined by what it was

not – and it includes the definition of wastes not

otherwise classified (52 FR 5994). In the

NWPA, as amended, LLW is defined as

radioactive waste that is not “ high-level

radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent fuel,

or uranium or thorium mill tailings....”

Furthermore, the Low-Level Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985 (LLWPAA) (Public

Law 99-240), does not define LLW. Paragraph

(2)(A) of the “ Definitions” section of the

LLWPAA notes that LLW is not HLW, SNF, or

byproduct material; Paragraph (2)(B) of this same

section simply says that “ the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, consistent with existing law,

classifies...low-level waste....”

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (The White

House, 1970) granted EPA its standard-setting

authority at Section 2(a)(6) to establish

“ generally applicable environmental standards

for the protection of the general environment

from radioactive material” (35 FR 15624). EPA

was to develop environmental standards for all

commercial radioactive waste streams. As

discussed in the previous section, EPA

promulgated radiation standards for SNF, HLW,

and TRU wastes at 40 CFR Part 191. In August

1983, EPA published an ANPR (48 FR 39563)

general approach used by the SNL for conducting those

assessments, and Helton et al. (1999) provides a summary

of the results. 

Public Law 96-164 also required that DOE comply with

any other applicable environmental standards in operating

WIPP. The majority of the TRU wastes are chemically

mixed wastes subject to EPA regulation under the

authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) as well as other EPA land disposal prohibitions.

To dispose of these wastes, DOE submitted a RCRA no

migration variance petition to EPA (DOE, 1989a).

However, Congress amended Public Law 102–579 in 1995

to exempt the WIPP site from RCRA requirements. See

also National Research Council (1996) and DOE (2000).

 TRU waste can be further classified according to the 12

radiation dose rate at the package surface. Contacthandled TRU waste emits primarily alpha radiation. It has

radiation dose rates at the package surface dose rate below

200 millirem per hour (mrem/hr) and therefore generally

can be handled without extensive shielding. Remotely

handled TRU waste contains isotopes that emit alpha,

beta, and gamma radiation. Remotely handled TRU

TRU waste has a package surface dose rate exceeding 

200 mrem/hr and therefore requires heavy shielding for

safe handling and storage. See DOE (1990a, Vol. 1,

pp. 2-8 – 2-9).
B-8

announcing its plans to establish general

environmental radiation protection standards for

LLW. In 1987, the Agency forwarded those

proposed standards to the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.

The Agency also published a draft EIS (EPA,

1988) in connection with the development of

those standards.

In describing the proposed LLW standards,

Gruhlke et al. (1989, p. 273) noted that EPA

proposed to define LLW in the following

manner:

“ radioactive waste that was not

(1) spent fuel, high-level

radioactive waste, or transuranic

waste, as previously defined in

40 CFR Part 191, (2) or

uranium or thorium mill tailings

subject to 40 CFR Part 192 , or 13

(3) or NARM as defined in 40

14

CFR [Part] 764....”

However, the proposed EPA LLW standards did

not clear the OMB review process and were

never published in the Federal Register for public

comment. The proposed rule encountered

significant interagency opposition stemming from

concerns about the ground-water provisions of

the proposed standard. See Pelletier (1991). In

1994, EPA circulated a second “ pre-proposal”

LLW standard for interagency review and

comment. One (new) major concern identified

was that the proposed EPA LLW standard would

delay the development of new disposal sites

taking place at the time (EPA, 2000b, p. 21). As

a compromise, in 1995, EPA drafted a proposal

to limit the applicability of its new standard to

Federally-operated (DOE) LLW disposal sites,

but this proposal was never issued.

As noted in Section 7.4.2 of this report, the EPA

LLW standards and criteria were not available at

the time the NRC was developing its LLW

regulatory framework. Rather than delay the

development of its disposal regulations, the NRC

staff decided to postulate a reasonable set of

“ study guidelines” that could be used as

surrogates for the EPA standard. At the time, no

nationally accepted set of guidelines defined the

level of safety (protection) that disposal facilities

should provide to safeguard the public from the

effects of ionizing radiation. Consequently, the

staff decided to review the literature and

consider the recommendations of national and

international standard-setting organizations to

identify surrogate dose guidelines for the scoping

analyses and the subsequent proposed and final

rules. 15

As a result of the EIS scoping and rulemaking

processes, the staff developed a three-tier LLW

classification system in which wastes with

increasing concentrations of radionuclides are

subject to increasingly more stringent disposal

requirements (NRC, 1982). As defined in

10 CFR 61.55 (“ Waste Classification”), the

three classes of LLW acceptable for SLB are

Class A, B, and C, with Class C waste having

the highest concentration of radionuclides. Class

designations are tied to certain minimum

requirements and stability requirements and to 16

 The EPA health and environmental protection 13

standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings (EPA,

1983b). Consistent with the NWPA and LLWPAA, mill

tailings are not considered a form of LLW.

 Naturally occurring or accelerator-produced

14

radioactive materials.

 See Appendix N, “ Analysis of Existing

15

Recommendations, Regulations, and Guides,” to Volume

4 of NUREG-0782, “ Draft Environmental Impact

Statement on 10 CFR Part 61: Licensing Requirements

for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes” (NRC, 1981b).

 Title 10, Section 61.56(a), of the Code of Federal 16

Regulations provides the minimum requirements that all

waste forms must meet to be acceptable for near-surface

disposal. In addition to these minimum requirements,

certain wastes (i.e., Class B and C wastes and Class A
B-9

specifications for maximum allowable

concentrations of certain radionuclides in each

class. 

Class A LLW primarily includes lightly

contaminated paper, cloth, and plastics. These

wastes must be segregated from other LLW

during disposal because of their potential for

physical degradation over time, leading to ground

subsidence in disposal cells. The isotope

concentrations in this class of wastes are not to

exceed the values listed in the regulation. Class

B LLW by definition must meet more rigorous

physical stability requirements than Class A

wastes. This waste class is also permitted higher

isotope concentrations. The physical form and

characteristics of Class B LLW must also the

meet minimum and stability requirements of the

regulation at 10 CFR 61.51(a) and 10 CFR

61.51(b), respectively. Class C LLW is generally

considered intruder waste. This higher- 17

activity, longer-lived LLW is generally suitable

for SLB, but requires special design measures to

protect against human intrusion after institutional

controls have lapsed. The regulation requires

that any Class C waste with concentrations of

radionuclides that could cause exposures greater

than 500 millirem (mrem) needs to be protected

from intrusion by deeper burial and/or through

the use of some type of engineered barrier.

Wastes exceeding the Class C concentration

limits are, by regulation at 10 CFR 61.55(a),

generally not suitable for SLB. 

10 CFR Part 61 thus does not define LLW.

Rather, it represents a subclassification of a

particular waste class developed primarily for the

purposes of managing commercial LLW disposal

in SLB facilities (NCRP, 2002, p. 190).

Although it did issue an ANPR, EPA was never

successful in promulgating LLW radiation

protection standards (GAO, 1993) and, as a

consequence, 10 CFR Part 61 has become the

prevailing regulation defining commercial LLW.

In a 1987 ANPR, the NRC proposed to modify

the existing definition of HLW to apply the term

“ high-level radioactive waste” to radioactive

materials in quantities and concentrations

exceeding numerical values that would be stated

explicitly in a table (52 FR 5995). The NRC

intended this rulemaking to address LLW with

radionuclide concentrations above the existing

Class C limits of 10 CFR Part 61 because wastes

classified as “ LLW” were not subject to any

upper regulatory limit and some LLW may have

concentrations approaching those of HLW

(52 FR 5994). Following a review of public

comments on the ANPR, the Commission

adopted an alternative strategy. In 1988, the

NRC published its proposed amendments to

10 CFR Part 61 recommending that GTCC waste

be disposed of in a separate facility licensed

under 10 CFR Part 60, the NRC’ s generic

regulations for the disposal of HLW (53 FR

17709). In 1989, the Commission finalized the

so-called GTCC disposal amendments (54 FR

waste that is to be co-disposed with Class B and C waste)

must be structurally stabilized and meet the requirements

of 10 CFR 61.56(b). Stability is defined in terms of the

ability to keep dimensions and form under disposal

conditions. Stability can be provided by the waste form

(e.g., activated metals), by processing the waste to an

acceptable form (e.g., cement solidification), by placing

the waste in a high-integrity container, or by the disposal

unit itself (e.g., vault disposal).

 In the draft proposed regulation (NRC, 1981a), only 17

Class C LLW was identified as “ intruder waste” (46 FR

38084). Although this designation was not repeated in the

final regulation, some practitioners continue to use this

terminology. As noted earlier in Section 7.3 of this

report, the reader is reminded that the Commission’ s

regulations at Part 61 are mainly intended to provide

protection to inadvertent human intruders to SLBs to all

three classes of LLW. To protect the public, the 10 CFR

61.55 waste classification system was developed to specify

the limits of concentrations of radionuclides acceptable for

SLB, under assumed human intrusion scenarios, in each

LLW waste class. Therefore, Class A and B LLW

should also be recognized as “ intruder waste.”
B-10

22578). 18

 

In summary, the LLW definition is no longer

related to requirements for safe waste handling

and storage or permanent disposal because its

management was no longer restricted to

containing wastes with low concentrations of

radionuclides. LLW now includes wastes with

high concentrations of relatively short-lived

beta/gamma-emitting radionuclides (i.e., cobalt60) as well as high-concentrations of long-lived

fission or activation products (i.e., technetium99, thorium-232). As a consequence, LLW can

now include wastes destined for different types of

disposal facilities. See NCRP (2002, p. 175).

The net effect of the legislative and regulatory

actions described above is that no statutory

lower limit (either upper or lower) exists for the

level of radioactivity required to declare material

as “ LLW” (National Research Council, 2006,

p. 120). This is an important point because a

suite of “ lower” activity radioactive wastes that

occur in concentrations greater than background

but less than Class A materials is not subject to

comprehensive regulation. These low-activity

radioactive wastes (LAW) include technologically

concentrated radioactive substances derived from

natural materials containing radioactive elements,

slightly contaminated materials from

decontaminated nuclear facilities, and short-lived,

manmade radioactive materials produced by

atomic particle accelerators.

B-2.5 Low-Activity Radioactive Wastes

Naturally occurring radioactive materials

(NORM) can be found in rocks, soils, water, and

air. Although these materials occur widely in

nature, their radiation levels are barely

detectable, with concentrations on the order of

only a few tens per parts per million (Clark et

al., 1965). See Table B-1. Primordial

radioactivity, that is, radioactivity associated with

the geologic formation of the earth, consists

primarily of the natural elements uranium-238,

thorium-232, and potassium-40 and their decay

products. Together with cosmic radiation

(Kohman and Saito, 1954; Suess, 1958), these

two radiation sources contribute about 82 percent

of all ionizing radiation an average individual

receives annually in the United States, which is

estimated to be about 360 millirem per year

(mrem/yr) from both natural and manmade

sources (NCRP, 1987, p. 55). Unless materials 19

containing these elements are extracted from the

earth, segregated, and processed into

concentrated forms, they are not generally

considered a threat to public health and safety.

In 1975, researchers recognized that certain

human activities can result in the unintentional

yet anomalous concentration of natural

radioactivity to levels greater than those found in

the environment. Gesell and Prichard (1975)

cited examples of these anomalous

concentrations, including radiation emissions

from coal-fired power plants, radon in harvested

natural gas, radium in manufactured fertilizer and

processed drinking water, and enhanced cosmic

ray exposure in high-altitude aircraft. Because of

the potential for significant occupational or

population exposures above natural background

levels, Gesell and Prichard recommended that a

new category of radiation exposure be recognized

— technologically enhanced natural radiation

(TENR) – to permit evaluation of the potential

health risk to LAW (although not defined as such

at the time). Since then, this category has

received other designations in the literature

(NORM, NARM, and technologically-enhanced

naturally occurring radioactive materials or

 In 2001, NRC issued new site-specific disposal 18

regulations for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository at

10 CFR Part 63, as required by the Energy Policy Act of

1992 (Public Law 102-486). These regulations would also

require GTCC waste be disposed of in a separate facility

licensed under 10 CFR Part 63. See 66 FR 55791–55792. The actual dose for any individual may vary widely. 19
B-11

Table B-1 Primordial (Terrestrial) and Cosmic Radiation Sources 

Source Activity / Concentration / Exposure Reference(s)

Primordial—U-238 series, Th-232 series, and K-40

 igneous (rock type) U-238 

Th-232

K-40

1.33 pCi/g

1.31 pCi/g

21.6 pCi/g

Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*

 limestone (rock type) U-238 

Th-232

K-40

0.43 pCi/g

0.14 pCi/g

2.25 pCi/g

Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*

 granite (rock type) U-238 

Th-232

K-40

>3.0 pCi/g

>3.9 pCi/g

 >29 pCi/g

Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*

 sandstone (rock type) U-238 

Th-232

K-40

0.40 pCi/g

0.65 pCi/g

 9.1 pCi/g

Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*

 shale (rock type) U-238 

Th-232

K-40

0.40 pCi/g

1.09 pCi/g

22.5 pCi/g

Shapiro (1990, p. 367)*

 ultramafic rocks and eclogites U-238 

Th-232

K-40

0.0004–0.21 ppm

0.001–0.43 ppm

12–527 ppm

Clark et al. (1965, p. 528)*

 soil Ra-222

Ra-226

0.2–4.2 pCi/g Gundersen and Wanty (1991);

Nazaroff (1992)

 water U-238

Ra-226

Th-232

 0.01–10 μg/L

 <1pCi/L

0.01–1 μg/L

Hem (1985, pp. 148–149)*

Cosmic—C-14, H-3, Be-7, Na-22

 ground level 10 μrem/hr Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 365)*

 subsonic air travel 1000 μrem/hr Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 365)*

* Citing others.

TENORM) as well as the addition of other

material streams. See Table B-2.

In general, most of the material streams listed in

Table B-2 do not represent a significant hazard to

the public and the environment. However, some

of the low-activity materials (and wastes) can

contain long-lived radionuclides at levels well

above background and thus may represent a

chronic and even an acute hazard to the public

and the environment. See National Research

Council, 1990). For this reason, and given the

potential volume of waste material of concern –

estimated to be on the order of 10 cubic feet 9

(10 cubic meters) annually (EPA, 2000a, p. 2) –

4

there is a question as to whether the Federal

Government should take greater responsibility

for the management of LAW.
B-12

Table B-2 Potential Sources of LAW

Source/Mode Radionuclides Concentration/

Exposure

Reference(s)

TENR / NORM

Building Materials:

 red-mud brick Ra-226 7.6 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 fly-ash brick Ra-226 5.7 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 tuffaceous brick Ra-226 6.5 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 concrete Ra-226 35 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 phosphogypsum Ra-226 17 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

Coal

 lignite coal Ra-226 1 pCi/g Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 362) 

a

 fly ash Ra-226 3.9 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 26) a

 coal ash several 0.1–7.0 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 40) a

Geothermal Energy Production Ra-226 132 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 53) a

Mine Tailings:

 alumina ores Ra-226 7.4 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 phosphate ores Ra-226 3–50 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 titanium ores Ra-226 12–15 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

 zirconium ores Ra-226 13 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a

Municipal Waste Water Treatment

 dry sludge several 0–44 pCi/g Interagency Steering Committee on

Radiation Standards (2003, p. 17)

 incinerated ash several 0–91 pCi/g Interagency Steering Committee on

Radiation Standards (2003, p. 17)

Oil and Natural Gas Production several 120–360 pCi/g Egidi and Hull (1999, p. 43) a

Phosphate Fertilizer U-238, Ra-226 400 ppm Gesell and Prichard (1975, p. 364)

NARM / TENORM

Accelerator-Produced Radioisotopes several variable Baum et al. (2002); Nuclear Energy

Agency (1998)

URANIUM AND THORIUM MILL TAILINGS

Mineral Ore wastes Th-232, U-238, U-235, Ra-226 +20 pCi/g Austin (1988, p. 5) a
Source/Mode Radionuclides Concentration/

Exposure

Reference(s)

B-13

DECOMMISSIONING OF NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES

Slightly Contaminated or Clearance

Radioactive Materials b

mostly short-lived fission and

activation products

1⁄2

(t = 10 yrs) 1

variable National Research Council (2002 ,

a

2003 )

a. Citing others.

b. Surface contamination, activated metals of high activity, and penetrating radiation.

As noted earlier in this paper, NRC Agreement

States had initially recommended that the AEC

(or its successor) undertake the overall

responsibility for regulating LAW (Lacker,

1974). The NRC’ s earlier de minimis position

and the Below Regulatory Concern Policy

Statements described in Section 3.5 of this report

addressed the question of an appropriate

waste/nonwaste threshold. The agency

recognized that, at some minimum level of

exposure, certain radioactive materials no longer

pose a risk to public health and safety and

therefore could be unregulated. EPA attempted

to develop radiation standards for the

management of LAW in the 1980s in parallel

with the development of its LLW radiation

standards (EPA, 1983a). Focusing on NARM,

EPA proposed a new regulation at 40 CFR Part

764, “ Environmental Standards for

Management, Storage, and Land Disposal of

Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced

Radioactive Waste: Draft Proposed Rule,” to

require the disposal of NARM in concentrations

exceeding 2 nCi/g in a 10 CFR Part 61 LLW

disposal facility. Wastes with concentrations

below 2 nCi/g would not be considered LLW.

See Gruhlke et al. (1989, p. 275). EPA (1988,

p. 1-2) cited the Toxic Substances Control Act of

1976 (Public Law 94-469) as the proper legal

authority for the proposed NARM regulations

and noted that the AEA excludes the regulation

of NARM radionuclides. Neither the proposed

LLW nor the proposed NARM regulations

cleared the Federal interagency review process.

In 2003, EPA published an ANPR that discussed

alternatives for the disposal of chemical wastes

containing low concentrations of radioactive

material (68 FR 65119). One alternative cited in

the ANPR is the use of RCRA Subtitle-C disposal

technology for such wastes.

B-3 REFERENCES

Baum, E.M., H.D. Knox, and T.R., Miller,

Nuclides and Isotopes(16 Edition),Schenectady, th

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Inc., 2002. 

Beard, S.J., and W.L. Godfrey, “ Waste Disposal

into the Ground at Hanford,” in International

Atomic Energy Agency and European Nuclear

Energy Agency of the OECD, Proceedings of a

Symposium on the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes

into the Ground, May 29 – June 2, 1976, Vienna,

Austria, Vienna, International Atomic Energy

Agency, STI/PUB-156, 1967.

Bredehoeft, J.D., A.W. England, D.B. Stewart,

N.J. Trask, and I.J. Winograd, “ Geologic

Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes –

Earth Science Perspectives,” U.S. Geological

Survey Circular 779, 1978.

Clark, S.P., Jr., Z.E. Peterman, and K.S. Heier,

“ Abundances of Uranium, Thorium, and

Potassium (Section 24),” in S.P. Clark, Jr.,

compiler, Handbook of Physical Constants –

Revised Edition, Boulder, Geological Society of

America Memoir 97, 1965.
B-14

Egidi, P., and C. Hull, “ NORM and TENORM

(Naturally Occurring and TechnologicallyEnhanced Radioactive Materials) — Producers,

Users, and Proposed Regulations,” PEP Course

1.A Notes, Health Physics Society 1999 (32 )

nd

Midyear Meeting, January 24, 1999,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1999. [Course notes

sponsored by DOE, the Fulbright Commission,

and Oxford Nuclear Measurements Group.]

Finch, W.I., A.P. Butler, Jr., F.C. Armstrong,

and A.E. Weissenborn, “ Nuclear Fuels –

Uranium,” in D.A. Brobst and W.P. Bratt ,

editors, “ United States Mineral Resources,”

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820,

1973.

Finch, W.I., “ Uranium, Its Impact on the

National and Global Energy Mix — And Its

History, Distribution, Production, Nuclear FuelCycle, Future, and Relation to the

Environment,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular

1141, 1997.

Gesell, T.F., and H.M. Prichard, “ The

Technologically-Enhanced Natural Radiation

Environment,” Health Physics, 28:361–366,

April 1975.

Gruhlke, J.M., F.L. Galpin, W.F. Holcomb,

and M.S. Bandrowski, “ USEPA’ s Proposed

Environmental Standards for the Management

and Land Disposal of LLW and NARM Waste,”

in R.G. Post, editor, WM ’ 89 – Proceedings of

the Symposium on Waste Management, February

26 — March 2, 1989, Tucson, Arizona,

[University of Arizona], 2:273–276, 1989.

Gundersen, L.C.S., and R.B. Wanty, editors,

“ Field Studies of Radon in Rocks, Soil, and

Water,” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1971,

1991.

Helton, J.C., D.R. Anderson, H.N. Jow, M.G.

Marietta, and G. Basabilvazo, “ Performance

Assessment in Support of the 1996 Compliance

Certification Application for the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant,” Risk Analysis, 19(5):959–986,

October 1999.

Hem, J.D., “ Study and Interpretation of the

Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water (3

rd

Edition),” U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply

Paper 2254, 1985.

Hollingsworth, K. S., “ Policy Statement

Regarding Solid Waste Burial,” U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission, AEC Manual Chapter 0511,

Immediate Action Directive, IAD No. 0511-21,

March 20, 1970.

Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste

Management, “ Report to the President by the

Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste

Management,” U.S. Department of Energy, TID29442, March 1979.

Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation

Standards, “ ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity

in Sewage Sludge: Radiological Survey Results

and Analysis (Final Report),” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1775, ISCORS

Technical Report 2004-02, November 2003.

[Prepared by ISCORS Sewage Sludge

Subcommittee on Radiation Standards. ] 20

International Atomic Energy Agency,

“ Classification of Radioactive Wastes – A Safety

Guide,” Vienna, Safety Series No. 111-G-1.1,

June 1994. [English edition.]

Kocher, D.C., “ Classification and Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes — History and Legal and

Regulatory Requirements,” Radiation Protection

Management, 7(4):58–78, July/August 1990.

Kocher, D.C., and A.G. Croff, “ A Proposed

Classification System for High-Level and Other

 Including the NRC, DOE, EPA, the New Jersey

20

Department of Environmental Protection, the Middlesex

County Utilities Authority, and the Northeast Ohio

Regional Sewer District.
B-15

Radioactive Wastes,” Oak Ridge, Tennessee,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM10289, 1987.

Kocher, D.C., and A.G. Croff, “ A Proposed

Classification System for High-Level and Other

Radioactive Wastes,” Radioactive Waste

Management and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,

11(3):227–268, 1988.

Kohman, T.P., and N. Saito, “ Radioactivity in

the Geology and Cosmology,” Annual Review of

Nuclear Science, 4:401–446, 1954.

Lacker, D.K., Chairman/[NRC] Agreement

States, Letter to G. W. Kerr, U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission, “ Agreement States

Requests and Recommendations for the AEC,”

Austin, October 16, 1974.

Lennemann, W. L., “ United States Atomic

Energy Commission Interim Radioactive Waste

Burial Program,” in International Atomic Energy

Agency and European Nuclear Energy Agency

of the OECD, Proceedings of a Symposium on

the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into the

Ground, May 29–June 2, 1976, Vienna, Austria,

Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency,

1967.

Lennemann, W. L., “ Management of

Radioactive Aqueous Wastes from U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission’ s Fuel Reprocessing

Operations, Experience and Planning,” in

Nuclear Energy Agency and International

Atomic Energy Agency, Proceedings of

Symposium on the Management of Radioactive

Wastes from Fuel Reprocessing, November 27 –

December 1, 1972, Paris, Paris, Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development,

Conference–721107, March 1973.

LeMone, D. V., and L. R. Jacobi, Jr.,

“ Radioactive Waste Reclassification,” in R.G.

Post, editor, WM ’ 93 — Proceedings of the

Symposium on Waste Management, February

28–March 4, 1993,Tucson, Arizona, [University

of Arizona], 1:61–66, 1993.

Metlay, P., “ Radioactive Waste Management

Policy (Appendix A-1, dated June 1981),” in

Office of Technology Assessment, “ Managing

the Nation’ s Commercial High-Level

Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-0-

171, March 1985.

National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements, “ Exposure of the Population in

the United States and Canada from Natural

Background Radiation,” Bethesda, NCRP Report

94, December 30, 1987. [Recommendations

prepared by NCRP Scientific Committee 43

comprised of J.H. Harley, R.B. Holtzman, A.B.

Tanner, D.P. Meyerhof, W.M. Lowder, B.S.

Pasternack, J.A. Young, and J.K. Wogman.] 

National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements, “ Risk-Based Classification of

Radioactive and Hazardous Chemical Wastes,”

Bethesda, NCRP Report No. 139, December 31,

2002. [Recommendations prepared by NCRP

Scientific Committee 87-2 comprised of A.G.

Croff, M.J. Bell, Y. Cohen, L.C. Keifer, D.C.

Kocher, D.J. Paustenbach, V.C. Rogers, and A.

Wallo, III.] 

National Research Council, “ Disposal of Solid

Radioactive Wastes in Bedded Salt Deposits,”

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on

Radioactive Waste Management, 1970.

National Research Council, “ Geologic Criteria

for Repositories for High-Level Radioactive

Wastes,” National Academy of Sciences,

Committee on Radioactive Waste Management,

August 1978.

National Research Council, “ Health Effects of

Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:

BEIR V,” Washington, DC, National Academy

Press, 1990.

National Research Council, “ The Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant – A Potential Solution for the Disposal
B-16

of Transuranic Waste,” Washington, DC,

National Academy Press, 1996.

National Research Council, “ The Disposition

Dilemma — Controlling the Release of Solid

Materials from Nuclear Regulatory CommissionLicensed Facilities,” Washington, DC, National

Academy Press, 2002.

National Research Council, “ Improving the

Regulation and Management of Low-Activity

Wastes,” Washington, DC, National Academy

Press, 2006.

Office of Technology Assessment, “ Managing

the Nation’ s Commercial High-Level

Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Congress, OTA-0-

171, March 1985.

Pelletier, R., U.S. Department of Energy, Letter

to the J.W. Gunter, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, “ DOE Office of

Environmental Guidance Comments on April

1989 Version of EPA Federal Register Notice

Describing Draft 40 CFR Part 193 and 40 CFR

Part 764 [General Subject],” Washington, DC,

September 9, 1991.

Rechard, R.P., “ An Introduction to the

Mechanics of Performance Assessment Using

Examples of Calculations Done for the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Between 1990 and 1992,”

Albuquerque, Sandia National Laboratories,

SAND93-1378, October 1995.

Shapiro, J., Radiation Protection – A Guide

for Scientists and Physicians (3 Edition), rd

Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1990.

Smith, C.F., and J.J. Cohen, “ Development of

a Comprehensive Waste Classification System,”

in R.G. Post, editor, WM ’ 89 – Proceedings of

the Symposium on Waste Management, February

26 — March 2, 1989, Tucson, Arizona,

[University of Arizona], 2:311–312, 1989.

Steindler, M., E.L. Albenesius, J.J. Cohen, A.G.

Croff, J.W. Healy, J.A. Lieberman, R.S. Lowrie,

A.A. Moghissi, M.W. Shupe, and A.L. Taboas,

“ Summary Statement from the Workshop on the

Management of Alpha-Contaminated Waste,” in

Science Applications, Inc., Proceedings of AlphaContaminated Waste Management Workshop,

August 10 – 13, 1982, Gaithersburg, Maryland,

Oak Ridge, CONF-820845, December 1982.

[Prepared for Oak Ridge National Laboratory.]

21

Sues, H.E., “ The Radioactivity of the

Atmosphere and Hydrosphere,” Annual Review of

Nuclear Science, 8:243-256, 1958.

The White House [Richard M. Nixon, President],

“ Presidential Documents, Title 3 — The

President, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of

1970,” Federal Register, Vol. 35, No. 194,

pp. 15623–15626, October 6, 1970.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Siting of

Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related Waste

Management Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol.

35, No. 222, pp. 17530–17533, November 14,

1970.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “ Transuranic

Waste Disposal; Proposed Standards for Radiation

Protection,” Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 175,

pp. 32921–32922, September, 12, 1974.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Management of

Commercially-Generated Radioactive Waste –

Draft Environmental Impact Statement,”

Washington, DC, DOE/IS-0046-D, 2 vols., April

1979.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant — Final Environmental Impact

Statement,” Assistant Secretary for Defense

 Also reprinted as Seidler et al., “ Limits for the 21

Disposal of Waste Containing Alpha-Contaminated

Radionuclides,” Nuclear and Chemical Waste

Management, 4:9–10, 1983.
B-17

Programs,” DOE/IS-0026, 2 vols., October

1980.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Program of

Research and Development for Management and

Disposal of Commercially Generated

Radioactive Wastes; Record of Decision,”

Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 93, pp. 26677–

26679, May, 14, 1981.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Mission Plan for

the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Program,” Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management, DOE/RW-0005, 3 vols., June

1985.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Draft Project

Decision Schedule — Radioactive Waste

Management System,” Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/RW0018, July 1985. [Revised reprint.]

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant No Migration Variance Petition,”

Carlsbad Area Office, DOE/WIMP-89-003, 5

vols., February 1989. [Prepared by the IT

Corporation.]

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant – Draft Supplement Environmental

Impact Statement,” Assistant Secretary for

Defense Programs, DOE/IS-0026-DS, 2 vols.,

April 1989.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant – WIPP,” Carlsbad, Westinghouse

Electric Corporation, 1990. [Prepared by the

Waste Isolation Division.]

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant – Final Supplement Environmental

Impact Statement,” Office of Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management, DOE/IS0026-FS, 13 vols., January 1990.

U.S. Department of Energy,“ Closing the

Circle on the Atom – The Environmental Legacy

of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United

States and What the Department of Energy Is

Doing About It,” Office of Environmental

Management, DOE/EM-0266, 1995.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Title 40 CFR Part

191 Compliance Certification Application for the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant – Final,” Carlsbad

Area Office, DOE/CAO-1996-2184, 28 vols.,

October 1996.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ The Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant – Pioneering Nuclear Waste

Disposal,” Carlsbad Area Office, DOE/CAN-00-

3214, February 2000.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ West Valley

Demonstration Project Waste Management

Environmental Impact Statement – Final,” West

Valley Area Office, DOE/IS-0337F, December

2003.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Advance Notice of

Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy

Partnership Technology Demonstration

Program,” Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 55,

pp. 14505–14507, March 22, 2006.

U.S. Department of Energy, “ Spent Nuclear

Fuel Recycling Program Plan — Report to

Congress,” Washington, DC, May 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Environmental Standards for the Management

and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level

and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes: Proposed

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 250,

pp. 51896–58206, December 29, 1982.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Environmental Radiation Protection Standards

for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”

Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 170, p. 39563,

August 31, 1983.
B-18

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Environmental Standards for Uranium and

Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial

Processing Sites: Final Rule,” Federal Register,

Vol. 48, No. 196, pp. 45926–45947, October 7,

1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Environmental Standards for the Management

and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level

and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes: Final

Rule," Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 182,

pp. 38066–38089, September 19, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ LowLevel and NARM Radioactive Wastes — Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed

Rules, Volume 1 — Background Information

Document,” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA

520/1-87-012-1, June 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “ 40

CFR Part 191: Criteria for the Certification and

Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant’ s Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191

Disposal Regulations: Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 61, No. 28, pp. 5224–5245,

February 9, 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Criteria for the Certification and ReCertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’ s

Compliance with the Disposal Regulations:

Certification Decision. Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 63, No. 95, pp. 27354–27406,

May 18, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Evaluation of EPA’ s Guidelines for

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring

Radioactive Materials (TENORM) – Report to

Congress,” EPA 402-R-00-01, June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Radiation Protection at EPA — The First 30

Years,” Washington, DC, Office of Radiation

Programs, EPA 402-B-00-001, August 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“ Approaches to an Integrated Framework for

Management and Disposal of Low-Activity

Waste: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking,” Federal Register, Vol. 68,

No. 222, pp. 65119–65151, November 18, 2003.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Nuclear

Energy’ s Dilemma: Disposing of Hazardous

Radioactive Waste Safely,” Washington, DC,

END-77-41, September 9, 1977.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “ Chronology of

Low-Level Waste Standards (Appendix II),” in

“ EPA Standards Delayed by Low Priority and

Coordination Problems,” Washington, DC,

GAO/RCED-93-126, June 1993.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Burial of

Radioactive Waste: Proposed Rulemaking,”

Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 142,

pp. 38081–38105, July 24, 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Draft

Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part

61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Wastes,” Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0782, 4 vols.,

September 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste: Final Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 47, No. 248, pp. 57446–57248,

December 27, 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Disposal

of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic

Repositories: Final Rule,” Federal Register,

Vol. 48, No. 120, pp. 28194–28229, June 21,

1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Definition of ‘High-Level Radioactive Waste’ :

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”

Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 39, pp. 5992–
B-19

6001, February 27, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: Proposed

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 96, pp.

17709– 17711, May 18, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: Final

Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 100, pp.

22578–22583, May 25, 1989.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in

a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca

Mountain, NV: Final Rule,” Federal Register,

Vol. 66, No. 213, pp. 55732–55816, November

2, 2001.

Zebroski, E., and M. Levenson, “ The Nuclear

Fuel Cycle,” in J.M. Hollander and M.K.

Simmons, editors, Annual Review of Energy,

1:101–132, 1976.
B-20

(Page intentionally left blank.)
C-1

APPENDIX C

STRUCTURE OF 10 CFR PART 61

Title 10, “ Energy,” Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations documents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) regulations. Chapter I is divided into Parts 1 through 199. Title 10, Part 61,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR Part 61) describes how the NRC will license construction authorization, operation, and permanent

closure of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. The table below lists the key regulatory features

of 10 CFR Part 61. A full-text version of the 10 CFR Part 61 regulation is available on the NRC Web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/ part061/. 

Subpart Subpart Title Section Section Title

A General Provisions 61.1 Purpose and scope

61.2 Definitions

61.3 License required

61.4 Communications

61.5 Interpretations

61.6 Exemptions

61.7 Concepts

61.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval

61.9 Employee protection

61.9a Completeness and accuracy of information

61.9b Deliberate misconduct

B Licenses 61.10 Content of application

61.11 General information

61.12 Specific technical information

61.13 Technical analyses

61.14 Institutional information

61.15 Financial information

61.16 Other information

61.20 Filing and distribution of application

61.21 Elimination of repetition

61.22 Updating of application

61.23 Standards for issuance of a license

61.24 Conditions of licenses
Subpart Subpart Title Section Section Title

C-2

B Licenses (continued) 61.25 Changes

61.26 Amendment of license

61.27 Application for renewal or closure

61.28 Contents of application for closure

61.29 Post-closure observation and maintenance

61.30 Transfer of license

61.31 Termination of license

C Performance Objectives 61.40 General requirement

61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity

61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion

61.43 Protection of individuals during operations

61.44 Stability of the disposal site after closure

D Technical Requirements for Land

Disposal Facilities

61.50 Disposal site suitability requirements for land disposal

61.51 Disposal site design for land disposal

61.52 Land disposal facility operation and disposal site closure

61.53 Environmental monitoring

61.54 Alternative requirements for design and operations

61.55 Waste classification

61.56 Waste characteristics

61.57 Labeling

61.58 Alternative requirements for waste classification and characteristics

61.59 Institutional requirements

E Financial Assurances 61.61 Applicant qualifications and assurances

61.62 Funding for disposal site closure and stabilization

61.63 Financial assurances for institutional controls

F Participation by State Governments

and Indian Tribes

61.70 Scope

61.71 State and Tribal government consultation

61.72 Filing of proposals for State and Tribal participation

61.73 Commission approval of proposals
Subpart Subpart Title Section Section Title

C-3

G Records, Reports, Tests, and

Inspections

61.80 Maintenance of records, reports, and transfers

61.81 Tests at land disposal facilities

61.82 Commission inspections of land disposal facilities

61.83 Violations

61.84 Criminal penalties
C-4

(Page intentionally left blank.)
D-1

APPENDIX D

A SUMMARY OF NUREG-1573: A PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE

WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Before the October 2000 publication of NUREG1573, “ A Performance Assessment Methodology

for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facilities — Recommendations of NRC’ s

Performance Assessment Working Group,”

existing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC or the staff) guidance documents did not

specifically deal with the evaluation of low-level

radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility designs

and performance against the performance

objectives detailed in Title 10, Part 61,

“ Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of

Radioactive Waste,” of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 61). These guidance

documents contained general information and did

not address many specific implementation issues

and acceptable approaches for resolving them.

Moreover, existing guidance did not explicitly

address the relationship between the overall 10

CFR Part 61 data and design requirements and

specific LLW performance assessment needs.

Previously, NRC guidance considered site

characterization, facility design, and performance

modeling as separate activities. 

To clarify these and other 10 CFR Part 61

implementation issues, the staff developed

detailed information and recommendations for

potential applicants, specifically related to the

performance objective at 10 CFR 61.41

concerned with the radiological protection of the

general public. The NRC published detailed

information and recommendations in NUREG1573 (NRC, 2000). 

The following section summarizes the

information and recommendations found in

NUREG-1573.

D-1 INTRODUCTION

A disposal facility for the containment and

isolation of radioactive wastes is a complex

system. It is generally expected to consist of

multiple barriers, with each barrier contributing 1

to the overall performance of the system by

providing some degree of redundancy to ensure

the containment and isolation of wastes. Because

the future performance of a disposal facility must

be estimated for many hundreds or thousands of

years into the future, analysts use predictive

mathematical models to evaluate the long-term

performance of each barrier class, as well as the

overall system. These models are usually

implemented through computer codes that rely on

numerical methods. 

Consensus exists within the international

community that disposal facility developers and

regulators will rely on state-of-the-art

performance assessment analyses to evaluate the

safety of these facilities before they are licensed

and operational. Because of the inherent 2

 Depending on the hazard posed by the waste, two 1

barrier classes, engineered and natural, may be used, and

several individual barriers may exist within each barrier

class.

 Risk assessment, safety assessment, performance

2

assessment, probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), and

similar concepts are terms of art among practitioners;

thus, no widely agreed-to set of definitions exists. A

Nuclear Energy Agency (1999) report reviews the

meaning and intent of some of the more widely used terms

in the performance assessment lexicon. Moreover, the

concept of risk assessment itself may be subject to some

variability in interpretation. See Fjeld and Compton 

(1998, p. 4166).

Nevertheless, the NRC has been very active in developing

PRA technology and applying it to nuclear facility safety.
D-2

uncertainties in the models and data used to

evaluate the performance of disposal system

components, performance assessments often are

conducted probabilistically, in an iterative

fashion. This approach allows the analyst to

quantitatively evaluate the impacts of parameter

and model uncertainty on the results, which are

used to determine compliance with the

performance objectives. Performance assessment

may thus be defined as the process of

quantitatively evaluating the capability of a

disposal facility to contain and isolate radioactive

wastes. See Campbell and Cranwell (1988).

Deterministic approaches to performance

assessment, when single parameter values and

models are analyzed, do not explicitly evaluate

uncertainties but assume the use of

“ conservative” parameters and models to bound

the results. NRC staff evaluations of

performance assessments, whether deterministic

or probabilistic, take into account uncertainty and

variability.

D-2 BACKGROUND

In conjunction with the development of 10 CFR

Part 61 and after its promulgation in 1982, the

NRC staff began to undertake a variety of

performance-assessment-related projects that

addressed LLW disposal, primarily in shallow

land burial (SLB) facilities. The staff initiated

projects in areas such as waste package

performance and leaching, hydrogeological and

hydrogeochemical characterization and modeling,

and cover performance. The staff also began to

investigate alternatives to SLB disposal and

developed guidance for the licensing of other

types of LLW disposal facilities (e.g., aboveground vaults, below-ground vaults, earthmounded concrete bunkers, mined cavities, and

augured holes). See NRC (1991, 1994a). 

As early as 1987, the staff recognized that some

type of assessment methodology would need to

be “ acquired or developed” for estimating the

performance of 10 CFR Part 61 LLW disposal

facilities [page 5996 of Volume 52 of the

Federal Register, published February 27, 1987

(NRC, 1987, 52 FR 5996)]. To provide focus

and integration of the overall LLW program and

to address the need for a more integrated

approach to evaluating the performance of any

LLW disposal facility design, the NRC staff

formulated an overall LLW performance

assessment strategy in 1987. This strategy

(Starmer et al., 1988) recommended an overall

systems approach for assessing the performance

of LLW disposal facilities. The strategy also

recommended a modular approach for

quantifying the potential release and transport of

radionuclides through significant environmental

pathways. The NRC later contracted with Sandia

National Laboratories (SNL) to develop an LLW

performance assessment methodology (PAM)

based on this strategy with additional approaches

for quantitatively evaluating uncertainties in the

overall system model. The NRC published the 3

PAM in a five-volume series as NUREG/CR5453, “ Background Information for the

Development of a Low-Level Waste Performance

Assessment Methodology — Assessment of

Relative Significance of Migration and Exposure

Pathways,” issued in December 1989.

Concurrently, the staff published an LLW

Research Program Plan (O'Donnell and Lambert,

1989), which presented its strategy for

For example, see PRA Working Group (1994). In 1995,

the Commission issued a policy statement that encouraged

the use of PRA methods as a complement to the

deterministic approach in its nuclear regulatory activities

(NRC, 1994b). See Appendix F to this report. Over the

last few decades, the NRC staff has expanded its use of

PRAs in the area of waste management. Because waste

management systems are passive, the NRC had to adapt

PRA methods and analyses, which are now renamed

performance assessments. See Eisenberg et al. (1999).

 The PAM, as later adopted by the staff, also 3

provides specific recommendations on approaches for the

following key performance assessment modules: source

term, engineered barriers, ground-water flow and

transport, and dose.
D-3

conducting research in the LLW area.

Shortly thereafter, the staff began developing an

LLW performance assessment program plan

(NRC, 1992), which had two primary goals. The

first was to enhance the staff's capability to

review and evaluate license applications within

the 15 months specified by the Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended. The

second goal was to develop the in-house

capability to prepare performance assessment

guidance, should such guidance be necessary. 4

This plan responded to needs identified by both

the Agreement States and the staff through

interactions with prospective commercial disposal

facility developers (i.e., applicants), review of

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prototype

license applications, and specific performance

assessment issues raised by the States. 

Consistent with its 1992 program plan, the staff

and its technical assistance contractors enhanced

the NRC’ s performance assessment expertise by

conducting a variety of LLW modeling exercises

and analyses. The staff also initiated computer 5

simulations of a “ test case problem” for a

hypothetical LLW disposal system. Allied

performance assessment work conducted in other

NRC waste management areas, such as high-level

radioactive waste and decommissioning, also

benefitted the staff's efforts to enhance its

performance assessment expertise.

D-3 NUREG-1573

The efforts described above identified several

areas in which additional LLW performance

assessment guidance might be needed, as applied

to the NRC LLW regulatory framework. For

example, the staff found that existing NRC

guidance documents – NUREG-1199, NUREG1200, and NUREG-1300 – did not clearly

delineate the relationship between the

10 CFR Part 61 data and design requirements

and a detailed LLW performance assessment.

The scopes of the three NUREGs were intended

to provide guidance on demonstrating compliance

with all Subpart C performance objectives,

including the performance objective at 10 CFR

61.41, “ Protection of the General Population

from Releases of Radioactivity.” Moreover,

many of the performance assessment issues of

concern came to light after the time the staff was

conducting the 10 CFR Part 61 environmental

impact statement (EIS) scoping process or, even

later, during the LLW rulemaking effort. The

areas of staff concern (NRC, 1990, p. 1-13)

included the following: 

• achieving a common understanding of

the minimum elements of an LLW

performance assessment process

• defining the relationship between site

characterization and performance

assessment data collection

• modeling infiltration rate estimation,

source-term release behavior, and

concrete and engineered barrier

degradation 

• modeling radionuclide transport in the

environment 

• making decisions related to performance

assessment models and the validation and

verification of computer models 

 The Commission’ s 1995 PRA Policy Statement 4

served as another “ driver” behind the development of the

staff’ s LLW performance assessment program.

 An early LLW performance assessment analysis

5

performed by the NRC staff was published in 1992 as part

of a survey of Federal risk assessment efforts. See DOE

et al. (1992, Appendix G). Dunkelman (1987) provides an

extensive bibliography of NRC-sponsored technical

assistance (including performance assessment-related

activities) performed before work on NUREG-1573

commenced. The references cited in NUREG-1573

provide an update to the Dunkelman compilation, and this

report (at Appendix E) updates that bibliography.
D-4

• making decisions related to the use of

generic versus site-specific data in

performance assessment models 

• developing approaches to uncertainty and

sensitivity analyses

To address these concerns and to develop

consensus approaches, the staff created an LLW

performance assessment methodology guidance

document, NUREG-1573. This and earlier

NUREG guidance documents focused on

developing recommendations for acceptable

approaches and methods that could be used to

demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR Part 61

performance objectives.

In January 1994, the staff prepared a preliminary

draft of the NUREG and distributed it for

comment to all LLW-sited and host Agreement

States, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW), DOE, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S.

Geological Survey. After that initial review

process, the NRC staff sponsored a 2-day

workshop, held at the NRC headquarters on

November 16 and 17, 1994, to discuss the

preliminary draft NUREG and an attendant LLW

test case. The staff also sponsored a half-day 6

LLW performance assessment workshop in

conjunction with the 16th Annual DOE/LLW

M anage men t C o n f e r e nce o n

December 13–15, 1994. The NRC subsequently

modified NUREG-1573 to reflect information

received during these interactions as well as

specific direction from the Commission (NRC,

1996). The agency issued a revised draft for

formal public comment on May 29, 1997 (62 FR

29164), as a branch technical position (BTP).

Following a review of public comments, the staff

clarified certain issues and issued the final

NUREG in October 2000, but not as a BTP. 7

D-3.1 Recommended Approaches, Attributes

of Acceptable Approaches, and Staff

Advice

In NUREG-1573, the staff proposed that

applicants should develop and use a defensible

methodology to demonstrate compliance of an

LLW disposal facility design with the postclosure

performance objective at 10 CFR 61.41. To help

prospective applicants achieve this goal, the staff

provided its views on three key performance

 The so-called “ test case” analyzed the performance

6

of a hypothetical LLW site and design as a means of

evaluating whether the approaches recommended in

NUREG-1573 were implementable. Using actual site data

intended to be representative of a humid geographic

environment and a hypothetical facility design and

radionuclide inventory, the NRC staff tested a number of

models that could be used in conducting an LLW

performance assessment and gained experience with the

use and limitations of LLW performance assessment

modeling. Following its completion, the staff concluded

that the test case demonstrated that the approaches

recommended in NUREG-1573 could be implemented.

However, the staff was unable to formally document the

test case results because of resource constraints. The staff

did present the results from the test case at a November

1994 2-day public workshop and there are transcripts of

that meeting. Those transcripts are available for

inspection and copying in NRC’ s Public Document

Room. In addition to the meeting transcripts, preliminary

results from the LLW test case have been described by

Cady and Thaggard (1994), Campbell (1994), Campbell

and McCartin (1994), and Krupka and Serne (1998).

 As a result of the public comment process, several 7

commenters expressed concern that once the proposed

guidance, particularly in the area of recommended policy

approaches, was finalized, LLW disposal facility

developers and other regulatory entities would view it as

de facto NRC standards by virtue of its codification as a

BTP. The staff noted (NRC, 2000, p. B-1) that the

recommended technical and policy approaches in NUREG1573 were not a substitute for NRC regulations and that

compliance with those recommendations was never

intended to be obligatory. However, to avoid the potential

for future confusion in this area, the NRC published the

final version of NUREG-1573 as a “ technical report.”

Moreover, what were formerly staff positions or technical

positions in the draft BTP were referred to as

recommended approaches, attributes of an acceptable

approach, staff advice, or words to that effect in the final

NUREG. 
D-5

assessment issues – (a) an acceptable LLW

performance assessment approach (process),

(b) the interpretation and implementation of five

10 CFR Part 61 regulatory requirements related

to LLW performance assessment, and (c) ways to

demonstrate implementation of the NRC PAM.

See Table D-1.

D-3.1.1 Example of an Acceptable Approach

for Demonstrating Compliance with

10 CFR 61.41

In NUREG-1573, the staff recommended that

prospective 10 CFR Part 61 license applicants

develop a performance assessment process that

systematically integrates site characterization

data, facility design information, and predictive

modeling results. The process is intended to

build confidence in model estimates of LLW

disposal site performance by providing a useful

decisionmaking framework for evaluating and

defending the appropriateness of data,

assumptions, models, and codes used to

demonstrate compliance with the postclosure

performance objective at 10 CFR 61.41.

To achieve the degree of desired integration,

NUREG-1573 recommended a nine-step

performance assessment process, depicted in

Figure D-1. The staff noted that the central

attribute of the proposed process was that it be

conducted iteratively, starting with a combination

of generic and limited site-specific information in

support of relatively simple conservative models

and analyses and progressing as necessary to

more realistic, site-specific, and detailed analyses

to reduce uncertainty in assessing performance of

(i.e, reaching decisions about) an LLW disposal

facility (NRC, 2000a, pp. xi–x). Initial screening

analyses identify the most important issues and

data needs; as more site and design information

is collected, modeling assumptions, conceptual

models, and data needs are reevaluated. Site

characterization and design bases are then revised

to obtain data or modify the design as needed to

reduce uncertainty and defend assessment results

with respect to the postclosure performance

objective at 10 CFR 61.41.

The performance assessment process outlined in

NUREG-1573 was designed to be open and

transparent so that all data, assumptions, and

models would be well documented and

understood. Moreover, this process intended that

the rationale for any subsequent modification of

those assumptions and models would also be

documented and supported by an appropriate

combination of site investigation and assessment

data, valid technical reasoning, and sound

professional judgment. In addition, the NUREG1573 process incorporates a formal,

probabilistically-based treatment of uncertainty as

a basis for performance assessment

decisionmaking, offers a technical basis for

identifying the completion of site

characterization, and enhances confidence that

the disposal site complies with the postclosure

performance objectives at 10 CFR 61.41. 

Consistent with the Commission’ s views

regarding the use of PRA, the staff also noted

that the application of the performance

assessment techniques to LLW disposal facility

designs should be tempered according to the

complexity of the disposal system, uncertainties

surrounding system performance, and the

estimated risks resulting from the types and kinds

of wastes being disposed (NRC, 2000a, p. x).

D-3.1.2 Recommended Approaches to

Technical Policy Issues

Technical policy issues represent fundamental

questions pertaining to the interpretation and

implementation of specific 10 CFR Part 61

performance objectives. In developing the

performance assessment methodology outlined in

NUREG-1573, the staff identified five areas in

the regulation related to LLW performance

assessment for which supplemental advice should

be provided (NRC, 1996): 
D-6

Table D-1 Performance Assessment Technical Areas Covered by PAWG in NUREG-1573. 

Example of an Acceptable Approach for Demonstrating Compliance with 10 CFR 61.41 (See Figure D-1 for details of this approach.)

PAWG Views on Policy Issues Regarding 10 CFR Part 61 Performance Objectives and Technical Requirements (Also see Table D-1.)

Role of the Site and Consideration of Site Conditions, Processes, and Events Site Selection

Site Conditions in Performance Assessment Models

Role of Engineered Barriers

Timeframe for LLW Performance Assessment Analyses

Treatment of Sensitivity and Uncertainty in LLW Performance Assessment Role of Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses

Recommended Approaches for Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses

Compliance Determination

Role of LLW Performance Assessment during Operational and Closure Periods

 Recommended Approaches to LLW Performance Assessment Modeling Issues

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Sources of Uncertainty: Model Uncertainty and Parameter Uncertainty

Issues

Recommended Approaches to Treatment in Deterministic Analysis and Probabilistic Analysis

Parametric Sensitivity Analysis

Infiltration Key Considerations in the Analysis: Temporal Variation in Processes and Parameters and Spatial

Variation in Parameters

Recommended Approach: General Strategy and Approach

Engineered Barriers Features and Dimensions of Engineered Barrier Systems

Integration and Interaction of Materials

Construction Quality and Testing

Model Input
D-7

Recommended Approaches to LLW Performance Assessment Modeling Issues (continued)

Engineered Barriers (continued) Post-Construction Monitoring and Evaluation

Use of Engineering Judgment

 Source Term and Waste Type Inventory of Radionuclides in LLW

Screening Methods to Identify Significant Radionuclides

Waste Form and Waste Type

Waste Container

Source Term Models

Chemical Environment: Development of Site-Specific Parameters and Models (Radionuclide Distribution

Coefficients and Geochemical Modeling of an LLW Disposal Facility)

Gaseous Releases

Transport Media Groundwater

Surface Water (Below-Ground Disposal Facilities and Above-Ground Disposal Facilities)

Air Transport (Screening Approach and Detailed Approaches)

Dose Considerations: Pathway Identification and Modeling, Internal Dosimetry, and External Dosimetry

Recommended Approaches: Pathway Identification, and Model Identification and Identification of 

Parameter Values

Internal Dosimetry and External Dosimetry
D-8

Figure D-1 Details of an “Example of an Acceptable Approach for Demonstrating Compliance with 10

CFR 61.41.” Taken from NRC (2000, p. 3-2).
D-9

(1) consideration of future site conditions,

processes, and events

(2) performance of engineered barriers 

(3) timeframe for an LLW performance

assessment 

(4) treatment of sensitivity and uncertainty in

LLW performance assessments 

(5) role of performance assessment during

operational and closure periods 

The earlier EIS scoping process and 10 CFR Part

61 rulemaking had not identified these areas

(issues) because the generic LLW dose

assessment methodology that had been developed

in conjunction with those earlier activities (Adam

and Rogers, 1978; Rogers, 1979; Rogers et al.,

1979) was much simpler in many respects than

the performance assessment process the staff now

envisioned. The issues in question concern how

LLW performance assessments are conducted

and evaluated. Table D-2 presents the staff’ s

views on these principal regulatory issues.

D-3.1.3 Reco m m e n d e d A n a l y ti cal

Approaches to Modeling Issues

The 1987 performance assessment strategy

proposed by Starmer et al. advocated a modular

approach to modeling LLW disposal systems,

including dividing the disposal “ system” into the

following separate modeling areas: 

• infiltration and unsaturated (vadose) zone

flow 

• engineered barrier performance (coupled

with infiltration analysis to calculate the

water flux into disposal units)

• radionuclide releases from waste forms

and the bottoms of disposal units

(container failure, leaching, and nearfield transport)

• transport media such as groundwater,

surface water, and air 

• plant and animal uptake (food chain) 

• dose to humans 

The staff subsequently developed the PAM

around this strategy. SNL developed the

necessary methodology to undertake performance

assessment analyses. This methodology assumes

a generalized conceptual model of an LLW

disposal site. Consistent with the 1987

performance assessment strategy, the NRC

published the PAM in a five-volume series as

NUREG/CR-5453, which provided a basic set of 8

models and computer codes for evaluating the

following:

• infiltration behavior 

• source term

• engineered barrier performance

• contaminant transport via groundwater, 9

surface water, and air 

• dose to receptors 

The modular PAM structure allows an LLW

performance assessment to use a mix of both

complex and simple models. Given the technical

uncertainty of modeling LLW site performance

and the diversity of sites and facility designs that

various States and compacts may consider,

flexibility to select appropriate subsystem models

and codes is an important PAM attribute.

Although the PAM can be implemented by

separately analyzing each module, creating input

to one subsystem model based on the results of

another, NUREG-1573 outlines the potential

benefits of automating subsystem model or code

inputs and outputs with an overall system code,

within the context of a broader performance

assessment model. The staff noted that the

benefits of an automated system code compared

 See Shipers (1989); Shipers and Harlan (1989); and 8

Kozak et al. (1989a, 1989b, 1990). Also see Chu et al.

(1991).

 Including both the unsaturated and saturated zones.

9
D-10

Table D-2 NUREG-1573 Recommendations on Part 61 Regulatory Issues. Taken from NRC (2000,

pp. xii–xv).

Regulatory Issue (NRC, 1996) Staff NUREG-1573 Recommendation

Consideration of Future Site

Conditions, Processes, and

Events

Use realistic assumptions and ranges of parameters to effectively reflect the reference geologic setting

for the site. To capture the variability in natural processes and events and dynamic site behavior, the

range of siting assumptions and data should be sufficient to understand the long-term trends in natural

phenomena acting on the site. NUREG-1573 emphasizes the need for a limit on the range of possible

site conditions, processes, and events to be considered in an LLW performance assessment and for the

elimination of unnecessary speculation in the assessment. In addition, consideration of societal changes

would result in unnecessary speculation and therefore should not be included in an LLW performance

assessment.

Performance of Engineered

Barriers

An applicant should assign and justify the credit given to engineered barrier performance. Any period of

time claimed for performance of an engineered barrier should be supported by suitable information and

technical justification evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, to limit unnecessary speculation as

to their performance, the staff believes that materials typically used in engineered barriers can

alternatively be assumed to have physically degraded 500 years after site closure. Thus, at 500 years

and beyond, the engineered barriers can be assumed to function at performance levels considerably

lower than their optimum level, but credit for structural stability and chemical buffering effects may be

taken for longer periods of time. For timeframes longer than 500 years, it is unreasonable to assume that

any physical engineered barrier, such as a cover or a reinforced concrete vault, can be designed to

1⁄2

function long enough to influence the eventual release of long-lived radionuclides such as carbon-14 (t :

5300 1⁄2 1⁄2 years), technetium-99 (t : 213,000 years), and iodine-129(t : 15,700,000 years), if they are present.

However, credit for structural stability and chemical buffering effects may be taken for the long term

provided that the applicant supplies suitable information and justification. But again, this would require

case-by-case evaluations. 

Timeframe for an LLW

Performance Assessment

A timeframe for complying with the 10 CFR 61.41 postclosure performance objective is not specified in

the regulation. To reduce unnecessary speculation regarding the performance assessment, a period of

10,000 years (i.e., the period of regulatory interest or concern) is sufficiently long to capture the peak dose

from the more mobile long-lived radionuclides and to demonstrate the relationship of site suitability to the

performance objective. The staff considered shorter periods, such as the 1000 years used in dose

assessments for site decommissioning, to be generally inappropriate for assessments of LLW disposal

facilities. Assessments beyond 10,000 years can be carried out to ensure that the disposal of certain

types of waste does not result in markedly high doses to future generations or to evaluate waste disposal

at arid sites with extremely long ground-water travel times. However, assessments of doses occurring

after 10,000 years are not recommended for use as a basis for compliance with the performance

objective. 

Treatment of Sensitivity and

Uncertainty in an LLW

Performance Assessment

Formal sensitivity and uncertainty analyses should be conducted in support of performance assessment

calculations. The staff considered two different approaches for representing system performance in the

context of the postclosure performance objective. One approach provides a single bounding estimate of

system performance supported by data and assumptions that clearly demonstrate the realistic nature of

the analysis. The other approach provides a quantitative evaluation of uncertainty with regard to system

performance represented by a distribution of potential outcomes. When compliance, as measured against

10 CFR 61.41, is based on a single (deterministic) estimate of performance, the applicant is relying on

the demonstration of the conservative nature of the analysis, rather than a quantitative analysis of

uncertainty. Therefore, if it is to be used as a performance measure, a single estimate of performance

should be at or below the 10 CFR 61.41 performance objective. When a formal uncertainty analysis is

performed and a distribution of potential outcomes for system performance is provided, to consider a

facility in compliance, NUREG-1573 recommends that the peak of the mean dose as a function of time

be less than the performance objective and a plot of the upper 95th percentile of doses at each discrete

time be less than 100 mrem. 
Regulatory Issue (NRC, 1996) Staff NUREG-1573 Recommendation

D-11

Role of Performance Assessment

during the Operational and

Closure Periods

As required by 10 CFR Part 61, final LLW site closure plans must demonstrate the long-term safety of the

facility and must include not only any additional geologic, hydrologic, or other disposal site data obtained

during the operational period pertinent to the long-term containment ofwaste, but also the results of tests,

experiments, or analyses pertaining to long-term containment of waste. This demonstration could include

testing of assumptions about the performance of engineered aspects of the facility that are amenable to

confirmation during operations. The site closure requirements suggest a need to keep performance

assessments up to date as new information brings into question the bases of earlier assessments of LLW

site safety.

to manually linked subsystem models may

include (a) increased ability to proceed through

successive iterations of the performance

assessment process and perform uncertainty and

sensitivity analyses, (b) a higher degree of quality

assurance, (c) explicit recognition of assumptions

that might be vague or inconsistently addressed,

and (d) use of consistent parameters and values

among subsystem models. The PAM furnishes a

general methodology for conducting LLW

performance assessments, whereas NUREG-1573

provides recommendations and advice (guidance)

to address specific performance assessment

issues, assuming the use of an analytical

approach similar to the PAM.

After applying the PAM to the hypothetical LLW

test case problem, the staff also recognized that

the technical issues associated with the PAM had

evolved and needed updating. NUREG-1573

provided the necessary updates. In the course of

developing the PAM, the staff also identified and

described, but did not address, a number of

significant policy and technical issues. See

Kozak et al. (1993, 1995). These issues were

later referred to the Commission for

consideration and reviewed within the context of

the staff’ s NUREG-1573 recommendations. See

NRC (1996).

D-3.2 Internal Dosimetry

NUREG-1573 noted that the 10 CFR Part 61

performance objective at 10 CFR 61.41 was

based on the International Commission on

Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 2 dose

methodology (ICRP, 1959), but current health

physics practices follow the dose methodology

used in 10 CFR Part 20, “ Standards for

Protection Against Radiation,” which is currently

based on the ICRP Publication 30 methodology

(ICRP, 1979). The staff noted that any 10 CFR

Part 61 LLW license application would contain

many other assessments of potential exposures

(e.g., worker exposure, accident exposures, and

operational releases) that would rely on the ICRP

Publication 30 dose methodology. To ensure

internal consistency of information in any license

application, the staff recommended that the LLW

performance assessment be consistent with the

methodology approved by the NRC in 10 CFR

Part 20, enabling comparison with the 10 CFR

Part 61 performance objective. In this regard,

the staff noted that the calculation of the total

effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which sums

the annual external dose and the committed

effective dose equivalent, is acceptable for

comparison with the performance objective. The

NRC and other agencies have subsequently

adopted updated dose methodologies. See

Eckerman and Ryman (1993) and Eckerman et

al. (1999).

As a matter of policy, NUREG-1573 also notes

that the Commission considered 25 mrem/yr

TEDE as the appropriate dose criterion to

compare with the range of potential doses

represented by the older criterion that included a

whole body dose of 25 mrem/yr. See Footnote

1 in NRC (1999), at 64 FR 8644. The staff

observed that potential applicants did not need to

consider organ doses individually because the
D-12

low value of the TEDE should ensure that no

organ dose would exceed 50 mrem/yr.

D-3.3 Treatment of the Intruder Scenario

The performance goal at 10 CFR 61.42 is

another Subpart C performance objective that

could potentially bear on the overall performance

objective at 10 CFR 61.41. This requirement

establishes the need to “ protect inadvertent

human intruders to the facility once disposal

oper ations ceased and the facility

decommissioned....”

In NUREG-1573, the staff noted that an LLW

performance assessment was not expected to

include separate dose analyses for human

intruder scenarios (NRC, 2000b, p. 1-13). In

making this determination, the staff noted that 10

CFR 61.13(b) already required that “ analyses of

the protection of individuals from inadvertent

intrusion must include demonstration that there is

reasonable assurance the waste classification and

segregation requirements will be met and that

adequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion will be

provided....”

10

D-3.4 Public Comments on NUREG-1573

The NRC published the draft NUREG-1573 for

(formal) public comment on May 29, 1997

(62 FR 29164). The staff received 175 comments

from 17 organizations and entities. The staff 11

reviewed the comments and concluded on

balance, that the overall public reaction to the

draft NUREG was favorable, with commenters

stating general agreement with the proposed staff

positions; that the document fulfills a need; that

the document is well written; and that the

document should be finalized. After reviewing

the public comments, the staff determined that its

original advice and recommendations were

fundamentally sound and generally acceptable to

stakeholders. Hence, no significant changes

were necessary to address the comments

received. The staff made only two major

changes to the final version of NUREG-1573.

First, the NUREG was no longer referred to as a

BTP. Second, the staff modified its views on the

treatment of uncertainties in an LLW

performance assessment to better reflect the

approach used in other NRC waste management

programs. Appendix B to the final NUREG

(“ Disposition of Public Comments on May 29,

1997, Draft NUREG-1573, Including Updates to

Technical References”) includes the staff’ s

response to each of the 175 public comments

received and describes specific changes made by

the staff to address each of the comments. Table

D-3 summarizes these comments and the staff’ s

general disposition of them. 

In addition to the modifications described in

Table D-3, other additions to the final NUREG in

response to public comments included the

following:

• an expanded glossary of technical terms

used in the NUREG (as a new appendix)

• an expanded bibliography on engineered

and natural barrier performance (as an 

 The staff did acknowledge that separate intruder

10

scenario analyses may be necessary when the projected

waste spectra fundamentally differ from those considered

in the technical analyses supporting any 10 CFR Part 61

draft EIS (DEIS). See NRC (1981). For example, an

intruder analysis might be necessary if the waste forms

proposed for disposal contain anomalous quantities and

concentrations of certain long-lived radionuclides (e.g.,

uranium or thorium) so that the intruder cannot reasonably

be protected by the waste classification and intruder

barrier requirements of 10 CFR Part 61. To the extent

that there may be a need for guidance on how to perform

an intruder consequence analysis at an LLW disposal

facility, NUREG-1573 referred disposal facility

developers and other regulatory entities to the DEIS as the

final EIS (NRC, 1982) did not include all of the

information and references found in the earlier draft.

 Including NRC Agreement States (Illinois, 11

Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas),

non-Agreement States (New Jersey and Pennsylvania),

DOE, EPA, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and other

interested stakeholders.
D-13

Table D-3 Summary of Staff Responses to Public Comments on NUREG-1573. Taken from transcript of the 119

th

ACNW meeting, dated June 13, 2000. 

Issue Public Comment Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition a

10 CFR Part 61 Regulatory Issues b

Timeframe for an LLW

Performance Assessment

Varied opinions. Shorter, 500-year time-ofcompliance more appropriate than staff

recommendation. Alternatively, LLW performance

assessment calculations should be to peak dose.

Original staff recommendation will generally include

the period of time when LLW is the most hazardous.

10,000 years is consistent with other waste

management regulations and supporting analyses. 

No change made to final NUREG.

Performance of Engineered

Barriers

Assumed 500-year duration is arbitrary and without

technical justification.

A 500-year timeframe is generally sufficient.

Performance periods greater than 500 years are

permitted, subject to justification by licensees. 

No change made to final NUREG. 

Consideration of Future Site

Conditions, Processes, and

Events

Uncertainties in future human activities should be

considered.

Consideration of future human activities is highly

speculative. Use of a “reference biosphere” or

“critical group concept” is consistent with other

radioactive waste management applications. 

No change made to final NUREG.

Treatment of Sensitivity and

Uncertainty in an LLW

Performance Assessment

Varied opinions. Use of mean to provide best

estimate of system performance not justified.

Probabilistic analyses not politically supportable.

Proposed approach in NUREG is consistent with

other NRC regulatory activities. 

No change made to final NUREG.

Other Comments

Dose Methodology NUREG inconsistent in recommending TEDE

calculation while the regulation calls for the use of

the older ICRP 2 methodology.

Final version of NUREG modified to clarify

inconsistency. In response, the staff noted that, as a

matter of policy, the Commission considers 25

mrem/yr TEDE to be an appropriate dose limit to

compare with the range of potential doses

represented by the older whole body dose limits,

consistent with Federal Guidance 11 (Eckerman et

al., 1988).

ALARA (as low as

reasonably achievable)

Considerations

NUREG should provide guidance on how to comply

with ALARA requirements of 10 CFR 61.41.

Final version of NUREG modified to include

discussion on how to address ALARA requirements

by looking at costs and benefits of various disposal

facility designs. 

Institutional Controls Institutional controls should be maintained at site

as long as wastes remain hazardous.

100 years of caretaker oversight is generally

considered conservative; institutional controls are

likely, in practice, to remain in effect indefinitely. 

No change made to final NUREG.

Ground-Water Protection Compliance with10 CFR 61.41 will not ensure that

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

maximum concentration limits will be met.

Meeting MCLs is beyond the scope of the NUREG.

Current regulations provide adequate protection. 

No change made to final NUREG.
Issue Public Comment Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition a

D-14

Miscellaneous Documentation of NRC LLW test case should be

completed and published.

Test case results were already released, and no

resources are available to complete requested

documentation. 

No change made to final NUREG.

NUREG should encourage use of peer reviews to

increase confidence in performance assessment

process.

Final version of NUREG modified to recommend peer

reviews and formal and informal use of expert

judgment. 

Potential for nuclear material criticality should be

addressed

Staff considers potential for criticality to be remote

and believes that appropriate measures will be taken

during disposal facility operations. 

No change made to final NUREG.

a. Refer to Appendix B to the final NUREG-1573 for a full discussion of the public comments received and their disposition.

b. See Table D-1.

appendix) the Commission’ s 1995 PRA

Policy Statement (as a new appendix) 

Following a review and modification of NUREG1573, the NRC briefed the ACNW on the

proposed final document at its 119 meeting in th

June 2000. In its review, the ACNW received

the document favorably, but did make certain

recommendations for the Commission’ s

consideration, as summarized in Table D-4

(Garrick, 2000).

D-4 REFERENCES

Adam, J.A., and V.L. Rogers, “ A Classification

System for Radioactive Waste Disposal – What

Waste Goes Where?,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-0456, July 1978.

Cady, R., and M. Thaggard, “ Summary and

Insights from the NRC Branch Technical Position

Test Case,” in 16 Annual U.S. Department of th

Energy Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Management Conference (Abstracts), Phoenix,

Arizona, December 13–15, 1994, Idaho Falls,

U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations

Office, 1994.

Campbell, A.C., “ Approaches for Uncertainty

and Sensitivity Analysis in Performance

Assessment,” in 16 Annual U.S. Department of th

Energy Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Management Conference (Abstracts), December

13–15, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona, Idaho Falls,

U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations

Office, 1994.

Campbell, A.C., and T.J. McCartin,

“ Application of Geochemical Data and Modeling

in Performance Assessment of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities,” EOS

[Transactions of the American Geophysical

Union], 75 (Supplement 16):171, 1994. [Spring

meeting abstracts.]

Campbell, J.E., and R.M. Cranwell,

“ Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste

Repositories,” Science, 239(4846):1389–1394,

1988.

Chu, M.S.Y, M.W. Kozak, J.E. Campbell, and

B.H. Thompson, “ A Self-Teaching Curriculum

for the NRC/SNL Low-Level Waste Performance

Assessment Methodology,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5539,

January 1991. [Prepared by the SNL.] 
D-15

Table D-4 Summary of Staff Responses to ACNW Comments on NUREG-1573. Taken from Appendix E to final

NUREG. Refer to that appendix for a complete discussion of ACNW comments (Garrick, 2000) and their

disposition.

ACNW Recommendation (Garrick, 2000) Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition

The document should be issued as a BTP. The staff decision to issue the BTP as a NUREG reflects the need to

make it clear that organizations (i.e., Agreement States, licensees)

may take other approaches when implementing their respective

programs. In addition, the staff believes that, given the agency’s

currently reduced role in licensing activities for LLW disposal, less

need exists to provide specific guidance to licensees, which is the

primary purpose of staff technical positions. 

No change made to final NUREG.

The staff should indicate in the technical report that a risk

assessment is the acceptable method of safety analysis, the scope

of which should be commensurate with the complexity of the facility.

Final version ofNUREG modified to address ACNW recommendation,

including the Commission’s 1995 PRA Policy Statement.

The staff should provide guidance to the applicant to use realistic

ranges and distributions of parameter values and conceptual

models when conducting [probabilistic] risk analyses.

Final version of NUREG modified to address ACNW recommendation.

The staff should consider recommending a complementary

cumulative distribution function type of an approach to treating

uncertainty in a probabilistic interpretation of the dose standard.

The staff disagreed with the ACNW that the proposed approach for

addressing uncertainty disregards all information about the distribution,

except the mean and the 95 percentile. In the NUREG, the staff th

noted that it was envisioned that the whole distribution would be

considered, so the recommended approach calls for looking at both

the spread of doses at the time of the peak of the mean dose and the

spread in peak doses. Although the staff agrees that it may be useful

for the regulatory agency to see the whole distribution of results before

making a finding on the compliance demonstration, ultimately, only

part of the distribution will be used in determining compliance with the

dose criteria, and guidance must be provided on what specific parts of

the distribution should be used for this purpose. 

No change made to final NUREG.

The staff should consider eliminating the suggestion of a 500-year

engineered barrier lifetime.

The staff agreed with the basic thrust of the ACNW recommendation,

but declined to modify the NUREG. The staff considers the 500-year

performance period to be useful guidance. In general, 500 years will

be sufficient for the short-lived radionuclides in LLW to decay to

insignificant levels. Because of the diminished radiological hazard at

about 500 years and the limitations in data and experience in the

performance of engineered barrier materials beyond 10 years, the

2

staff believes that it is not necessary for LLW disposal facility

developers to spend large amounts of resources trying to justify

engineered barrier performance for periods beyond 500 years. Also,

any decision regarding engineered barrier performance will need to

ultimately rest with the LLW disposal facility developer, subject to an

adequate technical basis. 

No change made to final NUREG.
ACNW Recommendation (Garrick, 2000) Staff Response / NUREG-1573 Disposition

D-16

The decision on a timeframe for an LLW performance assessment

should be made on a case-by-case basis.

The staff considered the earlier advice of the ACNW in its February 11,

1997, memorandum. In that advice (Pomeroy, 1997), the Committee

recommended the use of a two-part approach to addressing the timeof-compliance issue. The staff believes that the use of such a two-part

approach, as advocated by the Committee, is consistent with the

approach recommended in the NUREG. 

No change made to final NUREG.

Dunkelman, M.M., “ Plans and Schedules for

Implementation of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Responsibilities under the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Amendments Act of

1985 (P.L. 99-240),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG-1213, Revision 1, August

1987.

Eckerman, K.F., A.B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B.

Richardson, “ Limiting Values of Radiation

Intake and Air Concentration and Dose

Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion,

and Ingestion,” U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA5201/1-88-020, September 1988. [Prepared by

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for

EPA’ s Office of Radiation Programs.]

Eckerman, K.F., and J.C. Ryman, “ Exposureto-Dose Coefficients for General Application,

Based on the 1987 Federal Radiation Protection

Guidance,” U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA402-R-93-001, September 1993. [Prepared by the

ORNL for EPA’ s Office of Radiation and

Indoor Air.]

Eckerman, K.F., R.W. Leggett, C.B. Nelson,

J.S. Puskin, and A.C.B. Richardson, “ Health

Risks from Low-Level Environmental Exposure

to Radionuclides — Radionuclide-Specific

Lifetime Radiogenic Cancer Risk Coefficients for

the U.S. Population, Based on Age-Dependent

Intake, Dosimetry, and Risk Models,” U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Federal

Guidance Report No. 13, EPA 402-R-99-001,

September 1999. [Prepared by the ORNL for

EPA’ s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.]

Eisenberg, N.A., M.P. Lee, T.J. McCartin, K.I.

McConnell, M. Thaggard, and A.C. Campbell,

“ Development of a Performance Assessment

Capability in the Waste Management Programs

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,”

Risk Analysis, 19(5):847–876, 1999.

Fjeld, R.A., and K.L. Compton, “ Risk

Assessment,” in R.A. Meyers, editor,

Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis and

Remediation, New York, John Wiley and Sons,

1998.

Garrick, B.J., Chairman, Advisory Committee

on Nuclear Waste, Letter to the Honorable

Richard A. Meserve, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, “ Branch Technical

Position on a Performance Assessment

Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilities,” Washington, DC, August 2,

2000.

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Report of ICRP Committee II on

Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959),

with Bibliography for Biological, Mathematical

and Physical Data,” Health Physics, Vol. 3,

1959. [Reprinted in 1975 as ICRP Publication

2.]

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological
D-17

Protection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, No. 3,

1977. [ICRP Publication 26.] 

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, “ Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides

by Workers,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, Nos.

3/4, 1979. [ICRP Publication 30, Part 1.]

Kozak, M.W., C.P. Harlan, M.S.Y. Chu, B.L.

O’ Neal, C.D. Updegraff, and P.A. Mattingly,

“ Background Information for the Development

of a Low-Level Waste Performance Assessment

Methodology – Selection and Integration of

Models,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 3, December 1989a.

[Prepared by the SNL, GRAM, Inc., and Science

Applications International Corporation.]

Kozak, M.W., M.S.Y. Chu, C.P. Harlan, and

P. A. Mattingly, “ Background Information

for the Development of a Low-Level Waste

Performance Assessment Methodology —

Identification and Recommendation of Computer

Codes,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 4, December 1989b.

[Prepared by the SNL and Science Applications

International Corporation.]

Kozak, M.W., M.S.Y. Chu, P.A. Mattingly,

J.D. Johnson, and J.T. McCord, “ Background

Information for the Development of a Low-Level

Waste Performance Assessment Methodology –

Computer Code Implementation and

Assessment,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 5, August

1990. [Prepared by the SNL.]

Kozak, M.W., N.E. Olague, R.R. Rao, and

J.T. McCord, “ Evaluation of a Performance

Assessment Methodology for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –

Evaluation of Modeling Approaches,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR5927, Vol. 1, August 1993. [Prepared by the

SNL.]

Kozak, M.W., and N.E. Olague, “ Evaluation of

a Performance Assessment Methodology for

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities

– Validation Needs,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-5927, Vol. 2,

February 1995. [Prepared by the SNL.]

Krupka, K.M., and R.J. Serne, “ Effects of

Radionuclide Concentrations by Cement/GroundWater Interactions in Support of Performance

Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6377, May 1998.

[Prepared by the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory.]

Nazaroff, W.W., “ Radon Transport from Soil to

Air,” Reviews of Geophysics, 30(2):137–160,

May 1992.

Nuclear Energy Agency, “ Confidence in the

Long-Term Safety of Deep Geologic Repositories

– Its Development and Communication,” Vienna,

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development, 1999.

O'Donnell, E., and J. Lambert, “ Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Research Program Plan,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG1380, November 1989. [Prepared by the Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of

Engineering.]

Pomeroy, P.W., Chairman, Advisory Committee

on Nuclear Waste, Letter to the Honorable

Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, “ Time of Compliance

for Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal

Facilities,” Washington, DC, February 11, 1997.

PRA Working Group, “ Review of NRC Staff

Uses of Probabilistic Risk Assessment,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1489,

March 1994.

Rogers, V.C., “ A Radioactive Waste Disposal

Classification System,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-1005, Vol. 1,
D-18

September 1979. [Prepared by Ford, Bacon, &

Davis Utah, Inc.] 

Rogers, V.C., R.D. Baird, B.C. Robertson, and

P.J. Macbeth, “ A Radioactive Waste Disposal

Classification System – The Computer Program

and Groundwater Migration Models,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR1005, Vol. 2, September 1979. [Prepared by

Ford, Bacon, & Davis Utah, Inc.] 

Shipers, L.R., “ Background Information for the

Development of a Low-Level Waste Performance

Assessment Methodology – Identification of

Potential Exposure Pathways,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5453,

Vol. 1, December 1989. [Prepared by the SNL.]

Shipers, L.R., and C.P. Harlan, “ Background

Information for the Development of a Low-Level

Waste Performance Assessment Methodology

Assessment of Relative Significance of Migration

and Exposure Pathways,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5453, Vol.

2, December 1989. [Prepared by the SNL.]

Starmer, R.J., L.G. Deering, and M.F. Weber,

“ Performance Assessment Strategy for LowLevel Waste Disposal Sites,” in 10th Annual U.S.

Department of Energy Low-Level Waste

Management Conference: Conference

Proceedings (Session II: Site Performance

Assessment), August 30 – September 1, 1988,

Denver, Colorado, EG&G Idaho, CONF880839-Ses.II, December 1988. [Preprint.]

U.S. Department of Energy, Department of the

Interior, Federal Aviation Administration, Food

and Drug Administration, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, National Science

Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

and Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, “ Risk Assessment – A Survey of

Characteristics, Applications, and Methods Used

by Federal Agencies for Engineered Systems,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

November 1992. 12

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Draft

Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part

61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0782,

September 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Final

Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part

61: Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Wastes,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0945,

November 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”

Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 39, pp. 5992–

6001, February 27, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Standard Format and Content of a License

Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility,” Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, Division of Low-Level

Waste Management and Decommissioning,

Revision 2, NUREG-1199, January 1991.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ LowLevel Radioactive Waste Performance

Assessment Development Program Plan,”

Commission Paper, SECY-92-060, February 21,

1992.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Standard Review Plan for the Review of a

License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Facility,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of

Low-Level Waste Management and

 PRA survey submitted to the Federal Coordinating

12

Council for Science, Engineering and Technology, Ad

Hoc Working Group on Risk Assessment.
D-19

Decommissioning, NUREG-1200, Revision 2,

January 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Use of

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in

Nuclear Regulatory Activities: Proposed Policy

Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 235,

pp. 63389–63391, December 8, 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Regulatory Issues in Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Performance Assessment,” Commission

Paper, SECY-96-103, May 17, 1996.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Disposal

of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed

Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

[Proposed Rule], Federal Register, Vol. 64, No.

34, pp. 8640–8679, February 22, 1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

“ Technical Report on a Performance Assessment

Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilities,” Commission Paper (Policy

Issue/Information), SECY-00-0182, August 24,

2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ A

Performance Assessment Methodology for LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities –

Recommendations of NRC’ s Performance

Assessment Working Group,” Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1573,

October 2000.
E-1

APPENDIX E

SELECTED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE

WASTE TECHNICAL REPORTS SPONSORED BY 

NRC’ S OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH

This appendix features a selected bibliography of low-level radioactive waste technical reports and papers

sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

since the publication of NUREG-1573, “ A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities – Recommendations of NRC’ s Performance Assessment Working

Group” in October 2000. The bibliography is annotated with the following codes to help identify the

relevance of the particular citation, BF – barrier performance, STC – source term characterization, DA

– dose assessment, FM – flow models, RTM – reactive transport models, and TC – transport calculations.

Akers, D.W., “ Release of Radionuclides and

Chelating Agents from Full-System

Decontamination Ion-Exchange Resins,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR6766, March 2002. [Prepared by the Idaho

Engineering National Laboratory.] [STC]

Altman, S.J., M.L. Rivers, M. Reno, R.T.

Cygan, and A.A. McLain, “ Characterization of

Sorption Sites on Aggregate Soil Samples Using

Synch r o tr o n X - r ay Comput e r i zed

Microtomography,” Environmental Science and

Technology, 39(8): 2679–2685, March 15, 2005.

[RTM]

Anigstein, R., H.J. Chmelynski, D.A. Loomis,

S.F. Marschke, J.J. Mauro, R.H. Olsher, W.C.

Thurber, and R. A. Meck, “ Radiological

Assessments for Clearance of Materials from

Nuclear Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission NUREG-1640, 4 vols., June 2003 –

October 2004. [Prepared by SC&A, Inc., and

Gemini Consulting Company.] [STC]

Arnish, J.J, B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng, S. Kamboj,

D.L. LePoire, C. Yu, and S.Y. Chen,

“ Derivation of Parameter Distributions for the

RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD Computer

Codes Using Bayesian Techniques (Abstract),”

Health Physics, 78(6):S106, June 2000. [DA]

Barbarulo, R., J. Marchand, K.A. Snyder, and

S. Prene, “ Dimensional Analysis of Ionic

Transport Problems in Hydrated Cement Systems

– Part 1, Theoretical Considerations,” Cement

and Concrete Research, 30(12):1955–1960,

December 2000. [BP]

Bargar, J.R., J.D. Kubicki, R. Reitmeyer, and

J.A. Davis, “ ATR-FTIR Characterization of

Inner-Sphere and Outer-Sphere Carbonate

Surface Complexes on Hematite,” Geochimica

et Cosmochimica Acta, 69(6):1527–1542, March

15, 2005. [RTM]

Bethke, C. M., and P. V. Brady, “ How 

d

the K Approach Undermines Ground Water

Cleanup,” Ground Water, 38(3):435–443, May–

June 2000. [RTM]

Beyeler, W.E., Jr., W.A. Hareland, F.A.

Durá n, T.J. Brown, E. Kalinina, D.P. Gallegos,

and P. A. Davis, “ Residual Radioactive

Contamination from Decommissioning —

Parameter Analysis, Draft Report for Comment,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, October 1999.

[Prepared by the Sandia National Laboratories

(SNL).] [TC]

Biwer, B.M., S. Kamboj, J. Arnish, C. Yu, and

S.Y. Chen, “ Technical Basis for Calculating

Radiation Doses for the Building Occupancy

Scenario Using the Probabilistic RESRADBUILD 3.0 Code,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6755, February 2002.
E-2

[Prepared by the Argonne National Laboratory.]

[TC]

Biwer, B.M., S. Kamboj, J-J. Cheng,

E. Gnanapragasam, J. Arnish, D.J. LePoire, C.

Yu, S.Y. Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, P.R.

Reed, R. Abu-Eid, M. Thaggard, T.E. Harris,

R.B. Codell, D.W. Schmidt, and J. Danna,

“ Input Parameter Probability Distribution

Assignments for the Uncertainty Analysis Using

the RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD Radiological

Dose Assessment Software Packages (Abstract),”

Health Physics, 78(6):S148, June 2000. [DA]

Brady, P.V., and C.M. Bethke, “ Beyond the

Kd Approach (Editorial),” Ground Water, 38(3):

321–322, May–June 2000. [RTM]

Brady, P.V., C.F. Jové-Colón, G. Carr, and

F. Huang, “ Soil Radionuclide Plumes,” in P.C.

Zhang, and P.V. Brady, editors, Geochemistry of

Soil Radionuclides, Madison, Soil Science

Society of America Special Publication Number

59, 2002. [RTM]

Cheng, J-J., S. Kamboj, C. Yu, B.M. Biwer,

J. Arnish, D. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam, S.Y.

Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, P.R. Reed, R.

Abu-Eid, M. Thaggard, T.E. Harris, and D.W.

Schmidt, “ Selection of RESRAD and RESRADBUILD Input Parameters for Detailed

Probabilistic Distribution Analysis (Abstract),”

Health Physics, 78(6):S106, June 2000. [TC]

Criscenti, L.J., “ Adsorption Processes: At

What Spatial Scale Do We Need to Understand

Them?,” in S.L. Brantley, editor, WRI-11 –

Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium

on Water-Rock Interactions, June 27–July 2,

2004, Saratoga Springs, International Association

of Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, 2004.

[RTM]

Criscenti, L.J., M. Eliassi, R.T. Cygan, and

C.F. Jové-Colón, “ Effects of Adsorption

Constant Uncertainty on Contaminant Plume

Migration: One- and Two-Dimensional

Numerical Studies,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6780, June 2002.

[Prepared by the SNL.] [RTM]

Criscenti, L.J., M. Eliassi, R.T. Cygan, and C.

F. Jové-Colón, “ Modeling Adsorption Processes:

Issues in Uncertainty, Scaling, and Prediction,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-6893, March 2006. [RTM]

Curtis, G.P., “ Documentation and Applications

of the Reactive Geochemical Transport Model

RATEQ, Draft Report for Comment,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR6871, July 2005. [Prepared by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS).] [RTM]

Curtis, G.P., P. Fox, M. Kohler, and J.A.

Davis, d “ Comparison of In Situ Uranium K

Values with a Laboratory Determined Surface

Complexation Model,” Applied Geochemistry,

19(10):1643– 1653, October 2004. [RTM]

Cygan, R. T., “ Molecular Modeling in

Mineralogy and Geochemistry,” in R.T. Cygan

and J.D. Kubicki, editors, Molecular Modeling

Theory: Applications in the Geosciences,

Washington, DC, Geochemical Society, 2001.

[RTM]

Cygan, R.T., “ Molecular Models of Metal

Sorption on Clay Minerals,” in J.D. Kubicki and

W.F. Bleam, editors, Molecular Modeling of

Clays, Boulder, The Clay Minerals Society,

2002. [RTM]

Cygan, R. T., “ Molecular Models of

Radionuclide Interaction with Soil Minerals,” in

P-C. Zhang and P. V. Brady, editors,

Geochemistry of Soil Radionuclides, Madison,

Soil Science Society of America Special

Publication Number 59, 2002. [RTM]

Cygan, R.T., H.L. Anderson, S.E. Arthur, P.V.

Brady, C.F. Jové-Colón, J-J. Liang, E.R.

Lindgren, M.D. Siegel, D.M. Teter, H.R.

Westrich, and P. Zhang, “ Toward an Accurate
E-3

Model of Metal Sorption in Soils,” in

Proceedings of the 2001 Waste Management

Symposium, February 25 – March 1, 2001,

Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia, Inc., 2001. 1

[RTM]

Cygan, R.T., and J.D. Kubicki, editors,

Molecular Modeling Theory: Applications in the

Geosciences, Washington, DC, Geochemical

Society, 2001. [RTM]

Cygan, R.T., J-J. Liang, and A.G. Kalinichev,

“ Molecular Models of Hydr oxide,

Oxyhydroxide, and Clay Phases and the

Development of a General Force Field,”

Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 108(4):1255–

1266, 2004. [RTM]

Cygan, R. T., M. D. Siegel, and L. J. Criscenti,

editors, “ Proceedings of the Interagency

Workshop on Conceptual Model Development

for Subsurface Reactive Transport Modeling of

Inorganic Contaminants, Radionuclides, and

Nutrients,” U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CP-0193, March 2006.

[Abstracts and presentations from the interagency

workshop are available from http://iscmem.org

/Proceedings_03.htm.] [RTM]

Davis, J.A., “ Surface Complexation Modeling

of Uranium(VI) Adsorption on Natural Mineral

Assemblages,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6708, March 2001.

[Prepared by the USGS.] [RTM]

Davis, J.A., and G.P. Curtis, “ Application of

Surface Complexation Modeling to Describe

Uranium(VI) Adsorption and Retardation at the

Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Naturita,

Colorado, ” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6820, December

2003. [Prepared by the USGS.] [RTM]

Davis, J.A., and G.P. Curtis, “ Consideration of

Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration

at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities –

Draft Report for Comment,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6870,

June 2005. [Prepared by the USGS.] [RTM]

Davis, J.A., D.M. Meece, M. Kohler, and G.P.

Curtis, “ Approaches to Surface Complexation

Modeling of Uranium(VI) Adsorption on Aquifer

Sediments,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,

68:(18)3621–3641, September 2004. [RTM]

Davis, J.A., T.E. Payne, and T.D. Waite,

“ S 2 imulating the pH and pCO Dependence of

Uranium(VI) Adsorption by a Weathered Schist

with Surface Complexation Models,” in P-C.

Zhang and P.V. Brady, editors, Geochemistry of

Soil Radionuclides, Madison, Soil Science

Society America Special Publication Number 59,

2002. [RTM]

Davis, J.A., S.B. Yabusaki, C.I. Steefel, J.M.

Zachara, G.P. Curtis, G.D. Redden, L.J.

Criscenti, and B. D. Honeyman, “ Assessing

Conceptual Models for Subsurface Reactive

Transport of Inorganic Contaminants,” EOS

[Transactions of the American Geophysical

Union], 85:449–455, 2004. [RTM]

Evans, D. D., T. C. Rasmussen, and T. J.

Nicholson, “ Flow and Transport Through

Unsaturated Fractured Rock: An Overview,”

in D.D. Evans, T.J. Nicholson, and T.C.

Rasmussen, editors, Flow and Transport Through

Unsaturated Fractured Rock, Washington, DC,

American Geophysical Union Monograph 42,

2001. [FM]

Felmy, A.R., V.L. LeGore, and S.A. Hartley,

“ Solubility and Leaching of Radionuclides in

Site Decommissioning Management Plan

(SDMP) Soil and Ponded Wastes,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6821,

June 2003. [Prepared by the Pacific Northwest

Laboratory (PNL).] [STC] Abstracts and papers from the WM Symposia

1

proceedings are available electronically from http://www.

wmsym.org/.
E-4

Felmy, A.R., D. Rai, S.A. Hartley, and V.L.

LeGore, “ Solubility and Leaching of

Radionuclides in Site Decommissioning

Management Plan (SDMP) Slags,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6632,

February 2002. [Prepared by the PNL] [STC]

Gnanapragasam, E.K., and C. Yu, “ Application

of RESRAD-OFFSITE to Two Probabilistic Test

Scenarios,” Practice Periodical of Hazardous,

Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management,

6(2):112–119, April 2002. [TC]

Haaker, R., T. Brown, and D. Updegraff,

“ Comparison of the Models and Assumptions

Used in the DandD 1.0, RESRAD 5.61, and

RESRAD-BUILD 1.50 Computer Codes with

Respect to the Residential Farmer and Industrial

Occupant Scenarios Provided in NUREG/CR5512 — Draft Report for Comment,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR5512, Vol. 4, October 1999. [Prepared by AQ

Safety, Inc., SNL, and GRAM, Inc.] [TC]

Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation

Standards (ISCORS), “ A Method for Estimating

Radiation Risk from Total Effective Dose

Equivalent (TEDE) – Final Report,” Washington,

DC, ISCORS Technical Report 2002-02, 2002. 3

[DA]

Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation

Standards, “ ISCORS Assessment of

Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Radiological

Survey Results and Analysis – Final Report,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG1775, ISCORS Technical Report 2004-02,

November 2003. [Prepared by the ISCORS

Sewage Sludge Subcommittee on Radiation

Standards. ] [STC] 4

Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation

Standards, “ RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool for

Implementing a Graded Approach to Biota Dose

Evaluation – User’ s Guide, Version 1,” U.S.

Department of Energy, DOE/EH-0676,

Technical Report 2004-02, January 2004.

[Prepared by the ISCORS Ecological

Radiological Working Group.] [TC] 

Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation

Standards, “ ISCORS Assessment of

Rad ioa c tiv ity in Sewage Sludge :

Recommendations on Management of

Radioactive Materials in Sewage Sludge and Ash

at Publicly Owned Treatment Works – Final

Report,” U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EH0668, ISCORS Technical Report 2004-04,

February 2005. [Prepared by ISCORS Sewage

Sludge Subcommittee on Radiation Standards.]

[STC] 

Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation

Standards, “ ISCORS Assessment of

Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling to

Assess Radiation Doses,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1783, ISCORS

Technical Report 2004-03, February 2005. [TC]

Jové-Colón, C.F., P.V. Brady, M.D. Siegel, and

E.R. Lindgren, “ Historical Case Analysis of

Uranium Plume Attenuation,” Soil and Sediment

Contamination, 10(1):71–115, January 2001.

[Formerly the Journal of Soil Contamination.]

[RTM]

Jové-Colón, C.F., C. Sanpawanitchakit, H. Xu,

R.T. Cygan, J.A. Davis, D.M. Meece, and R.L.

 ISCORS membership includes representatives of the 3

NRC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Labor’ s

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S.

Department of Transportation, and the Department of

Health and Human Services. Representatives of the

Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science

and Technology Policy, and the States are observers at

meetings.

 Including the NRC, DOE, EPA, the New Jersey

4

Department of Environmental Protection, the Middlesex

County Utilities Authority, and the Northeast Ohio

Regional Sewer District.
E-5

Hervig, “ A Combined Analytical Study to

Characterize Uranium Soil Contamination: The

Case of the Naturita UMTRA Site and the Role

of Grain Coatings,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6898, February 2006.

[RTM]

Kamboj, S., E. Gnanapragasam, D. LePoire,

B.M. Biwer, J. Cheng, J. Arnish, C. Yu, S.Y.

Chen, T. Mo, R. Abu-Eid, and M. Thaggard,

“ Probabilistic Approach to Identify Sensitive

Parameter Distributions in Multimedia Pathway

Analysis,” Practice Periodical of Hazardous,

Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management,

6(1):23–30, January 2002. [TC]

Kamboj, S., D.J. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam,

B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng, J. Arnish, C. Yu, S.Y.

Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, R. Abu-Eid, M.

Thaggard, R.B. Codell, T.E. Harris, D.W.

Schmidt, and J. Danna, “ Effects of Parameter

Distributions on the Estimated Doses for the

Residential Scenario in RESRAD and Building

Occupancy Scenario in RESRAD-BUILD

(Abstract),” Health Physics, 78(6):S148, June

2000. [DA]

Kamboj, S., D. LePoire, and C. Yu, “ External

Exposure Model in the RESRAD Computer

Code,” Health Physics, 82(6):831–839, June

2002. [TC]

Kamboj, S., D. LePoire, C. Yu, S.L. Domotor,

and K. Higley, “ Derivation of Dose Conversion

Factors for Specific Organism Geometries in the

RESRAD-BIOTA Code (Abstract),” Health

Physics, 86(6): S139, June 2004. [TC]

Kamboj, S., C. Yu, B.M. Biwer, and T. Klett,

“ RESRAD-BUILD Verification,” Argonne,

Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/TM115, October 2001. [Prepared for the U.S.

Department of Energy.] [TC] 

Kennedy, W.E., Jr., D.L. Strenge, R.A. Meek,

and C. Daily, “ Residual Radioactive

Contamination from Decommissioning —

Technical Basis for Translating Contamination

Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose

Equivalent, Final Report,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512, Vol.

1, October 1992. [Prepared by the PNL.] [TC]

Kohler, M., D.M. Meece, G.P. Curtis, and J.A.

Davis, “ Methods for Estimating Adsorbed

Uranium(VI) and Distribution Coefficients in

Contaminated Sediments,” Environmental

Science and Technology, 38(1):240–247, January

1, 2004. [RTM]

LePoire, D.J., B.M. Biwer, J.J. Arnish, S.

Kamboj, S.Y. Chen, A. Wolbarst, S. Domotor,

and R. Cady, “ A Collaborative Web Site for

Facilitating Environmental Par ameter

Communications,” in Proceedings of the 2005

Waste Management Symposium, February 27 –

March 3, 2005, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia,

Inc., 2005. [TC]

LePoire, D.J., E. Gnanapragasam, J. Arnish,

B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng, S. Kamboj, C. Yu,

S.Y. Chen, T. Mo, T.J. Nicholson, P.R. Reed,

R. Abu-Eid, M. Thaggard, T.E. Harris, R.B.

Codell, D.W. Schmidt, and J. Danna,

“ Uncertainty Analysis Module for RESRAD and

RESRAD-BUILD Radiological Dose Assessment

Software Packages (Abstract),” Health Physics,

78(6):S147, June 2000. [DA]

McFadden, K., D.A. Brosseau, W.E. Beyeler,

and C.D. Updegraff, “ Residual Radioactive

Contamination from Decommissioning – User’ s

Manual, DandD Version 2.1,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512,

Vol. 2, April 2001. [Prepared by Sigma

Software and GRAM, Inc.] [TC]

McFadden, K., D.A. Brosseau, W.E. Beyeler,

and C.D. Updegraff, “ Residual Radioactive

Contamination from Decommissioning – User's

Manual, DandD Version 2.1,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5512, Vol.

2, April 2001. [Prepared by the SNL.] [TC]
E-6

McLain, A.A., S.J. Altman, M.L. Rivers, and

R.T. Cygan, “ Use of Computerized

Microtomography to Examine the Relationship of

Sorption Sites in Alluvial Soils to Iron and Pore

Space Distributions,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6784, July 2002.

[Prepared by the SNL and the University of

Chicago.] [RTM]

Meyer, P.D., and T.J. Nicholson, “ Analysis of

Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Parameter

Uncertainty,” in S. Mishra, editor, Groundwater

Quality Modeling and Management Under

Uncertainty: Proceedings of the Probabilistic

Approaches & Groundwater Modeling

Symposium held during the World Water and

Environmental Resources Congress, June 24–26,

2003, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Reston,

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004.

[FM]

Meyer, P.D., and S. Orr, “ Evaluation of

Hydrologic Uncertainty Assessments for

Decommissioning Sites Using Complex and

Simplified Models,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6767, April 2002.

[Prepared by the PNL.] [FM]

Meyer, P.D., and R.Y. Taira, “ Hydrologic

Uncertainty Assessment for Decommissioning

Sites: Hypothetical Test Case Applications,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-6695, February 2001. [Prepared by

the PNL.] [FM]

Meyer, P.D., M. Ye, S.P. Neuman, and K.J.

Cantrell, “ Combined Estimation of

Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Parameter

Uncertainty,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6843, March 2004.

[Prepared by the PNL and the University of

Arizona.] [FM]

Neuman, S.P., and P.J. Wierenga, “ A

Comprehensive Strategy of Hydrogeologic

Modeling and Uncertainty Analysis for Nuclear

Facilities and Sites,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6805, July 2003.

[Prepared by the University of Arizona.] [FM]

Nicholson, T.J., J.E. Babendreier, P.D. Meyer,

S. Mohanty, B.B. Hicks, and G.H. Leavesley,

editors, Proceedings of the International

Workshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity, and

Parameter Estimation for Multimedia

Environmental Modeling, August 19–21, 2003,

Rockville, Maryland, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CP-0187, October 2004.

[Sponsored by the Federal Working Group on

Uncertainty (Working Group 2) of the Federal

Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia

Environmental Modeling.] [FM]

O' Donnell, E., and P. Godwin, “ Control of

Water Infiltration Through Covers at Radioactive

Waste Disposal Facilities, Uranium Mill Tailings

Sites, and Decommissioning Sites – Results of 13

Years of Cover Performance in Lysimeters at a

Humid Region Site, Beltsville, Maryland,”

in WM’ 2000 — Proceedings of the Waste

Management 2000 Symposium, February 27–

March 2, 2000, Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia,

Inc., 2000. [BP]

Payne, T.E., J.A. Davis, G.R. Lumpkin, R.

Chisari, and T.D. Waite, “ Surface

Complexation Model of Uranyl Sorption on

Georgia Kaolinite,” Applied Clay Science,

26(1–4):151–162, August 2004. [RTM]

Payne, T.E., J.A. Davis, M. Ochs, M. Olin, and

C.J. Tweed, “ Uranium Adsorption on

Weathered Schist – Intercomparison of Modeling

Approaches,” Radiochimica Acta, 92(9–11):

651–661, November 2004. [Migration

Conference 2003 special edition.] [RTM]

Rai, D., A.R. Felmy, N.J. Hess, V.L LeGore,

and D.E. McCready, “ Thermodynamics of the

U 2(VI)-Ca -Cl -OH -H O System: Solubility + 2 – –

Product of Becquerelite,” Radiochimica Acta,

90(9–11):495–503, September 2002. [Migration

Conference 2001 special edition.] [STC]
E-7

Randall, J.D., E. O’ Donnell, L.A. Veblen, J.A.

Davis, and R.T. Cygan, “ The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’ s Sorption-Modeling

Research Program,” in WM’ 04 – Proceedings of

the Waste Management 2004 Symposium,

February 29–March 4, 2004, Tucson, Arizona,

WM Symposia, Inc., 2004. [RTM]

Ridge, A.C., R.E. Cady, E. O’ Donnell, J.D.

Randall, P.R. Reed, and L.A. Veblen, “ Use of

Thermodynamic Sorption Models in Reactive

Transport Modeling: Advantages for U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees and

Staff and Areas of Research,” in Proceedings of

the 2005 Waste Management Symposium,

February 27–March 3, 2005, Tucson, Arizona,

WM Symposia, Inc., 2005. [RTM]

Robertson, D.E., S.L. Pratt, and C.W. Thomas,

“ Adsorption and Desorption Behavior of

Selected 10 CFR Part 61 Radionuclides from Ion

Exchange Resins by Waters of Different

Chemical Compositions,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6647, July

2000. [STC]

Robertson, D.E., C.W. Thomas, S.L. Pratt,

E.A. Lepel, and V.W. Thomas, “ Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Classification and Assessment:

Waste Streams and Neutron-Activated Metals,”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/CR-6567, August 2000. [STC]

Robinson, D.E., D.A. Cataldo, B.A. Napier,

K.M. Krupka, and L.B. Sasser, “ Literature

Review and Assessment of Plant and Animal

Transfer Factors Used in Performance

Assessment Modeling,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6825, August 2003.

[DA]

Samson, E., J. Marchand, and K.A. Snyder,

“ Calculation of Ionic Diffusion Coefficients on

the Basis of Migration Test Results,” Materials

and Structures, 36(257):156–165, April 2003.

[BP]

Samson, E., J. Marchand, K.A. Snyder, and J.J.

Beaudoin, “ Modeling Ion and Fluid Transport in

Unsaturated Cement Systems in Isothermal

Conditions, Cement and Concrete Research,

35(1): 141–153, January 2005. [BP]

Serne, R.J., K.J. Cantrell, C.W. Lindenmeier,

A.T. Owen, I.V., Kutnyakov, R.D. Orr, and

A.R. Felmy, “ Radionuclide-Chelating Agent

Complexes in Low-Level Radioactive

Decontamination Waste; Stability, Adsorption

and Transport Potential,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6758,

February 2002. [STC]

Snyder, K.A., “ Validation and Modification of

the 4SIGHT Computer Program,” U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, NIST 6747, May

2001. [Prepared for the NRC.] [BP]

Snyder, K.A., “ Relationship Between the

Formation Factor and the Diffusion Coefficient

of Porous Materials Saturated with Concentrated

Electrolytes: Theoretical and Experimental

Considerations,” Concrete Science and 

Engineering, 3(12):216–224, December 2001.

[BP]

Snyder, K. A.,“ Estimating the 95th Percentile of

the Paste-Void Spacing Distribution in Hardened

Cement Paste Containing Air Entrainment,” in

D.J. Janssen, M.J. Setzer, and M.B.

Snyder, editors, PRO 25: Proceedings of the

International RILEM Workshop on Frost Damage

in Concrete, June 28–30, 1999, Minneapolis,

Minnesota, Bagneux, France, Réunion

Internationale des Laboratoires et Experts des

Matériaux, Systèmes de Constructions et

Ouvrages – RILEM (International Union of

Laboratories and Experts in Construction

Materials, Systems and Structures), 2002. [BP]

Snyder, K.A., “ Condition Assessment of

Concrete Nuclear Structures Considered for

Entombment,” U.S. Department of Commerce,
E-8

National Institute of Standards and Technology,

NISTIR 7026, July 2003. [BP]

Snyder, K.A., and D.P. Bentz, “ Suspended

Hydration and Loss of Freezable Water in

Cement Pastes Exposed to 90% Relative

Humidity,”Cement and Concrete Research,

34(11):2045–2056, November 2004. [BP]

Snyder, K.A., C. Ferraris, N.S. Martys, and

E.J. Garboczi, "Using Impedance Spectroscopy

to Assess the Viability of the Rapid Chloride Test

for Determining Concrete Conductivity,"

Research of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 105(4):497–509, July–August

2000. [BP]

Snyder, K.A., and J. Marchand, “ Effect of

Speciation on the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

in Nonreactive Porous Systems,” Cement and

Concrete Research,31(12):1837–1845,December

2001. [BP]

Snyder, K.A., and J. Philip, “ Concrete

Degradation Modeling in the Evaluation of

Entombment as a Decommissioning Option,” in

American Nuclear Society, SPECTRUM 2002:

Proceedings of the International Conference on

Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management,

August 4–8, 2002, Reno, Nevada, 2002. [CDROM edition of proceedings.] [BP]

Teter, D.M., and R.T. Cygan, “ Large-Scale

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Metal

Sorption onto the Basal Surfaces of Clay

Minerals, ” U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-6757, February 2002.

[Prepared by the SNL.] [RTM]

Timlin, D., J. Starr, R. Cady, and T.J.

Nicholson, “ Field Studies for Estimating

Uncertainties in Ground-Water Recharge Using

Near-Continuous Piezometer Data,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR6729, July 2001. [Prepared by the Agricultural

Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture (ARS/USDA).] [FM]

Timlin, D., J. Starr, R.E. Cady, and T.J.

Nicholson, “ Comparing Ground-Water Recharge

Estimates Using Advanced Monitoring

Techniques and Models,” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6836,

September 2003. [Prepared by ARS/USDA.]

[FM]

U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department

of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, “ Multi-Agency Radiation Survey

and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG1575, Revision 1, August 2000. [STC]

Veblen, L.A., D. Farthing, E. O' Donnell, and

J.D. Randall, “ Characterization of Radioactive

Slags,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG-1703, October 2004. [STC]

Veblen, L.A., E. O'Donnell, and J.D. Randall,

“ What's in Radioactive Slag? Phase

Identification Prediction of Uranium and

Thorium Fate for Use in Site Decommissioning

and Environmental Restoration,” in WM’ 04 –

Proceedings of the Waste Management 2004

Symposium, February 29–March 4, 2004,

Tucson, Arizona, WM Symposia, Inc., 2004.

[STC]

Westrich, H.R., H.L. Anderson, S.E. Arthur,

P.V. Brady, R.T. Cygan, J-J. Liang, P-C.

Zhang, and N. Yee, “ Prediction of Metal

Sorption in Soils,” in Proceedings of the 2000

Waste Management Symposium, February

28–March 3, 2000, Tucson, Arizona, WM

Symposia, Inc., 2000. [RTM]

Whelan, G., and K.J. Castleton, “ Groundwater

Modeling System Linkage with the Framework

for Risk Analysis in Multimedia Environmental

Systems [FRAMES],” Richland, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-15654,
E-9

February 2006. [Prepared for the NRC’ s Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES).] [FM]

Whelan, G., and T.J. Nicholson, editors,

Proceedings of the Environmental Software

Systems Compatibility and Linkage Workshop,

March 7–9, 2000, Rockville, Maryland, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CP0177, May 2002. [Sponsored by the NRC’ s

RES.] [FM]

Yu, C., D.J. LePoire, J-J. Cheng,

E. Gnanapragasam, S. Kamboj, J. Arnish, B.M.

Biwer, A.J. Zielen, W.A. Williams, A. Wallo,

and H.T. Peterson, Jr, “ User’ s Manual for

RESRAD-BUILD Version 3,” Argonne,

Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EAD/03-1,

June 2003. [Prepared for DOE.] [TC] 

Yu, C., D. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam, J.

Arnish, S. Kamboj, B.M. Biwer, J-J. Cheng,

A.J. Zielen, S.Y. Chen, T. Mo, R. Abu-Eid, M.

Thaggard, A. Wallo III, H. Peterson, Jr. and

W.A. Williams, “ Development of Probabilistic

Multimedia Multipathway Computer Codes,”

Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and

Radioactive Waste Management, 6(1):31–40,

January 2002. [TC]

Yu, C., A.J. Zielen, J-J. Cheng, D.J. LePoire,

E. Gnanapragasam, S. Kamboj, J. Arnish, A.

Wallo III, W.A. Williams, and H.T. Peterson

Jr., “ User’ s Manual for RESRAD Version 6,”

Argonne, Argonne National Laboratory,

ANL/EAD-4, July 2001. [Prepared for DOE.]

[TC]

Zhang, P-C., and P. V. Brady, editors,

Geochemistry of Soil Radionuclides, Madison,

Soil Science Society of America Special

Publication Number 59, 2002. [RTM]

Zhang, P-C., P.V. Brady, S.E. Arthur, W-Q.

Zhou, D. Sawyer, and D.A. Hesterberg,

“ Adsorption of Barium(II) on Montmorillonite:

An EXAFS Study,” Colloids and Surfaces A:

Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects,

190(3):239–249, October 15, 2001. [RTM]

Zhang, P-C., J.L. Krumhansl, and P.V. Brady,

“ Introduction to Properties, Sources, and

Characteristics of Soil Radionuclides,” in P-C.

Zhang and P.V. Brady, editors, Geochemistry

of Soil Radionuclides, Madison, Soil Science

Society of America Special Publication Number

59, 2002. [RTM]
E-10

(Page intentionally left blank.)
F-1

APPENDIX F

FINAL COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT

ON THE USE OF PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT 

METHODS IN NUCLEAR REGULATORY ACTIVITIES

F-1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) staff has been very active in the

development of probabilistic risk assessment

(PRA) technology and its application to nuclear

facility safety. Landmarks of this activity include

publication of the Reactor Safety Study – WASH1400 (NRC, 1975), the transportation risk study

(Fisher et al., 1977), nuclear power plant seismic

hazard analyses(Bernreuter et al., 1989), and the

nuclear power plants severe accident risk study,

NUREG-1150 (NRC, 1990). In 1995, the

Commission issued a policy statement that

encouraged the [expanded] use of PRA methods

as a complement to the deterministic approach

taken in its nuclear regulatory activities. 

The statement in Section F-2 presents the NRC

policy for the use of PRA methods in nuclear

regulatory matters. This agency developed this

policy because it believed that the potential

applications of PRA methodology could improve

public health and safety decisionmaking while

promoting stability and efficiency in the

regulatory process and reducing unnecessary

burdens on licensees. After a public workshop,

the NRC published a draft Policy Statement dated

December 8, 1994, at page 63389 of Volume 59

of the Federal Register (FR) (59 FR 63389). On

receipt and consideration of public comments, the

NRC published the final Policy Statement in 1995

(60 FR 42622).

F-2 THE COMMISSION POLICY

STATEMENT (AT 60 FR 42628)

1. The use of PRA technology should be

increased in all regulatory matters to the

extent supported by the state of the art in

PRA methods and data and in a manner

that complements NRC’ s deterministic

approach and supports NRC’ s traditional

defense-in-depth philosophy.

2. PRA and associated analyses (e.g.,

sensitivity studies, uncertainty analyses,

and importance measures) should be used

in regulatory matters, where practical

within the bounds of the state of the art, to

reduce the unnecessary conservatism

associated with current regulatory

requirements, regulatory guides, license

commitments, and staff practices. Where

appropriate, PRA should be used to

support the proposal for additional

regulatory requirements in accordance

with Title 10, Part 50.109, “ Backfit

Rule,” of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR 50.109). Appropriate

procedures for including PRA in the

process for changing regulatory

requirements should be developed and

followed. It is, of course, understood that

this policy intends that existing rules and

regulations will be complied with until

these rules and regulations are revised.

3. PRA evaluations in support of regulatory

decisions should be as realistic as

practicable, and appropriate supporting

data should be publicly available for

review.

4. The Commission’ s safety goals for

nuclear power plants and subsidiary

numerical objectives are to be used with

appropriate consideration of uncertainties

in making regulatory judgments on the

need for proposing and backfitting new

generic requirements on nuclear power

plant licensees.
F-2

F-3 REFERENCES

Bernreuter, D.L., J.B. Savy, R.W. Mensing, and

J.C. Chen, “ Seismic Hazard Characterization of

69 Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the Rocky

Mountains, ” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-5250, 8 vols., January

1989. [Prepared by the Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Reactor

Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks

in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants,”

WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014, October 1975.

Fischer, L.E., C.K. Chou, M.A. Gerhard, C.Y.

Kimura, R.W. Martin, R.W. Mensing, M.E.

Mount, and M.C. Witte, “ Shipping Container

Response to Severe Highway and Railway

Accident Conditions,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, NUREG/CR-4829, 2 vols.,

February 1988. [Prepared by the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory.]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Severe

Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S.

Nuclear Power Plants – Final Report,” Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1150,

3 vols., December 1990.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Use of

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in

Nuclear Regulatory Activities: Proposed Policy

Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 235,

pp. 63389–63391, December 8, 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Use of

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in

Nuclear Regulatory Activities: Final Policy

Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 158,

pp. 42622– 42630, August 16, 1995.